Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[CCWoody]

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]

Actually, I think this admission that Catholics believe that it is the virtue of the actions of men which save people is quite illuminating. Quite illuminating indeed.

 

[Forest]

Actually, I think this admission that Catholics believe that it is the virtue of the actions of men which save people is quite illuminating. Quite illuminating indeed.

Catholic Catechism:
1441 Only God forgives sins. 39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." 40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. 41

 

[ThirdDay3337]

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 “[FONT]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.

James 5 is talking to believers. If Christian is sick, or is in a bad time is his life, he can call the elders to help him with this problem and their prayer will help him come to God again. The sick persons faith will ultimately give him forgivenss through Christ.

The next verse even states that we should pray for each other so that you can be 'healed', meaning you were once sick. Doesn't that mean we can all help each other when we are committing sins?

'The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.' The versus 13-20 are talking about the power of prayer, not proving that elders can save lost people.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

 

[ThirdDay3337]

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)

Maybe the reason Paul told them to hold fast to traditions passed down is because they didn't have the canon of scripture to tell them what to do. Now we do have the canon of scripture, so why don't we utilize it and read it and follow it, not fallable traditions.

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?

Ever heard of the game telephone? Ever played it? It's hard to play with ten people to say the exact same thing at the end. Try 2000 years.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

 

[CCWoody]

Catholic Catechism:
1441 Only God forgives sins. 39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." 40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. 41

So, what are you saying here? That the OP is just the private interpretation of the poster?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Presbyteros means "elder", not priest. Hieros means "priest".

Yes, the English word "priest" is a form of the word "Presbyteros", but this is an accident of usage.

A sacerdos (latin), a person who represents the people of God and who offers sacrifice for them to God is a Hieros.

A Presbyteros is one who rules and teaches in the Church.

Christianity doesn't have "priests" as an office. We have one High Priest, Jesus, and we are each of us priests after Him.

The Church of God has Elders; pastors and teachers and men apt to govern.

It doesn't have priests.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

But let me answer the original question with another question:

When your church administers the oil and lays hands on the ill, do they always recover?

Because the Apostle James clearly says that they will.

He says so quite unqualifiedly.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

One more little (hengh) thing:

In the letter to Titus, the Apostle Paul clearly conflates the office of Bishop and Elder, understanding them to be one and the same.

There is no difference between and Episkopos and a Presbyteros, they are two words describing different aspects of the same office in the Church.

To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders (πρεσβυτέρους, presbyterous) in every town as I directed you--if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer (ἐπίσκοπον, episkopon) as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. - Titus 1:4-8 [ESV]

 

[hoser]

Catholic Catechism:
1441 Only God forgives sins. 39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." 40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. 41

OK, I don't see your point.

 

[Jig]

Let's take this apart piece by piece.

Pick apart? You barely even scratched this...all your doing is letting your relgious institution make your mind up for you.

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.

Are you saying you missed my point? It still stands.

Note: I got my beliefs from the apostles, too. 'Apostolic' is just a word your religious institute uses to sound authoritative. All Christians get there dogmas and doctrines from scripture which was mostly written by who...the apostles. The main physical claim (the RCC, EO, etc use) to this is Peter (and other questionable relations)...this can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

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,

Heresay mixed with fallable and questionable writtings which could very well could hold extreme bias. I don't see scriptural support for a Pope...wait, neither do you. (I forgot your EO)

Never on the essentials of the faith.

hmmm....if you say so. At least you agree there was differences in opinion. Though I do find it funny, the early church fathers writtings are picked at. Their work is only quoted if it agrees with your churchs doctrine, all other work by them that disagrees with current doctrine get sweeped under the rug and never brought up.

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)

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

See the word 'whether'. True tradition is good. It was nessacary when scripture wasn't widely printed or available, obviously, but oral teachings should never differ from scripture. In fact we are to look back at scripture to judge whether or not an oral teaching is true or not.

The word 'whether' here states one thing. You can teach by oral tradition OR by reading scripture. They should both be the same, which is not true for a lot of oral traditions we find today, such as Limbo.

Ever play that game 'telephone'? A bunch of kids sit in a circle and whisper a pharse into the childs ear next to him/her and the same is repeated until it gets to the last child. Guess what...it isn't the same pharse that got started with the game ends with.

When something is told orally it is slowly transformed by the many people who carry it through the years. (Sometimes it can be as little as a few days for something to change) Fallable people add or take away, sometimes without even meaning harm. Sometimes teachings go out of the scriptural backing they started with and become something else...

Why do you think Paul had to continue to write to the churchs even after he visited and taught to them? These people were taught by an apostle as still got it wrong. This is why he worte it down on paper, so it couldn;t be changed.

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

What does that matter...the same things not being taught now. Someone must be wrong.

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?

No, it wouldn;t be better to hear out oral tradition. We have a choice now to learn from EITHER tradtion or letter. (2 Thess 2:15) I'm going to choose the one that is inspired by God Himself and can't be wrong. It is the obvious better choice here, since oral teachings can be fallable.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Presbyteros means "elder", not priest. Hieros means "priest".

Well, I went to crosswalk.com to settle this for myself. They use the Strong's concordance.

They put the first meaning of the word as being old, elderly. The second meaning is more akin to what we are talking about and it says it refers to a term or rank or an office. With that we get a sub meaning saying

1. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably

So basically, protestants can't say it can't mean priests and Cathloics can't say that it can only mean priests. So guess what? You're all both right and wrong at the same time!!

 

[Nickolai]

Pick apart? You barely even scratched this...all your doing is letting your relgious institution make your mind up for you.

Or perhaps I happen to believe in something bigger than the understanding my own fallible mind gives me, and like to understand based on 2000 years of inspired Church (The pillar and bulwark of Truth) interpretation.

Are you saying you missed my point? It still stands.

Note: I got my beliefs from the apostles, too. 'Apostolic' is just a word your religious institute uses to sound authoritative. All Christians get there dogmas and doctrines from scripture which was mostly written by who...the apostles. The main physical claim (the RCC, EO, etc use) to this is Peter (and other questionable relations)...this can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

No you didn't get your beliefs from the Apostles, you got your beliefs from your own reading of select writings from them. There is a difference.

Heresay mixed with fallable and questionable writtings which could very well could hold extreme bias. I don't see scriptural support for a Pope...wait, neither do you. (I forgot your EO)

How is it heresay, I can even give you lists of names.

hmmm....if you say so. At least you agree there was differences in opinion. Though I do find it funny, the early church fathers writtings are picked at. Their work is only quoted if it agrees with your churchs doctrine, all other work by them that disagrees with current doctrine get sweeped under the rug and never brought up.

It's more the fact that we don't declare the Fathers to be infallible interpreters of anything by themsleves, we trust the consencus of all of them together, and we trust the Church councils more than that. When a father wrote something that just doesn't quite jive with the rest we just realize that they were fallible men capable of making mistakes sometimes.

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

See the word 'whether'. True tradition is good. It was nessacary when scripture wasn't widely printed or available, obviously, but oral teachings should never differ from scripture. In fact we are to look back at scripture to judge whether or not an oral teaching is true or not.

I mearly quoted Scripture since it's something you relate to and trust. There is more backing for the Tradition outside of the Scripture, but that would not hold as much weight with you, right?

The word 'whether' here states one thing. You can teach by oral tradition OR by reading scripture. They should both be the same, which is not true for a lot of oral traditions we find today, such as Limbo.

This is speculation. You must admit, that the word whether can make it so that verse is interpreted in the Orthodox way as well.

Ever play that game 'telephone'? A bunch of kids sit in a circle and whisper a pharse into the childs ear next to him/her and the same is repeated until it gets to the last child. Guess what...it isn't the same pharse that got started with the game ends with.

However, when people are making sure they get it right, it does pass on correctly. Btw I did play a game of this one time with 50 people,and it did actually make it to the end exactly the same as it started.

When something is told orally it is slowly transformed by the many people who carry it through the years. (Sometimes it can be as little as a few days for something to change) Fallable people add or take away, sometimes without even meaning harm. Sometimes teachings go out of the scriptural backing they started with and become something else...

But you still must agree to the possibility that it actually did pass on without corruption. Remember, we believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who preserved it through the years, It's not that hard for us to believe that He actually did.

Why do you think Paul had to continue to write to the churchs even after he visited and taught to them? These people were taught by an apostle as still got it wrong. This is why he worte it down on paper, so it couldn;t be changed.

Yes, the epistles were corrections in many cases, but your own logic here kind of proves my point. I will ask this one question. Had the Churches not made mistakes, would those epistles had been written?

What does that matter...the same things not being taught now. Someone must be wrong.

Not by the Catholics it isn't, but it is the same thing taught by the Orthodox. (Now a Catholic memeber is gonna come in here and say that they are right and the Orthodox are wrong of course.)

No, it wouldn;t be better to hear out oral tradition. We have a choice now to learn from EITHER tradtion or letter. (2 Thess 2:15) I'm going to choose the one that is inspired by God Himself and can't be wrong. It is the obvious better choice here, since oral teachings can be fallable.

This is speculation again. Your are reading words into Pauls writing.

 

[lionroar0]

Not by the Catholics it isn't, but it is the same thing taught by the Orthodox. (Now a Catholic memeber is gonna come in here and say that they are right and the Orthodox are wrong of course.)

Your wrong

Peace

 

[hoser]

Maybe the reason Paul told them to hold fast to traditions passed down is because they didn't have the canon of scripture to tell them what to do. Now we do have the canon of scripture, so why don't we utilize it and read it and follow it, not fallable traditions.



Ever heard of the game telephone? Ever played it? It's hard to play with ten people to say the exact same thing at the end. Try 2000 years.

Brother in Christ,
Luke

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

OK, so where in this verse does Paul say that once we have a defined cannon, we no longer then should hold to the traditions by word of mouth? Why are you adding something to this verse or the meaning of this verse that does not exist?

 

[Borealis]

Actually, I think this admission that Catholics believe that it is the virtue of the actions of men which save people is quite illuminating. Quite illuminating indeed.

Actually, I think your wilful misunderstanding of what he wrote (and your happy dismissing of everything else he said in the OP and in other posts) is even more illuminating, isn't it?

 

[Borealis]

Maybe the reason Paul told them to hold fast to traditions passed down is because they didn't have the canon of scripture to tell them what to do. Now we do have the canon of scripture, so why don't we utilize it and read it and follow it, not fallable traditions.

The day you or any other Protestant can prove that everything Jesus and the Apostles taught was written in the Bible, I'll leave the Church.

Ever heard of the game telephone? Ever played it? It's hard to play with ten people to say the exact same thing at the end. Try 2000 years.

And if God's the one passing it along, is it going to change? Not likely. And since God IS the one passing it along, your telephone game is a strawman analogy.

 

[Borealis]

OK, I don't see your point.

He appears to be agreeing with you, countering CCWoody's continued breaking of the 8th commandment.

 

[CCWoody]

Actually, I think your wilful misunderstanding of what he wrote (and your happy dismissing of everything else he said in the OP and in other posts) is even more illuminating, isn't it?

He claimed it is the virtue of the actions of men which actually saves sinners. This IS what he said.

"wilful misunderstanding" (snort) That's funny. We understand what a Catholic actually says and then we get accused of wilful misunderstanding.

 

[cygnusx1]

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

priestcraft

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul's statement insists that what is transmitted either by word or letter have to be in full and complete agreement, which is where Roman Catholics part ways by upholding traditions which are not in agreement with Scripture.