Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[hoser]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? 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; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The verse demonstrates several things the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

First, in order to apply the sacrament, one must call for the elders or priests of the Church. This would require ordained men that constitute the Church.

Secondly, James says “the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” This demonstrates that the Church's priests act in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi") in furthering Christ's work of salvation.

Yes, Jesus is our only Savior, but He desires us to participate in His eternal priesthood, and He calls certain men to participate in a very intimate way by effecting salvation (through the ministerial priesthood described here). So the priests, through the power of Christ, save the sick man's soul.

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul). These verses demonstrate that priests have the power and authority to forgive sins (which was given to men by Christ; see Matthew 9:8), and in particular to His Apostles, see John 20:22-23.

So, what do these two verses mean to a protestant? No where in protestant theology does it allow for priests to forgive sins or apply the sacrament for the sick.

 

[CCWoody]

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul).

So, if I understand this, Jesus, the "Savior" doesn't save (seems like a clear contradiction) but a mere man has the virtue in his actions which actually saves souls.

Gotcha!

 

[Warrior Poet]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? 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; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The verse demonstrates several things the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

First, in order to apply the sacrament, one must call for the elders or priests of the Church. This would require ordained men that constitute the Church.

Secondly, James says “the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” This demonstrates that the Church's priests act in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi") in furthering Christ's work of salvation.

Yes, Jesus is our only Savior, but He desires us to participate in His eternal priesthood, and He calls certain men to participate in a very intimate way by effecting salvation (through the ministerial priesthood described here). So the priests, through the power of Christ, save the sick man's soul.

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul). These verses demonstrate that priests have the power and authority to forgive sins (which was given to men by Christ; see Matthew 9:8), and in particular to His Apostles, see John 20:22-23.

So, what do these two verses mean to a protestant? No where in protestant theology does it allow for priests to forgive sins or apply the sacrament for the sick.

Excellent breakdown. I wish you would have addressed verse 16 as well though.

If you want to address the whole section in the OP James 5:13-20 I think we would make more headway in the understanding the Protestant view if thats your intention.

Warrior Poet

 

[Nickolai]

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul).

I don't think you meant to say that.

The sick man's sins are fogiven because of the Grace of God. You are correct in saying that Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostes, (which we believe passed on to their successors) but it's still the God working through the Priest that does the forgiving ultimately.

 

[hoser]

So, if I understand this, Jesus, the "Savior" doesn't save (seems like a clear contradiction) but a mere man has the virtue in his actions which actually saves souls.

Gotcha!

Yes, Jesus does save. Jesus IS salvation. But, if you read closely, the priests through the power of Christ, saves the man's soul.

 

[Jig]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? 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; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he willbe forgiven.

The verse demonstrates several things the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

Here is your first mistake...the "Church" in your comment really means "my Roman Catholic Church" instead of 'all believers', are you playing hop sctoch here? Even though that's what you meant, I will agree this kind of healing in gerenel has been taught by several churches, within the body of believers.

First, in order to apply the sacrament, one must call for the elders or priests of the Church. This would require ordained men that constitute the Church.

I just see Elders...no priests. And where does it say ordained Elders?

Secondly, James says “the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” This demonstrates that the Church's priests act in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi") in furthering Christ's work of salvation.

Now, you've just completely dropped the word Elder altogether, why?

Yes, Jesus is our only Savior, but He desires us to participate in His eternal priesthood, and He calls certain men to participate in a very intimate way by effecting salvation (through the ministerial priesthood described here). So the priests, through the power of Christ, save the sick man's soul.

Your making the mistake "Elders" are only priests. Why not also a pastor then?

So, what do these two verses mean to a protestant? No where in protestant theology does it allow for priests to forgive sins or apply the sacrament for the sick.

Why do Catholics think ALL protestants practice the same things?

Protestant Elders do pray over sick and anoint them. Doesn't have to be a priest. Like you said, it's not the Elders who forgive the sins of that person, it is God. We also see these people on sick beds not in confessionals.

 

[hoser]

I don't think you meant to say that.

The sick man's sins are fogiven because of the Grace of God. You are correct in saying that Christ gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostes, (which we believe passed on to their successors) but it's still the God working through the Priest that does the forgiving ultimately. [/font][/color]

I don't think you understood correctly. Just like when we go to confession, the priest forgives our sins, but it is by the power of Christ that he is able to do that. That is what I said, "So the priests, through the power of Christ, save the sick man's soul. "

 

[eoe]

I just see Elders...no priests. And where does it say ordained Elders?

Now, you've just completely dropped the word Elder altogether, why?

Your making the mistake "Elders" are only priests. Why not also a pastor then?

The word in greek is πρεσβύτερος.

That would be "priest"

 

[Nickolai]

I understood your point. It was mearly the phrasing that I had a problem with. If you want to talk about Apostolic succession in simple terms what you said is true. But, just a quick glance at your statement, without a proper context, could be misinterpreted very easily.

The absolution of the priest does grant forgiveness, but only because Christ allows them to, and because he is the one heeding the Priest's prayers.

 

[Nickolai]

The word in greek is πρεσβύτερος.

That would be "priest"

And for those that can't read greek letters, the word eoe wrote was Presbyteros.

Which is why Eastern Orthodox of the greek persuasion call their Priests Presbyters.

 

[hoser]

Here is your first mistake...the "Church" in your comment really means "my Roman Catholic Church" instead of 'all believers', are you playing hop sctoch here? Even though that's what you meant, I will agree this kind of healing in gerenel has been taught by several churches, within the body of believers.

No, I mean the "Church". The one founded by Christ upon His Apostles. The Apostles being the first Bishops of that Church.

I just see Elders...no priests. And where does it say ordained Elders?

This is the definition of "Elder" as applied here.

1. Superior to another or others, as in rank. adj.
2. One of the governing officers of a church, often having pastoral or teaching functions. n.

Can it be any clearer?

Your making the mistake "Elders" are only priests. Why not also a pastor then?

Priests, Bishops, pastors, whatever. As long as they are part of Christs Church succeeding from the Apostles.

Why do Catholics think ALL protestants practice the same things?

I don't, and that is the big problem with sola scriptura (which I don't want to get into here). Protestants have multitudes of different beliefs and practices.

Protestant Elders do pray over sick and anoint them. Doesn't have to be a priest. Like you said, it's not the Elders who forgive the sins of that person, it is God. We also see these people on sick beds not in confessionals.

It is though the priest or bishop that forgives sins acting in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi"). This authority as I said was given by God to mEn in Matthew 9:8 and in particular to the Apostles, (the first bishops of the Church) in John 20:22-23.

 

[hoser]

I understood your point. It was mearly the phrasing that I had a problem with. If you want to talk about Apostolic succession in simple terms what you said is true. But, just a quick glance at your statement, without a proper context, could be misinterpreted very easily.

The absolution of the priest does grant forgiveness, but only because Christ allows them to, and because he is the one heeding the Priest's prayers.

I don't disagree at all.

 

[hoser]

The word in greek is πρεσβύτερος.

That would be "priest"

Thank you.

 

[hoser]

I found very good information on this website http://www.kencollins.com/glossary/polity.htm

The writer of this website is NOT Catholic or Orthodox, he is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).

But, nonetheless, the information he provides is good.

"In the beginning: The early Church was organized the same way as the synagogue, though many Bible translations obscure this fact. Both the Church and the synagogue were led by one or more presbyters, which means elder and became the English word priest. If there were several elders, the leader was called the episkopos, which means supervisor and became the English word bishop. In the early days, bishops rode circuits, as the Apostle John did (Revelation 1-4). Deacons were the invention of the early Church. Their function is incompletely described in the New Testament, but they seem to have been administrators. Thus the early Church consisted of congregations served by deacons, run by priests, and supervised by bishops. Or if you dislike words of Greek origin, we could say that early congregations had a board, ministers, and a district superintendent."

"Priest is the English word that originated from the Greek word πρεσβυτερος (presbyteros), which means elder. (Note the progression from presbyter to prester to priest.) Originally, this was the normal word for Christian clergy. Over time it took over the meaning of ’ιερευς (hiereus or hierarch) and was extended by way of analogy to Jewish and then pagan clergy. Some groups avoid priest as if it were pagan, when it is in fact entirely Christian and scriptural in origin. The Greek word for a temple functionary is hierarch.

 

[Jig]

No, I mean the "Church". The one founded by Christ upon His Apostles. The Apostles being the first Bishops of that Church.

And which church would you say this is...the 'Eastern Ortodox Church', the Roman Catholic Church, or the body of believers?

This is the definition of "Elder" as applied here.

1. Superior to another or others, as in rank. adj.
2. One of the governing officers of a church, often having pastoral or teaching functions. n.

Can it be any clearer?

Very clear...I was just trying to explain how my church has Elders too.

Priests, Bishops, pastors, whatever. As long as they are part of Christs Church succeeding from the Apostles.

I believe the Church is the body of ALL believers in Christ not just some singalized institute. I get my doctrine and beliefs from scripture which was mostly written by apostles themselves. I believe my beliefs ARE that of the apostles.

I don't, and that is the big problem with sola scriptura (which I don't want to get into here). Protestants have multitudes of different beliefs and practices.

The bible tells us to check with scripture what we are taught orally. Whats the problem with that? Show me where the eternal state of 'Limbo' is in scripture.

It is though the priest or bishop that forgives sins acting in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi"). This authority as I said was given by God to mEn in Matthew 9:8 and in particular to the Apostles, (the first bishops of the Church) in John 20:22-23.

It is not through the Elders that forgivness is granted. It is through Christ. The Elders merely helped by asking in Jesus's name for the forgivness to be given. Why must you assume the apostles are NOT apart of my Church because I'm not Catholic?

 

[hoser]

"Show me where the eternal state of 'Limbo' is in scripture"

It isn't, so what?

 

[hoser]

"Why must you assume the apostles are NOT apart of my Church because I'm not Catholic?"

Well, can your church trace it's roots back to the Apostles through succession, like Catholics and Orthodox Christians can?

 

[Nickolai]

And which church would you say this is...the 'Eastern Ortodox Church', the Roman Catholic Church, or the body of believers?

Until the year 1054, there was only one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. Us Orthodox say that we are it and the Catholics say they are.

Very clear...I was just trying to explain how my church has Elders too.

Not in the same sense however, both Orthodox and Catholics believe that there is a special Grace given to Bishops and Priests to preform certain functions given to them by the Apostles through a line we call Apostolic Succession.

The bible tells us to check with scripture what we are taught orally. Whats the problem with that? Show me where the eternal state of 'Limbo' is in scripture.

Where does it say THAT in scripture? My Bible says that we are too follow the Traditions handed down in word and epistle. (2 Thess. 2:15)

It is not through the Elders that forgivness is granted. It is through Christ. The Elders merely helped by asking in Jesus's name for the forgivness to be given. Why must you assume the apostles are NOT a part of my Church because I'm not Catholic?

Jesus gave the Apostles specific power to forgive sins. These "powers" were passed on through Apostolic Succession to the Bishops and Priests of today. Your elders are not in the same category, they are not ordained in Succession.

 

[Jig]

Well, can your church trace it's roots back to the Apostles through succession, like Catholics and Orthodox Christians can?

Well, the Pharisees could trace their roots back to Moses and it did them little good. All it did was make them feel like they could change and add to God's law. Both the Orthodox and Catholic church claim to have a connection with past early church fathers, I agree, but I don't see this as anything special. Not all early church fathers even agreed. There has and always will be a difference in opinion. I told you how I am conencted with the apostles teachings, through inspired scripture. Oral teaching is not infallable. Tradaion can hold fallacies. Written scripture on the other hand can't.

Even though both Orthodox and RCC can trace their roots back to the early fathers, both think the other is wrong in some aspects. Who am I to believe?

I think I'll just stick to scripture.

 

[Nickolai]

Let's take this apart piece by piece.

Well, the Pharisees could trace their roots back to Moses and it did them little good. All it did was make them feel like they could change and add to God's law.

However the Phariseeic line was broken when St. Zacharias was killed in the Temple, and his priesthood sold to the highest bidder. Not so with current Apostolic Succession.

Both the Orthodox and Catholic church claim to have a connection with past early church fathers, I agree, but I don't see this as anything special.

It's not just a spiritual connection it's a physical one as well. Current Orthodox Bishops were physically ordained by Bishops who were physically ordained by Bishops who were physically ordained by Bishops... back to the Apostles themselves, teaching the same things the postles themselves taught. You cannot say this with any other group of people.

Not all early church fathers even agreed. There has and always will be a difference in opinion.

Never on the essentials of the faith.

I told you how I am connected with the apostles teachings, through inspired scripture. Oral teaching is not infallable. Tradaion can hold fallacies. Written scripture on the other hand can't.

Oral teaching is not infallible? Why did the Church use it for the 300+ years before the Canon of scripture existed then? Not to mention the fact that Paul exorts the Thessalonians to "Hold fast to the Traditions passed down whether by word or epistle"? (2 Thess 2:15)

Even though both Orthodox and RCC can trace their roots back to the early fathers, both think the other is wrong in some aspects. Who am I to believe?

I think I'll just stick to scripture.

However both taught the exact same thing for nearly 1000 years before the schism.

You can try to stick to scripture, (the scripture which we compiled) but wouldn't it be better to listen to the near 2000 years of patristic Tradition dating back to the Apostles themselves?