What does this Scripture Mean to Protestants?

[racer]

I think that if a person truy seeks forgiveness and if a church is truly following kingdom principles, there should not be a problem.

However, Paul had to insist to the Corinthians in the second letter that they would forgive and reinstate the offender that they were so lax in dealing with in the first epistle.

But read Mt 18:35 where really the pressure is put on to follow those kingdom principles.

Thus also my heavenly Father shall do to you if ye forgive not from your hearts every one his brother.

Sorry, 'bout that, holdon. I meant to address my question to the OP . . . . . .

 

[sunlover1]

The foundation of the church is Christ. The revelation of Christ that was first revealed to the apostles is considered the foundation upon which the church is built as seen in some verses.
Now we all have that revelation and are all regenerated believers are members of the household of God.
We have the same Christ that the apostles had. They just got Him first.

As far as forgiving sins goes - it is the Lord Himself that does that - not people. The people who have the authority to do so are those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. And it is the Holy Spirit Himself who forgives the sins and allows the people to confirm that forgiveness to others.
If someone offends me and then appologizes to me, I tell them that I forgive them.
If someone offends God and confesses to Him, He will let them know that He has forgiven them. But what if they are not yet saved? How can they know that their sins are forgiven and that they can be baptized?
A regenerated member of the Body of Christ can let them know that their sins have been forgiven.
That person is not doing the forgiving himself - only the Lord Himself can forgive the sins, but, the Lord as the Holy Spirit dwelling in us can let us know that someone's sins are forgiven and we can tell that person so that they will know also.
And, this authority is really not for individuals, but for the church - when two or three are gathered together in His name.

Thanks Christianmom

 

[racer]

There is apostolic succession.

All Catholic Priests have had hands laid on them by another priest all the way back to the apostles.

Here's the first succession:

Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."

20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Why can the Pope not perform miracles and heal people like Jesus and the apostles did?

 

[beamishboy]

There is apostolic succession.

All Catholic Priests have had hands laid on them by another priest all the way back to the apostles.

Here's the first succession:

Acts 1

15In those days Peter stood up among the believers[c] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."

20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,'[d] and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.'[e] 21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." 23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

How can this be apostolic succession? It has rightly been called by another chap who posted a replacement, not a succession. They needed 12 apostles. One had betrayed the Lord and another had to be found.

Another reason why this is not the "apostolic succession" taught by the RC church is that if you just look at the criterion for replacing the apostle, none of the Popes would have qualified. Just look at it - I have marked it in red and increased the font size.

Please read carefully before you jump to a conclusion and post in the forum. It's otherwise misleading.

 

[TimRout]

Perhaps it might be helpful to first figure out what John 20:21-23 doesn't mean, before we try to figure out what it does mean. Only God can forgive sins [Mark 2:7], so whatever these verses are communicating, they cannot mean that the Apostles were elevated to divine status. Christians are never encouraged to confess their sins to an Apostle (or a Priest, for that matter), but are encouraged to confess their sins to each other in mutual accountability [James 5:16]. So the passage in question has nothing to do with Catholic confessional absolution.


Second, we see a similar theme played out earlier in Jesus' teaching career [Matthew 16:19] where Peter is given the “keys to the kingdom”and the authority to loose and bind. Peter used this authority to “loose” the gospel upon the Jews at Pentecost [Acts 2:14-41], and upon the Gentiles through Cornelius [Acts 10:9-48]. The Apostles also demonstrated their “binding” power at the Jerusalem Council, for example [Acts 15:19-20], where they placed certain necessary restrictions on the conduct of Gentile believers. Thus we may conclude that Peter and the other Apostles had the authority to act (in a limited way) as God's agents in the founding of the early church. But how does this authority reflect on John 20:21-23, and can this passage be used to support RC apostolic succession?


There can be little doubt that Jesus had already laid out the gospel message for His disciples [Matthew 10:5-8]. Now, as His departure approached, He commissioned them to preach this gospel and make disciples from every nation [Matthew 28:18-20]. Thus it was God, and not the Apostles, who set in place the standard by which a person is, or is not, forgiven. In John 20:21-23 we see a direct correlation between the pronouncement of the Apostles -- “You're forgiven!” -- and the action of God in heaven -- “Yes, I forgive you.” But the authority to forgive lies with God alone [Mark 2:7]. Thus we may reasonably conclude that the Apostles were not ordained as Catholic Priests with the authority to mete out absolution, but were rather commissioned as Christ's ambassadors [2 Corinthians5:20]. Remember, these eleven men did not have a New Testament to turn to. Today, believers can discern the saved from the unsaved based on solid NT data. The Apostles had only the Old Testament, their personal experiences with Jesus, and the supernatural empowerment of the Holy Spirit to rely on. There situation was unique.


“But hold on,” some will object. “What if the Apostles had made a bad call...pronounced someone saved when he shouldn't have been --- or worse, pronounced someone damned when he really ought to have been saved? Would God have honored such a judgment?”


Of course not. The Apostles had no authority to determine standards by which a person is justified before God. John 20:21-23 merely gives them the authority to pronounce a person forgiven, according to God's gospel gauge. The Son of God did not act by His own authority [John 17:2], and neither did the Apostles [Romans 1:1-6]. Forgiveness flows from God. Jesus had the power to forgive sins because Jesus is God [Mark 2:10].


These days, with the NT canon complete and the Apostles long since in heaven, we have no need for a Pope or his bishops. We have something far greater --- the closed canon of verbally inspired, inerrant Scripture. This means every Christian – every authentically born again human being on earth – has the authority to proclaim God's Word and its eternal truths. All who believe will be saved; all who don't, won't [John 3:36].

 

[YorkshireLass]

Jesus gave them the Holy Spirit, he breathed on them.
He did not lay a hand on them and say 'Pass it on'

God bless