Full believers vs partial believers - Can the "Saved" be saved?

[zeland2236]

Dear Mr. Major,

Thank you for your reply. So in regards to John 20:23-"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", you say that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had. What about the second half of that statement; "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” So by the same logic you used for the first part, we can then say that the apostles were to announce that sins have not been forgiven? isn't this a bit contradictory?

Your interpretation does not account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15). So forgiveness goes back to an act of the will of the individual, not a blanket amnesty for everyone.

God bless.

 

[Major1]

Dear Mr. Major,

Thank you for your reply. So in regards to John 20:23-"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", you say that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had. What about the second half of that statement; "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” So by the same logic you used for the first part, we can then say that the apostles were to announce that sins have not been forgiven? isn't this a bit contradictory?

Your interpretation does not account for the distinction between forgiving and retaining. If God has already forgiven all of a man’s sins, or will forgive them all (past and future) upon a single act of repentance, then it makes little sense to tell the apostles they have been given the power to "retain" sins, since forgiveness would be all-or-nothing and nothing could be "retained."

Furthermore, if at conversion we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which he explained is required because "if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses" (Matt. 6:12–15). So forgiveness goes back to an act of the will of the individual, not a blanket amnesty for everyone.

God bless.

I did not give you any logic at all my friend. I gave you the exact Greek words that were used in the Scriptures which is not MY interpretation in any way at all.

IMO you are making a debate out of something that is not there.

Jesus Christ died for the entire sins of the world. HE made the forgiveness of sins possible, but the individual sinner must by faith accept the payment He made for them.

 

[zeland2236]

I did not give you any logic at all my friend. I gave you the exact Greek words that were used in the Scriptures which is not MY interpretation in any way at all.

IMO you are making a debate out of something that is not there.

Jesus Christ died for the entire sins of the world. HE made the forgiveness of sins possible, but the individual sinner must by faith accept the payment He made for them.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", you say that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had. What about the second half of that statement; "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” So by the same logic you used for the first part, we can then say that the apostles were to announce that sins have not been forgiven? isn't this a bit contradictory?

Dear Mr. Major.

You did not answer my question. If, as you have stated, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", means that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had, then please explain what the second half of our Lords statement means - "whose sins you retain are retained" Based upon your reasoning, as to the meaning of the first part of John 20:23, it would therefore follower that the Apostles were to proclaim that sins have not been forgiven. Can you please explain this contradiction.

Thank you.

zeland

 

[Major1]

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", you say that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had. What about the second half of that statement; "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” So by the same logic you used for the first part, we can then say that the apostles were to announce that sins have not been forgiven? isn't this a bit contradictory?

Dear Mr. Major.

You did not answer my question. If, as you have stated, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", means that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had, then please explain what the second half of our Lords statement means - "whose sins you retain are retained" Based upon your reasoning, as to the meaning of the first part of John 20:23, it would therefore follower that the Apostles were to proclaim that sins have not been forgiven. Can you please explain this contradiction.

zeland

NO it is not contradictory and I have in fact answered your question twice.

Again, I DID NOT SAY the apostles did not forgive sins.
I said, and I gave you the exact Greek words used in those Scriptures and their meaning which was said by JESUS.

You are arguing an issue which it seems to be that you are simply not willing to admit your inability to understand its meaning.

Again........Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.

The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”

He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. Jesus said".

It seems to me that you are making this a whole lot harder than it needs to be.

John 3:36...……...
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” = "whose sins you retain are retained".

In other words, when YOU speak to a lost man and give him the gospel just as did the Apostles and he rejects the gospel...…...then you can and will declare just as did the Apostles...……"YOU THEN RETAIN YOUR SINS AND YOU ARE NOT FORGIVEN OF THOSE SINS".

 

[zeland2236]

NO it is not contradictory and I have in fact answered your question twice.

Again, I DID NOT SAY the apostles did not forgive sins.
I said, and I gave you the exact Greek words used in those Scriptures and their meaning which was said by JESUS.

You are arguing an issue which it seems to be that you are simply not willing to admit your inability to understand its meaning.

Again........Only God can forgive sins, and Christ, being God, has the power to do so as well, but He never communicated any such power to His disciples, nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves.

The key to understanding the meaning of John 20:23 lies in the previous two verses: “Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’”

He sent them, as He is sending us, to bring the good news of the way to salvation and heaven to the whole world. Jesus was leaving the earth physically but promised God would be with them in the person of the Holy Spirit living in them. As they proclaimed the gospel, they could honestly tell people who believed in that message that their sins were forgiven, and they could honestly tell people that did not believe in the message that their sins were not forgiven and that they stand condemned in God’s eyes. Jesus said".

It seems to me that you are making this a whole lot harder than it needs to be.

John 3:36...……...
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him” = "whose sins you retain are retained".

In other words, when YOU speak to a lost man and give him the gospel just as did the Apostles and he rejects the gospel...…...then you can and will declare just as did the Apostles...……"YOU THEN RETAIN YOUR SINS AND YOU ARE NOT FORGIVEN OF THOSE SINS".

Dear Mr. Major

Thanks again, but I must disagree with you. Christ established His Church to continue the work which He began while He was on earth. In Matthew 28:20 He commissioned the apostles to do everything he had taught them including forgiving sins in his name. Christ did not say, do everything I taught you, except forgive sins.

How did people learn the teachings of Christ before there was a Bible? They learned them from the teaching Church. Even after the Church assembled the Bible, there were very few copies around, and most people couldn’t read anyway .So for the first 1600 years after Christ, until the invention of the printing press, there were effectively no bibles. So how did all those people learn the faith, they learned it from the teaching church, not from a bible.

With all due respect sir, your basic problem is that your entire philosophy of salvation (as well as that of the writer in the link you provided earlier) is incorrect. It is incorrect because it is based on the errors of Martin Luther and his flawed, self-fabricated, idea of salvation by faith alone. And this leads to a flawed interpretation of Christ's plan for the forgiveness of sins. Also, your understanding of salvation (including the forgiveness of sins) is in direct opposition to what the early Church taught.

Writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention." (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of confession). See: Confession | Catholic Answers

When a person insists that they can go direct to God, what are they really saying to Him? They are telling God that they want Him to forgive their sins on their terms! Who are we to dictate to God the manner in which our sins are to be forgiven? Also, when we go “direct to God”, is our contrition really perfect? How do we know that our sins are really forgiven? Can we say for sure that they have not been “retained”? Does God send us an email, or a text message saying: “You are forgiven”? Feelings can be misleading!

Also, have you ever considered this possibly? By refusing to accept Christ’s method of reconciliation, we offend Him, and therefore make ourselves undeserving of forgiveness?

Who do you think would know better the correct Will of God, and the correct meaning of the scriptures - the early Church Fathers, the men who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, assembled the Bible, or the average man in the pew today, some 2000 years removed from Christ and the apostles? As St. Augustine said: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me to do so.”

The Church preceded the Bible. The authority of the Bible comes from the authority of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the Catholic Church comes directly from Jesus, not from the Bible - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18).

With this, I will close our discussion, because we do not agree on the source of authority. My authority is the authority of the Church that Christ established. I am not sure what is yours, other than perhaps what was mentioned above, concerning Martin Luther.

It has been interesting watching you go through all these verbal gymnastics trying to make the scriptures say something they were never meant to say. I would say however, that our discussions have been profitable for me in the sense of helping me understand how the Protestant mind works. I wish you luck in your search for the truth. I will leave you with two references for your consideration.

The first is a link to an interview with Dr. David Anders. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph. D. studies in Reformation History. In his interview he discusses Luther, the Bible, and the confession of sins, and gives his own personal testimony in regards to the forgiveness of his sins. He is a brilliant scholar and I highly recommend this video. See:

The second is a list of the scriptures relating to Purgatory. I provide then only so that you know they exist. You do not have to make any response to them. I will post them in a second reply because it will make this reply too long.


God bless

zeland

 

[zeland2236]

Dear Mr Major,

The following are the scriptural verses concerning Purgatory.

When a non-Catholic says to you: “I don’t believe in Purgatory”, what do you say?


“I don’t believe in Purgatory”! Ok, may I ask if you believe in hell? Oh yes, I believe in hell. I am sure that you know that there are many people who say they don’t believe in hell. Yes, of course. The fact that they don’t believe in hell, does not make hell disappear. Right? Ah...yes? Now apply the same logic to Purgatory. Purgatory does exist, in spite of the fact that you don’t believe in it, just as hell exists, in spite of the fact that those other people don’t believe in it (hell). Remember, the existence of any person, place or thing is not dependent on someone’s belief in it. Now let’s look at what the bible says about Purgatory. Some people will say that the word “Purgatory” in not in the Bible – so what. The word “Bible: is not in the bible.


Purgatory in Scripture


Protestants, in general, do not believe in Purgatory, and if the topic comes up in a discussion, they will say: "It's not in the bible", which is incorrect. Actually there is considerable scriptural evidence for Purgatory. The following is a list of scriptural passages that show either the existence of, or the necessity of Purgatory. There may be additional scriptures that need to be added to this list, but this is the most complete list I have seen so far.


New Testament

2 Timothy 1:16-18 - This is the earliest New Testament example of prayers for the dead. Paul prays for mercy for his dead friend Onesiphorus. 16 “May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day (Judgment Day)! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus”.


All the commentaries I have read on this passage suggest that Paul’s friend is dead. The general context of the passage seems to be one of a funeral. Paul is praying for the family of the deceased, much like we do today. Paul is also praying that God will be merciful on his friend on Judgement Day. Question? If, According to Protestant thinking, Purgatory doesn’t exist, then why is Paul praying for a dead person? What purpose would this serve? This Passage parallels 2 Samuel 1:12 below.


Matthew 5:25-26 – “… Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (made restitution for the harm our sins have caused). See 2 Samuel 12:13-14 below.


Luke 12:58-59 - “… I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny”. Note, for the above two verses See the parallel case in Matthew 18:34 (18:22-34).


In the above verses of Matthew and Luke, Our Lord is using the idea of a debtor’s prison (something the people were very familiar with – see Matt 18:21-35), to teach then about another type of prison – a spiritual prison – Purgatory!


1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - “…the person will be saved, but only as through fire.” Also see


Hebrews 12:23. “… and the spirits of the just made perfect”. Why do the “Just” need to be made perfect? Why are they not already perfect?


Matthew 12:32 – “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come”. There are two parts (meanings) to this passage. The term “speaks against the Holy Spirit” (also known as the sin against the Holy Spirit) refers to the unforgivable sin of final impenitence – refusing to repent. Without repentance, a person’s sins can never be forgiven.


Now the second part - “neither in this world, nor in the world to come”, indicates that some sins can be forgiven after death. These are minor sins and imperfections, which are not serious enough to send us to hell, but must be atoned for before we can enter heaven. See Revelation 21:27 below. Also see 1 John 5:16-17, and Luke 12:47-48 for the distinction between serious (mortal) sins, and lesser (venial) sins. John refers to these as a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death.

Matthew 12:36 – “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof on the Day of Judgment”. Also see supporting verses 1 John 5:16-17, and Luke 12:47-48.


Matthew 5:48 – Be ye perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


1 Peter 3:18-20 - For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits. Where were these spirits? Not in heaven, and not in hell


Revelation 21:27 - (The heavenly Jerusalem) - And there shall not enter into it anything defiled (impure, unclean, etc. – in other words, no imperfections in heaven). See the next verse below.


Old Testament


Habakkuk 1:13 – “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate iniquity” – Parallels Revelation 21:27 above.


1 Samuel 31:12-13 – “…and took the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons and burned them… and buried their bones in the wood of Jabes: and fasted seven days“. The next verse tells why they fasted.


2 Samuel 1:11-12 - “David …and his men …and they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord … because they had fallen by the sword”. Fasting is a form of prayer and penance – in this case, for the dead. This passage parallels (correlates with) 2 Timothy 1:16 -18, above where Paul is praying for his dead friend Onesiphorus. So if there is no Purgatory, why are they fasting, and doing penance for the dead?



2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said to Nathan: “I have sinned against the Lord”. And Nathan said to David: “The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shall not die.14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die”. Note! This verse shows that, even though our sins are forgiven, we must still make up for the harm those sins have caused, either temporal or spiritual.


Isaiah 6: 6-7 “And one of the seraphim flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. Here we see the image of fire being used to cleanse Isaiah from his iniquities and sins.


2 Maccabees 12:43-46 - 43 …46 “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins”.

The above verse from Maccabees is the most direct scripture reference to Purgatory, which is why Martin Luther, in violation of scripture (see Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 4: 2; Deuteronomy 12: 32; Proverbs 30: 6.) removed it from the Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Major1]

Dear Mr. Major

Thanks again, but I must disagree with you. Christ established His Church to continue the work which He began while He was on earth. In Matthew 28:20 He commissioned the apostles to do everything he had taught them including forgiving sins in his name. Christ did not say, do everything I taught you, except forgive sins.

How did people learn the teachings of Christ before there was a Bible? They learned them from the teaching Church. Even after the Church assembled the Bible, there were very few copies around, and most people couldn’t read anyway .So for the first 1600 years after Christ, until the invention of the printing press, there were effectively no bibles. So how did all those people learn the faith, they learned it from the teaching church, not from a bible.

With all due respect sir, your basic problem is that your entire philosophy of salvation (as well as that of the writer in the link you provided earlier) is incorrect. It is incorrect because it is based on the errors of Martin Luther and his flawed, self-fabricated, idea of salvation by faith alone. And this leads to a flawed interpretation of Christ's plan for the forgiveness of sins. Also, your understanding of salvation (including the forgiveness of sins) is in direct opposition to what the early Church taught.

Writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention." (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of confession). See: Confession | Catholic Answers

When a person insists that they can go direct to God, what are they really saying to Him? They are telling God that they want Him to forgive their sins on their terms! Who are we to dictate to God the manner in which our sins are to be forgiven? Also, when we go “direct to God”, is our contrition really perfect? How do we know that our sins are really forgiven? Can we say for sure that they have not been “retained”? Does God send us an email, or a text message saying: “You are forgiven”? Feelings can be misleading!

Also, have you ever considered this possibly? By refusing to accept Christ’s method of reconciliation, we offend Him, and therefore make ourselves undeserving of forgiveness?

Who do you think would know better the correct Will of God, and the correct meaning of the scriptures - the early Church Fathers, the men who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, assembled the Bible, or the average man in the pew today, some 2000 years removed from Christ and the apostles? As St. Augustine said: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me to do so.”

The Church preceded the Bible. The authority of the Bible comes from the authority of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the Catholic Church comes directly from Jesus, not from the Bible - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18).

With this, I will close our discussion, because we do not agree on the source of authority. My authority is the authority of the Church that Christ established. I am not sure what is yours, other than perhaps what was mentioned above, concerning Martin Luther.

It has been interesting watching you go through all these verbal gymnastics trying to make the scriptures say something they were never meant to say. I would say however, that our discussions have been profitable for me in the sense of helping me understand how the Protestant mind works. I wish you luck in your search for the truth. I will leave you with two references for your consideration.

The first is a link to an interview with Dr. David Anders. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph. D. studies in Reformation History. In his interview he discusses Luther, the Bible, and the confession of sins, and gives his own personal testimony in regards to the forgiveness of his sins. He is a brilliant scholar and I highly recommend this video. See:

The second is a list of the scriptures relating to Purgatory. I provide then only so that you know they exist. You do not have to make any response to them. I will post them in a second reply because it will make this reply too long.


God bless

zeland

From the Apostles.

I have already spent more time on this than was needed and there is nothing else that can be said so as to allow your understanding to increase.
We are now just bantering back and forth disagreeing over and over.

Now, There are NO Scriptures which refer to or suggest Purgatory my friend. NONE!

There are NO Scriptures to suggest Mary has any power over Jesus. NONE.

I mean we can debate this if that is the road you choose to go down, but it will not be a smooth ride for you my friend.

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks again, but I must disagree with you. Christ established His Church to continue the work which He began while He was on earth. In Matthew 28:20 He commissioned the apostles to do everything he had taught them including forgiving sins in his name. Christ did not say, do everything I taught you, except forgive sins.

How did people learn the teachings of Christ before there was a Bible? They learned them from the teaching Church. Even after the Church assembled the Bible, there were very few copies around, and most people couldn’t read anyway .So for the first 1600 years after Christ, until the invention of the printing press, there were effectively no bibles. So how did all those people learn the faith, they learned it from the teaching church, not from a bible.

You continue this circular reasoning which was refuted in the several posts on your thread from last week:

Here

Here

Here

Here

Here

And

Here

Ping for those posters whose posts I linked along with mine.

@PeaceByJesus and @Radagast

 

[Major1]

All of what you said (your conclusions) is just your private interpretation of scripture, which scripture condemns 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16-18. as for works, by works is a man justified, and not by faith alone - James 2:24 (14-26)

I can not agree with that in any way. I have NO conclusions at all and I certainly have NO private interpretations. I just read what the Bible says and believe it. You however read what the RCC says and believe that.

Ephesians 2:8-9...….
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

I do not know of any other words that God could have used to make it any easier to understand.

You are misunderstanding James 2 as he did not say works save but in fact said that works are the product of salvation.

I am very sorry that the meaning of the Scriptures have eluded you in this situation as it is obviouse that you are simply going around and around to the same un-biblical opinion.

 

[redleghunter]

All of what you said (your conclusions) is just your private interpretation of scripture, which scripture condemns 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16-18. as for works, by works is a man justified, and not by faith alone - James 2:24 (14-26)

So you used your own private interpretation to argue @Major1 was using private interpretation?

Maybe you can give us the infallible magisterial interpretations of the verses you privately interpreted?

I would gather there are no such magisterial interpretations.

 

[redleghunter]

Dear Mr Major,

The following are the scriptural verses concerning Purgatory.

When a non-Catholic says to you: “I don’t believe in Purgatory”, what do you say?


“I don’t believe in Purgatory”! Ok, may I ask if you believe in hell? Oh yes, I believe in hell. I am sure that you know that there are many people who say they don’t believe in hell. Yes, of course. The fact that they don’t believe in hell, does not make hell disappear. Right? Ah...yes? Now apply the same logic to Purgatory. Purgatory does exist, in spite of the fact that you don’t believe in it, just as hell exists, in spite of the fact that those other people don’t believe in it (hell). Remember, the existence of any person, place or thing is not dependent on someone’s belief in it. Now let’s look at what the bible says about Purgatory. Some people will say that the word “Purgatory” in not in the Bible – so what. The word “Bible: is not in the bible.


Purgatory in Scripture


Protestants, in general, do not believe in Purgatory, and if the topic comes up in a discussion, they will say: "It's not in the bible", which is incorrect. Actually there is considerable scriptural evidence for Purgatory. The following is a list of scriptural passages that show either the existence of, or the necessity of Purgatory. There may be additional scriptures that need to be added to this list, but this is the most complete list I have seen so far.


New Testament

2 Timothy 1:16-18 - This is the earliest New Testament example of prayers for the dead. Paul prays for mercy for his dead friend Onesiphorus. 16 “May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. 18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day (Judgment Day)! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus”.


All the commentaries I have read on this passage suggest that Paul’s friend is dead. The general context of the passage seems to be one of a funeral. Paul is praying for the family of the deceased, much like we do today. Paul is also praying that God will be merciful on his friend on Judgement Day. Question? If, According to Protestant thinking, Purgatory doesn’t exist, then why is Paul praying for a dead person? What purpose would this serve? This Passage parallels 2 Samuel 1:12 below.


Matthew 5:25-26 – “… Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny” (made restitution for the harm our sins have caused). See 2 Samuel 12:13-14 below.


Luke 12:58-59 - “… I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the very last penny”. Note, for the above two verses See the parallel case in Matthew 18:34 (18:22-34).


In the above verses of Matthew and Luke, Our Lord is using the idea of a debtor’s prison (something the people were very familiar with – see Matt 18:21-35), to teach then about another type of prison – a spiritual prison – Purgatory!


1 Corinthians 3:11-15 - “…the person will be saved, but only as through fire.” Also see


Hebrews 12:23. “… and the spirits of the just made perfect”. Why do the “Just” need to be made perfect? Why are they not already perfect?


Matthew 12:32 – “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come”. There are two parts (meanings) to this passage. The term “speaks against the Holy Spirit” (also known as the sin against the Holy Spirit) refers to the unforgivable sin of final impenitence – refusing to repent. Without repentance, a person’s sins can never be forgiven.


Now the second part - “neither in this world, nor in the world to come”, indicates that some sins can be forgiven after death. These are minor sins and imperfections, which are not serious enough to send us to hell, but must be atoned for before we can enter heaven. See Revelation 21:27 below. Also see 1 John 5:16-17, and Luke 12:47-48 for the distinction between serious (mortal) sins, and lesser (venial) sins. John refers to these as a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death.

Matthew 12:36 – “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof on the Day of Judgment”. Also see supporting verses 1 John 5:16-17, and Luke 12:47-48.


Matthew 5:48 – Be ye perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


1 Peter 3:18-20 - For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits. Where were these spirits? Not in heaven, and not in hell


Revelation 21:27 - (The heavenly Jerusalem) - And there shall not enter into it anything defiled (impure, unclean, etc. – in other words, no imperfections in heaven). See the next verse below.


Old Testament


Habakkuk 1:13 – “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate iniquity” – Parallels Revelation 21:27 above.


1 Samuel 31:12-13 – “…and took the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons and burned them… and buried their bones in the wood of Jabes: and fasted seven days“. The next verse tells why they fasted.


2 Samuel 1:11-12 - “David …and his men …and they mourned, and wept, and fasted until evening for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord … because they had fallen by the sword”. Fasting is a form of prayer and penance – in this case, for the dead. This passage parallels (correlates with) 2 Timothy 1:16 -18, above where Paul is praying for his dead friend Onesiphorus. So if there is no Purgatory, why are they fasting, and doing penance for the dead?



2 Samuel 12:13-14 And David said to Nathan: “I have sinned against the Lord”. And Nathan said to David: “The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shall not die.14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die”. Note! This verse shows that, even though our sins are forgiven, we must still make up for the harm those sins have caused, either temporal or spiritual.


Isaiah 6: 6-7 “And one of the seraphim flew to me, and in his hand was a live coal, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thy iniquities shall be taken away, and thy sin shall be cleansed. Here we see the image of fire being used to cleanse Isaiah from his iniquities and sins.


2 Maccabees 12:43-46 - 43 …46 “it is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins”.

The above verse from Maccabees is the most direct scripture reference to Purgatory, which is why Martin Luther, in violation of scripture (see Revelation 22:18-19; Deuteronomy 4: 2; Deuteronomy 12: 32; Proverbs 30: 6.) removed it from the Bible.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post above is the perfect example of eisegesis.

Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?

If you truly want to debate Protestants or Evangelicals you really need to "show your homework" meaning exegesis of the passages you cite. Entering a topical assertion and adding verses which may seem to agree with the topic is not exegesis. Not even close to an expository examination of the topic.

 

[redleghunter]

All of what you said (your conclusions) is just your private interpretation of scripture, which scripture condemns 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:16-18. as for works, by works is a man justified, and not by faith alone - James 2:24 (14-26)

We can back up the truck to put the verses in question within context, which is a function of exegesis:

2 Peter 1: NASB
16For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”— 18and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.


As others have pointed out the above is not speaking of applying Biblical exegesis but that no prophecy uttered as "Thus saith the LORD" was of private interpretation but from God communicated through the prophets. That is why Peter and all the NT authors quoted the OT to substantiate their truth claims. When speaking and writing they proved what they were teaching with the Power of God demonstrated and by quoting His Holy Inspired Words.

Now look at verse 16. Peter is telling us as a witness of God's Glory and Power in Christ Jesus. Then in the following verses showing that what he, Peter, is writing has the same authority as what was revealed through the prophets and not a private interpretation.

Verse 20 from John Gill 18th Century theologian:

2 Peter 1:20

Knowing this first
Especially, and in the first place, this is to be known, observed, and considered;

that no prophecy of the Scripture,
that is contained in Scripture, be it what it will,

is of any private interpretation:
not that this is levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer had not a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things; otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to it? the words may be rendered, "of one's own interpretation"; that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural parts and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual; and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ; though rather this phrase should be rendered, "no prophecy of the Scripture is of a man's own impulse", invention, or composition; is not human, but purely divine: and this sense carries in it a reason why the sure word of prophecy, concerning the second coming of Christ, should be taken heed to, and made use of as a light, till he does come; because as no Scripture prophecy, so not that, is a contrivance of man's, his own project and device, and what his own spirit prompts and impels him to, but what is made by the dictates and impulse of the Spirit of God; for whatever may be said of human predictions, or the false prophecies of lying men, who deliver them out how and when they please, nothing of this kind can be said of any Scripture prophecy, nor of this concerning the second coming of Christ; and this sense the following words require. (2 Peter 1:20 Commentary - John Gill's Exposition of the Bible)​

Now from the Roman Catholic NABRE Study Bible:

12 [ 1: 20 – 21 ] Often cited, along with 2 Tm 3: 16 , on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pt 2 and clever tales ( 2 Pt 1: 16 ). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings ( 2 Pt 1: 21 ), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, some manuscripts read “holy ones of God.”
(THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE REVISED EDITION Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CONFRATERNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND THE UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE)​

Not even your own church agrees with your "private interpretation."

Now what Peter is truly addressing are the fable tellers and those trying to pawn off their own visions and prophecies as from God. Not reading the Bible and applying exegesis.

 

[redleghunter]

Who do you think would know better the correct Will of God, and the correct meaning of the scriptures - the early Church Fathers, the men who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, assembled the Bible, or the average man in the pew today, some 2000 years removed from Christ and the apostles? As St. Augustine said: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me to do so.”

Can you link me to the work of Augustine where he said the above? Not the apologetics site you got it from, the actual work which should be at the New Advent site.

 

[redleghunter]

With all due respect sir, your basic problem is that your entire philosophy of salvation (as well as that of the writer in the link you provided earlier) is incorrect. It is incorrect because it is based on the errors of Martin Luther and his flawed, self-fabricated, idea of salvation by faith alone. And this leads to a flawed interpretation of Christ's plan for the forgiveness of sins. Also, your understanding of salvation (including the forgiveness of sins) is in direct opposition to what the early Church taught.

Can you please substantiate where Luther was wrong and why?

 

[redleghunter]

When a person insists that they can go direct to God, what are they really saying to Him? They are telling God that they want Him to forgive their sins on their terms! Who are we to dictate to God the manner in which our sins are to be forgiven?

Who is another man who does not know the heart of another a better judge?

As pointed out in James we are to confess our sins to one another. This is for two purposes. First to have others pray for us and second as ekklesia we share each other's burdens.

Also, when we go “direct to God”, is our contrition really perfect?

You mean do we try to fool ourselves thinking we fool God? Please this is a terrible argument. How can a priest tell if someone is not contrite to receive absolution?

How do we know that our sins are really forgiven?

1 John 1: NASB
8If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

Pretty clear.

Can we say for sure that they have not been “retained”?

Only if we are accusing God of being unfaithful. See above. Recommend you don't suggest this.

Does God send us an email, or a text message saying: “You are forgiven”? Feelings can be misleading!

This is the telling tail and difference between 'institutional religion' and faith in God.

Romans 8: NASB
12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

By the Grace of God the above we should stand in awe.

 

[redleghunter]

Dear Major,

Tell me what the following scriptures mean and refer to. Be as specific as possible.

1 John 1:9
Acts 19:17-19
Matthew 9:5-8:
John 20:19-23
2 Corinthians 5:18-20

Thanks,

zeland

1 John 1:9
Says nothing about a priest.

Acts 19:17-19
This is about sorcerers burning their magic books.

Matthew 9:5-8:
This is about Jesus as the Son of man having the authority to forgive sins. Easy as Christ is truly God and truly man.

John 20:19-23
The disciples received the Holy Spirit. Key word here is Holy Spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:18-20

The ministry of reconciliation to us. Notice plural "us." Paul was speaking to the entire church at Corinth. Not a seminary class.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Dear Mr. Major

Thanks again, but I must disagree with you. Christ established His Church to continue the work which He began while He was on earth. In Matthew 28:20 He commissioned the apostles to do everything he had taught them including forgiving sins in his name. Christ did not say, do everything I taught you, except forgive sins.

How did people learn the teachings of Christ before there was a Bible? They learned them from the teaching Church. Even after the Church assembled the Bible, there were very few copies around, and most people couldn’t read anyway .So for the first 1600 years after Christ, until the invention of the printing press, there were effectively no bibles. So how did all those people learn the faith, they learned it from the teaching church, not from a bible.

With all due respect sir, your basic problem is that your entire philosophy of salvation (as well as that of the writer in the link you provided earlier) is incorrect. It is incorrect because it is based on the errors of Martin Luther and his flawed, self-fabricated, idea of salvation by faith alone. And this leads to a flawed interpretation of Christ's plan for the forgiveness of sins. Also, your understanding of salvation (including the forgiveness of sins) is in direct opposition to what the early Church taught.

Writers, such as Origen (241), Cyprian (251), and Aphraates (337), are clear in saying confession is to be made to a priest. (In their writings the whole process of penance is termed exomologesis, which means confession—the confession was seen as the main part of the sacrament.) Cyprian writes that the forgiveness of sins can take place only "through the priests." Ambrose says "this right is given to priests only." Pope Leo I says absolution can be obtained only through the prayers of the priests. These utterances are not taken as novel, but as reminders of accepted belief. We have no record of anyone objecting, of anyone claiming these men were pushing an "invention." (See the Catholic Answers tract Confession for full quotes from the early Church Fathers on the sacrament of confession). See: Confession | Catholic Answers

When a person insists that they can go direct to God, what are they really saying to Him? They are telling God that they want Him to forgive their sins on their terms! Who are we to dictate to God the manner in which our sins are to be forgiven? Also, when we go “direct to God”, is our contrition really perfect? How do we know that our sins are really forgiven? Can we say for sure that they have not been “retained”? Does God send us an email, or a text message saying: “You are forgiven”? Feelings can be misleading!

Also, have you ever considered this possibly? By refusing to accept Christ’s method of reconciliation, we offend Him, and therefore make ourselves undeserving of forgiveness?

Who do you think would know better the correct Will of God, and the correct meaning of the scriptures - the early Church Fathers, the men who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, assembled the Bible, or the average man in the pew today, some 2000 years removed from Christ and the apostles? As St. Augustine said: “But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me to do so.”

The Church preceded the Bible. The authority of the Bible comes from the authority of the Catholic Church, and the authority of the Catholic Church comes directly from Jesus, not from the Bible - "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18).

With this, I will close our discussion, because we do not agree on the source of authority. My authority is the authority of the Church that Christ established. I am not sure what is yours, other than perhaps what was mentioned above, concerning Martin Luther.

It has been interesting watching you go through all these verbal gymnastics trying to make the scriptures say something they were never meant to say. I would say however, that our discussions have been profitable for me in the sense of helping me understand how the Protestant mind works. I wish you luck in your search for the truth. I will leave you with two references for your consideration.

The first is a link to an interview with Dr. David Anders. Dr. Anders was a Presbyterian historian who did his Ph. D. studies in Reformation History. In his interview he discusses Luther, the Bible, and the confession of sins, and gives his own personal testimony in regards to the forgiveness of his sins. He is a brilliant scholar and I highly recommend this video. See:

The second is a list of the scriptures relating to Purgatory. I provide then only so that you know they exist. You do not have to make any response to them. I will post them in a second reply because it will make this reply too long.


God bless

zeland

Why do you go from thread to thread parroting the same prevaricating propaganda, that was just overall refuted in your last attempt , including on binding and loosing and Rome being the NT church? You need to deal with such unless perhaps you think you get an indulgence by posting Catholic mantras (do you?).

 

[PeaceByJesus]

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", you say that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had. What about the second half of that statement; "if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” So by the same logic you used for the first part, we can then say that the apostles were to announce that sins have not been forgiven? isn't this a bit contradictory?

Dear Mr. Major.

You did not answer my question. If, as you have stated, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven", means that The Apostles did not forgive the sins of man but simply confirmed the fact that God already had, then please explain what the second half of our Lords statement means - "whose sins you retain are retained" Based upon your reasoning, as to the meaning of the first part of John 20:23, it would therefore follower that the Apostles were to proclaim that sins have not been forgiven. Can you please explain this contradiction.

Thank you.

zeland

1. Nowhere are NT pastors distinctively called by the distinctive word for a distinctive separate sacerdotal class of believers , ("hiereus" in Greek, and "priests" in English due to a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros), to whom souls regularly came to obtain forgiveness.

Instead, all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

2. Nowhere are NT believers shown regularly confessing sins to their pastors, or ever commanded to do so. Instead, the only exhortation or command to confess sins is to each other in general.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16)

Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)

Here we see an example of spiritual binding and loosing, in which the heavens were bound from providing rain, and then loosed to do so, whereby believers of like fervent holy faith are encouraged as able to obtain such binding and loosing in prayer.

However, in the case of an infirm man the intercession of NT pastors (presbuteros) can obtain deliverance of chastisement, as indicated by James 5:14,15, as can the intercession of believers of fervent holy faith, but pastors as particularly expected to be so.

Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:13-15)

Yet nowhere is the infirm man required to confess his sin, and which in this case is likewise one he is ignorant of, but chastened for. (cf. Mark 2:1-11) Nor is this an example of the Catholic "Last Rites," as healing is what is promised here, while the Catholic Last Rites is normatively a precursor of death.

One can be chastised for unconfessed sins he is not aware of, and mercy can even be requested for those who sinned in ignorance, (Lk. 23:34; Acts 7:60) and we see healing and forgiveness being treated as one thing, for the latter obtained the former. And which was in response to the intercession of the man's friends, and is corespondent to James 5.

And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. (Mark 2:3-12)

In both cases it seems that the afflicted were not aware of the sins that there were under chastisement for, and in neither case was confession of such required, and in both cases intercession obtained deliverance without the separate Catholic sacerdotal class of clergy ("hiereus") being required.

3. Nowhere does any NT pastor teach believers that they need to be confessing their sins to them in particular in order to obtain forgiveness.

Instead, Scripture simply states that,

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)

And when Peter charged Simon Magnus with sin, he told him to pray to God himself if perhaps he might be forgiven. However, this does not mean that intercession for mercy cannot be asked of pastors or believers in general, as was also the case here.

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me. (Acts 8:22-24)

4. As seen in James 5:16-18, the power of binding and loosing are is not restricted to clergy, but there are formal judicial actions of binding and loosing, which magisterial judicial power flowed from the OT supreme magisterium, (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) which, as with civil courts, could declare a person guilty of innocent, and even physical bind or loose a person. Likewise a father could bind or loose his daughter who is under his care from her vows, or her husband could could once married. (Numbers 30)

However, premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is novel and unScriptural, and there is no and for binding and loosing judgments to also stand in Heaven (Matthew 18:18) requires them to be in accordance with the known (Scriptural) character and will of God, just as the promise that whatever we pray for will be done must.

Note also that magisterial judicial actions executed under leadership are not autocratic, but in union with all the church.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 18:16-18)

The formal corporate judicial binding and loosing is seen in action in 1 Corinthians 5:3-5:

For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Likewise is the corporate nature of forgiveness by the body that was harmed by public sin:

To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. (2 Corinthians 2:10-11)

Yet while judicial actions are carried out by the whole church under leadership, that the spiritual power to bind and loose is not restricted to clergy is also evident by what follows Matthew 18:16-18, as it applies to two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name.

Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)

Therefore while leadership can act in the person of Christ in such judicial and disciplinary cases together with the church, Spirit-filled holy men such as the apostles can also declare one to be bound in sin, as seen before in Acts 8:20-23, and in Acts 5:1-10 (cf. Acts 13:6-12; 1Co. 4:21) and be instruments of Divine judgment.

And this spiritual power is not an endowment of office as if anyone in that office can effectual spiritually execute such, but should be the power of Spirit-filled holy men who are to occupy that office, yet the power of binding and loosing in general is provided for all Spirit-filled holy believers.

However, since there simply is no separate sacerdotal Catholic priesthood in the NT church, no separate sacerdotal class of believers distinctively called by the distinctive name for such, whose primary active function is that of offering the Catholic Eucharist as an offering for sin, to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life , then any spiritual power that might belong to the office of NT presbuteros does not apply to them .

5. Outside of the above cases, nowhere is clerical intercession or that of anyone required for forgiveness, but the promise that "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9) means that forgiveness does not require regular confession to clergy, let alone Catholic priests.