Hey Dorry !

I have reread my questions and I can't read them as theoretical and largely pointless ones like the example your Dad used. I was all ready to apologise, but I think they're good and valid questions !

I am trying to understand God's scriptural guidance in three areas that affect most of the posters on here: what constitutes infidelity and what is the nature of forgiveness, plus does God scale sin on earth in a way He does not in heaven.

I hope your Dad sees his way to helping out this daft limey when he's not so tired ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

We are built to fail - it doesn't mean we will, with god's help many of us can stick to the right path throughout our lives...but it is our God given nature to sin and fail - especially when we wont allow God to guide us. It just takes the right combinaton of time, circumstance and sometimes the devils nudge to push someone to fall. To say that you could or never will fall is blasphemous. Only God can prevent that...and sometimes, when your faith is thin, but you are still faithful, you can still get tempted by the dark side...

Takes alot for me to come out of lurking mode; but darn you Bob, you did it again!
I really can't add anything more than what MM has already gracefully stated. IMHO, what he gave you was perfect. I am glad he jumped in, as, I would never have been able to state all of this so eloquently.
When Paul(?) came to Christ and asked "Master, how many time should we forgive," he was being prepostorous with his suggestion, "seven time?'
Jewish law, at the time, REQUIRED that you must forgive three times to a transgressor. So Paul saw that Jesus expected even more from that law, and Paul was being what he considered, generous, by saying seven times. Imagine how flored he was when Christ replied, "sevety times seven."
But that was exactly the point Christ was trying to make, infinite number of time!
With that one simple statement, Christ exposed to us what His forgiveness looked like. I'm still floored(sp).
On the other hand, we are not God. And it has been said, that God will never give us what we can not handle.
Therein lies the crux of what we can forgive! If repeated and unrepentant unfaithfullness is the very thing we cannot withstand, then God releases us from this burden, as HE will not stand by and watch us lose faith in HIM because of another person's sin.
"If a man steals a loaf of bread with his hand, far better, that he cut off his hand and throw it into the sea, than spend eternity in the fires of Gehenna."
(I'm sure a lot of BW can think of other things that could be cut off, but I won't entertain that thought right now.)
Bob, in a few days, Sept 10th, there will be a spirutual meeting in London. It will be called a conference of TLIG( True life in God.)
I urgently ask you to find a way to attend this meeting, if at all possible. If you do, you will meet Vasulla Ryden. Accompanying her, will be my oldest son, Mark. It may be life changing!!!!!
All Blessings,
Jerry

Bob, I’m going to take a slightly different position on this question than Mortarman did in his assertion of “continued, unrepentant adultery,” but you can sift through the ideas for yourself to see what seems to be consistent with Scripture and what seems to be the “right” position for yourself. Keep in mind that these are opinions, granted that they are based in study, but are by no means the only interpretation that can be applied.

So, having said that “disclaimer,” let me first address the idea of “adultery in their heart.” The issue here is merely one of telling us that NONE of us is “without sin.” Consider the “adultery in their heart” sort of thing to be TEMPTATION where we sinned by ‘entertaining, rather than shunning,’ the idea or the thought. But we “came to our senses” before ACTING on the sinful thoughts. While it’s a bad analogy, think of it along the lines of Abraham planning to sacrifice Isaac. God, or “some voice” told Abraham to KILL (as in murder an innocent) as a sacrifice. Now we all know that Abraham’s willingness to be obedient to God’s command was counted to him as righteousness, but in direct violation of what we later know as the 10 Commandments (#6) prohibition against murder, Abraham WAS going to murder his son, had thought about it and planned it, and was stopped by God in the act of carrying it out. Adultery is only slightly less “grievous” than murder. But for many, we are “stopped” from carrying out what would be a grievous sin BEFORE actually committing the act. However, since “entertaining the thought,” or “pondering it in your heart,” IS wrong, and therefore “Sin” (especially since there would have been no “command from God” to entertain such thoughts), God’s provision is for confession and repentance and forgiveness for the believer who has “fallen” to his “Human Nature” and sinful desires.

It is the ACT of adultery that is the “death” of the marriage covenant. It is for THAT reason alone, actual physical adultery, that God allows divorce for a Christian. The only other “valid reason” for a divorce is abandonment. Therefore, since the marriage “died” with the first act of adultery, let alone multiple and/or serial acts of adultery, the Faithful Christian Spouse has the “God-given” right to divorce. There is NO “requirement” that the Faithful Spouse “must” forgive and NOT divorce. We ARE commanded to forgive a repentant sinner, and that includes a spouse who committed adultery. But there is NO requirement that the Faithful Spouse must also continue to live with, and be married to, the Unfaithful Spouse.

Now, it is true that “God hates divorce” and that it should be the last course taken. But God also does not want any person to be “unsaved,” yet He will “live with” the fact that some will not come to repentance and salvation. Likewise, the “command” is to forgive the sin, but not to expunge all potential consequences. I suppose the best example I can give you on that one to try to clarify it a little is King David. God forgave him his sins of adultery and murder and restored him to a closeness with God, even to the point of having a son, Solomon, from Bathsheba. But God also did not expunge all consequences of the sin, and the child that “motivated” David to arrange for the killing of Uriah was taken in death, despite all of David’s prayers.

God’s “preference” for believers is to forgive and to be reconciled one to another. It (God’s allowance for divorce for marital unfaithfulness) is NOT a simple “do not pass go, go directly to divorce.” God reminds us that we, ourselves, have been forgiven an unpayably huge debt by Him on behalf of Jesus Christ and we are to reflect His action in our lives with those who owe us what seems like an “unpayable debt.” The parable of the unmerciful servant speaks directly to this issue. It is, essentially, when one chooses to remain married and to reconcile after repentance from adultery, and act of Mercy and Grace on the part of the Betrayed Spouse in much the same manner that God bestowed salvation and restoration upon us by His Grace and Mercy, and not because we “warranted it” or “earned it.”




Oh boy! Where to begin?!? I was serious when I said in my earlier response that it could well take a “book” to begin to address your questions!

Okay, let’s try to break this series of “second questions” into more “bite size” pieces and discuss them individually.

“I hope I have made my point: that is does God consider gradation of sin within sinful acts' very NATURE as sins, or does he consider only the fact of an action's sinfulness and therefore all transgressions to be identical in scale ?

If the second is true does that make all legal sysmes pointless and ungodly ?”

Okay, it would seem that you are confusing Forgiveness that leads to Salvation with forgiveness for sins, transgressions, anything that is NOT according to God’s will.

Let’s put it the way that Jesus put it; [color:"red"]“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”[/color] (Matthew 22:21b NIV)

When it comes to the “world,” God puts the governments in place and they are given the responsibility of taking care of the people. Make no mistake about it, they will all be held accountable for how they “govern,” be it according to God’s will or not. God has given them the authority to make laws and to judge people according to those laws. When it came to God’s chosen people, God himself gave them “Rules to Live By” in the 10 Commandments, and with the advent of Christ God has written his “rules” on the hearts of men and has given Believers the indwelling Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and to lead us in becoming more Christ-like.

The issue of scale is given due weight by God. It begins with the fact that God himself is Holy and cannot sin. ANY sin is anathema to God and any sin causes eternal separation from God, permanently, were it not for the saving grace of God in the gift of His Son Jesus the Messiah. The “debt” incurred by that sin is so huge that no one could “pay” the debt off on their own and regain “right standing” with God. God knew that from the beginning and that is why He provided the means whereby that “unpayable debt” could be paid for us, by Himself. That is going to lead us into your “final question” about forgiveness. But before going there, let me assure you that there ARE “scales,” or gradations, to sin when compared to both holiness and to sin itself. We are created in the image of God. Sins against God’s created people are more “heinous” than sins against His created world, or animals, etc. Stealing is a sin, but nowhere near as heinous as, let’s say, rape and murder of a child. An example of God’s feeling about this “gradation might be in order: Jesus said to his disciples: [color:"red"] “Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. So watch yourselves.” [/color] (Luke 17: 1-3 NIV)

Add to this, if you will, the issue of “lack of repentance,” especially when you are talking about people who profess to be Christians, and you have the warnings to “examine” one’s own belief because we cannot serve two masters, the worldly things and God, at the same time. If we do NOT repent of sin, it’s a fair bet we are NOT saved and never were. Hence the parable of the soils.

“But while He is telling us what behaviours, if unrepented and unforgiven will damn us, is he ALSO actually telling us that we are to regard all sins as being the same in scale ?

No, what we are being told is that SIN has already “damned us” apart from the saving grace that is available through Jesus Christ. For unbelievers, it matters little what sins they have committed, or to what “scale” of evil it might fall, because the simple fact of the matter is that “without Repentance there can be no Forgiveness.”

For believers, if they are convicted of sin in their life, their ONLY response is repentance, because any sin is an affront to God, who already paid the debt for all of their sins. If they do not repent, I personally believe that it is “prima facia” proof that they were never saved and still need to reach that point of confession and repentance and turning their lives over to Christ as their Lord and Savior. Certainly only God KNOWS for certain the heart condition of any given person, and certainly even Christians can fall to stubbornness and pride and dig in their heels….for a while. But Christians have the indwelling Holy Spirit and it is impossible to “run and hide” from God because He goes with a Christian wherever they happen to go or try to hide. A Christian running from God WILL NOT be a happy person because there will be a spiritual battle taking place in their hearts.

But since we don’t know their hearts and can only go by what we see them “do,” and because we trust that God DOES know the condition of their heart and what “needs to be done” in order for them to realize their sin and to repent, God gave us the “rules” on how to deal with apparent sin against God (and subsequently against us).

[color:"red"] So watch yourselves. “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.’” [/color] (Luke 17:3-4 NIV)

[color:"red"] “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” [/color] (Matthew 18:15-17 NIV)


YES ANY sin will get us damned, and requires gracious forgiveness, but is it wrong to scale sins using earthly justice while recognising this fact ?

Did God not bless the world with Solomon, and David, and Moses, and other great lawgivers ? Why offer mortal lawgivers to us if all we need is a single measurement of what is sinful, and that the only response to this is forgiveness " seven times seventy times" ?

Bob, please remember that none of these men were “perfect.” God, and the Scripture, gives us these “men of God,” complete with their flaws and imperfections and sinful choices to show us that God CAN use whoever He wishes to use and that we DO NOT need to be “perfect” to be a “child of God.” The only “perfect man” was Christ. And God even showed us the “human side” of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus did NOT want to have endure the Cross and death, even though He knew what had to be done in order for Him to provide salvation for His “bride.” To NOT want to go through with the crucifixion might be considered “entertaining the thought of disobeying God (sin), but Jesus made it plain that He was only asking for the “cup to pass” IF it were the Father’s will. In this Jesus showed us that it’s okay to ask for things as long as we do so in the “mindset” that whatever we ask is “according to God’s will” and not our own will. We leave it up to God to provide the answer, whether we “like it or not,” because God is Sovereign and He commands and we obey.

Did the new Covanent of Christ and Him sacrificed remove the need for ALL mortal laws with only " sin and forgiveness" as measure and response ?

Does God not expect a sinner who breaks a secular law to pay the legal penalty for same, but ALSO to repent to avoid damnation? If this is so then is God actually SANCTIONING not MORAL relativism but TRANSGRESSIONAL scalability amongst men to promote civil society ?”

No, forgiveness does not automatically remove the consequences of sin. We CAN choose to “not enforce” some penalties, and we can choose to not “take offense” at some sins. That is the idea behind “love covers over a multitude of sins.” If love didn’t do that, it wouldn’t take long for any of us to “irk” our spouse enough to cause big problems….breaking wind under the sheets comes to mind as a particularly odorous offense that could really “irk” some folks (smile).

On the other hand, some things have consequences that can’t be “overlooked” because they are “bigger” or affect more than “just me.” Some things require WORK to “prove” the repentance is real and that forgiveness is warranted. The best that I can do to convey this thought is to look at Joseph…a life of sinful things done to him, a life of forgiveness and walking with God as a response to “bad things,” trusting God and not circumstances. The same holds true for Paul, but that’s another long message all in itself.



“"All transgressions are sins, so judge, jury and defendant are all sinners so bear that in mind when we scale their transgression using mortal laws”

Yes, that is precisely what God is telling us.

I wonder what Scripture is actually telling us about forgiveness when it says we should forgive "seven times seventy times". Now I know that number is an example of the "near infinite" in old testament wording rather than an exact number, but I am STILL unsure how to interpret that.

Does it mean that we should forgive a recommission of the same sin seven times seventy times, when we are reminded of it or that we should reforgive the original transgression every time we are reminded of it so we do not backslide on our commitment to forgive and that both forgiver and forgiven can continue to receive the benfits of our forgiveness ? “”

Both. Remember also the “threefold promise” that YOU, as the forgiver, make to the one you are forgiving.


1. I shall not use them against you in the future.

2. I shall not talk to others about them.

3. I shall not dwell on them myself.


“Moving to the hypothetical, if Squid still contacted OM or even went to have sex wth him a hundred times after d-day. Does God expect me to forgive each NEW betryal up to near infinite? If so at what point does God permit divorce for infidelity if our only allowed response is to perpetually forgive?

I am struggling with the idea that there is only ONE measure of transgression and ONE Scriptural response to it. ”

Yes, if the sinner repents, God expects you to forgive every time, just as He does for you. But you are also including Marriage in your question and marriage is a special covenant that adultery breaks. It is the ONE sin where you can both forgive and “enforce” the consequence of divorce. As with other forgiven sinners, you DON’T have to live them and neither do you have to live with a spouse who has committed adultery if YOU can’t avail yourself of enough of God’s grace to rebuild and reshape the broken lump of clay that was your former marriage. I would suggest that you would need to “fine tune” your example to get a more precise answer. The thought here would be “how much are you willing to endure for the one YOU promised your wedding vows to (both the “good and the bad”) until death do you part.” Do you run after your lost sheep and, finding it, gently guide it back to the sheep pen and safety? Are you willing to “die to self” to save your spouse if needed?

For example, contacts because of “weakness of will” can happen and can be forgiven without necessarily ending the marriage. Continued sex AFTER repentance would be a willful disregard of their covenantal promise to both God and to you, and would most likely lead to divorce. It would render the “repentance” that had occurred a lie and a “using” if biblical truth to twist it into a “cover” for continuing to choose sin. The parable of the soils would again be appropriate to consider. We are created in the image of God, but we are NOT God. God never forgets anything, but He does have the capacity to put a forgiven sin so far away from Him that it’s “as if” it never existed. However, make no mistake, ALL will be judged at the “last day” and the “works” done will be judged and either burned up or attributed to us as “good” that will receive a reward. Some, will “get into heaven” by the skin of their teeth (with ONLY the salvation afforded to them by Christ). But in heaven the “lowest” position is so far higher than anything we can imagine, that we thank God for His grace and mercy.

Balance this “Right” to divorce with God’s admonition that it’s really for issues of an unrepentant spouse or a “hardness” of your own heart where you struggle with relying on God. The marriage covenant was killed, and the “penalty” for murder is death. But God “changed the equation” with the infusion of Grace. He gives us the strength to DO the hard and difficult when we rely on HIM and not ourselves. Philippians 4:13 is that promise of God: “I can do all things through him (Christ) who gives me strength.” Add to that the indelible promise of God to ALL Christians in Romans 8:28 and you have the makings of being able to rebuild a marriage with a forgiven and repentant spouse, and with yourself being humbled before God in obedience and trust in Him and His love for all His children, and especially for those who He is in the covenant of marriage with.

I hope that this has helped you in your study. Thanks for your patience in awaiting a reply. Feel free to ask any follow up questions you feel need to be asked.

God bless.

HOLY COW, b0b!!!!!

I am gonna earn a degree reading this post!!!

far

Boy, FH, I got some reading and cross referencing to do when I finish work ! Thanks, sir !!

* Hi Jerry ! Not sure I can make that TLIG minstry event, but thanks for the reference !

Like you I am 'floored' by God's high watermark for forgiveness and forgiving behaviour. Its like my every single human instinct is utterly wrong and counter to God's template. Makes life such a struggle...but one I must persist with !

* Far, you knwo what? Through this mess I have come to wonder if I should not attend bible school. The degree I don't need, but the KNOWLEDGE would be WONDERFUL ! Seriously, I am considering it.

Forgiveness Bob ..that’s a biggy too you know in my faith.

In the Catholic Church though my Husband may ‘forgive’ me, it is also required for the Church to grant me absolution.
Absolution is the remission of sin, or of the punishment due to sin, granted by the Catholic Church.

I have gone over this time & time again with my priest who has taken a lot of time to explain to me what this means. I thought at one time that such mortal sins were without hope of redemption.

But that was foolish. There is NO sin that our Lord will not forgive. But its not a free ride either,
Absolution proper is that act of the priest whereby, in the Sacrament of Penance, he frees man from sin. It presupposes on the part of the penitent, contrition, confession, and promise at least of satisfaction; on the part of the minister, valid reception of the Order of Priesthood and jurisdiction, granted by competent authority, over the person receiving the sacrament.

That there is in the Church power to absolve sins committed after baptism the Council of Trent thus declares: "But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples saying, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles, and to their lawful successors for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism" (Sess. XIV, i). Nor is there lacking in divine revelation proof of such power; the classical texts are those found in Matthew, xvi, 19; xviii, 18, and in John, xx, 21-23. To Peter are given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Sin is the great obstacle to entrance into the kingdom, and over sin Peter is supreme. To Peter and to all the Apostles is given the power to bind and to loose, and this again implies supreme power both legislative and judicial: power to forgive sins, power to free from sin's penalties.

This interpretation becomes more clear in studying the rabbinical literature, especially of Our Lord's time, in which the phrase to bind and to loose was in common use. (Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ; Buxtorf, Lexicon Chald.; Knabenbauer, Commentary on Matthew, II, 66; particularly Maas, St. Matthew, 183, 184.)

The granting of the power to absolve is put with unmistakable clearness in St. John's Gospel: "He breathed upon them and said, 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained'" (xx, 22, 23). It were foolish to assert that the power here granted by Christ was simply a power to announce the Gospel (Council of Trent, Sess. XIX, Can. iii), and quite as unwise to contend that here is contained no power other than the power to remit sin in the Sacrament of Baptism (Ibid., Sess. XIV); for the very context is against such an interpretation, and the words of the text imply a strictly judicial act, while the power to retain sins becomes simply incomprehensible when applied to baptism alone, and not to an action involving discretionary judgment. But it is one thing to assert that the power of absolution was granted to the Church, and another to say that a full realization of the grant was in the consciousness of the Church from the beginning. Baptism was the first, the great sacrament, the sacrament of initiation into the kingdom of Christ. Through baptism was obtained not only plenary pardon for sin, but also for temporal punishment due to sin.

Man once born anew, the Christian ideal forbade even the thought of his return to sin. Of a consequence, early Christian discipline was loath to grant even once a restoration to grace through the ministry of reconciliation vested in the Church. This severity was in keeping with St. Paul's declaration in his Epistle to the Hebrews: "For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance" etc. (vi, 4-6). The persistence of this Christian ideal is very clear in the "Pastor" of Hermas, where the author contends against a rigorist school, that at least one opportunity for penance must be given by the Church (III Sim., viii, 11). He grants only one such chance, but this is sufficient to establish a belief in the power of the Church to forgive sins committed after baptism.
St. Ignatius in the first days of the second century seemingly asserts the power to forgive sins when he declares in his letter to the Philadelphians that the bishop presides over penance. This tradition was continued in the Syrian Church, as is evident from passages found in Aphraates and Ephrem, and St. John Chrysostom voices this same Syrian tradition when he writes "De Sacerdotio" (Migne P. G., LXVII, 643), that "Christ has given to his priests a power he would not grant to the angels, for he has not said to them, 'Whatsoever ye bind, will be bound,'" etc.; and further down he adds, "The Father hath given all judgment into the hands of his Son, and the Son in turn has granted this power to his priests."

Clement of Alexandria, who it is said received his inspiration from the "Pastor" of Hermas, tells the story of the young bandit whom St. John went after and brought back to God, I love this story, and in the story he speaks of the "Angel of Penance", meaning the bishop or priest who presided over the public penance.
Following Clement in the Catechetical school of Alexandria was Origen (230). In the commentary on the words of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our trespasses", he alludes to the practice of penance in the Church, recalling the text of John, xx, 21. He asserts that this text is proof of the power to pardon sin conferred by Christ upon His Apostles and upon their successors. True it is that in writing of the extent of the power conferred, he makes exception for the sins of idolatry and adultery, which he terms irremissible, although Dionysius of Corinth (170) years before held that no sin was excepted from the power of the keys granted by Christ to His Church (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv, xxiii).

In the Alexandrian Church we have also the testimony of Athanasius, who in a fragment against the Novatians pointedly asserts: "He who confesses his sins, receives from the priest pardon for his fault, in virtue of the grace of Christ (just as he who is baptized)." Asia Minor is at an early date witness of this power to absolve. St. Firmihan, in his famous letter to St. Cyprian, asserts that the power to forgive sins was given to the Apostles and to their successors (Epp. Cyp., LXXV), and this tradition is more clearly expressed both in Basil and Gregory Nazianzen (P. G., XXXI, 1284; XXXVI, 356, 357).

The Roman tradition is clear in the "Pastor" of Hermas, where the power to forgive sins committed after baptism is defended (Sim., viii, 6, 5; ibid., ix, 19). This same tradition is manifest in the Canons of Hippolytus, wherein the prelate consecrating a bishop is directed to pray: "Grant him, O Lord, the power to forgive sins" (xxii). This is still more clearly expressed in the "Constitutiones Apostolicæ" (P. G., I, 1073): "Grant him, O Lord Almighty, by Thy Christ the fulness of Thy spirit, that he may have the power to pardon sin, in accordance with Thy command, that he may loose every bond which binds the sinner, by reason of that power which Thou hast granted Thy Apostles." (See also Duchesne, "Christian Worship", 439, 440.)

True, this power as explained thus seems to me from Hermas writings to be strangely limited – but I’m not a theologian, while Origen, Tertullian, and the followers of Novatian principles were unwilling to grant that the Church had a right to absolve from such sins as apostasy, murder, and “adultery”. As you can imagine I’m not very supportive of their teaching on this!! Have to read it though and understand the basis of the argument.

However, Calixtus settled the question for all time when he declared that in virtue of the power of the keys, he would grant pardon to all who did penance — Ego . . . delicta pœnitentiâ functis dimitto, or again, Habet potestatem ecclesia delicta donandi (De Pud., xxi). The position taken by the Church and the Bishops of Rome; and the great Doctors of the West affirmed in the strongest terms the power to absolve granted to the priests of the Church by Christ. (Leo the Great, P. L., LIV, 1011-1013; Gregory the Great, P. L., LXVI, 1200; Ambrose, P. L., XV, 1639; XVI, 468, 477, etc.; Augustine, P. L., XXXIX, 1549-59.)
About 850 The Church accentuated the right of absolution; and in a sermon of the same century, attributed to St. Eligius, a fully developed doctrine is found. The Saint is speaking of the reconciliation of penitents and warns them to be sure of their dispositions, their sorrow, their purpose of amendment; for "we are powerless," he says, "to grant pardon, unless you put off the old man, the one who sinned; but if by sincere repentance you put off the old man with his works, then know that you are reconciled to God by Christ, yea and by us, to whom He gave the ministry of reconciliation."

And this ministry of reconciliation which he claims for the priesthood is that ministry and that power granted to the Apostles by Christ when He said, "Whatsoever you bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven"
In virtue of Christ's dispensation, the bishops and priests are made judges in the Sacrament of Penance. The power to bind as well as the power to loose has been given by Christ. The minister therefore must have in mind not only his own powers, viz., order and jurisdiction, but he must also keep in mind the dispositions of the penitent. If
• (a) the penitent is well-disposed, he must absolve;
• (b) if the penitent lack the requisite dispositions, he must endeavour to create the proper frame of mind, for he cannot and may not absolve one indisposed;
• (c) when dispositions remain doubtful, he employs the privilege given in conditional absolution. Lets NOT go into that one Bob or we will be have about a 1000 plus pages!!

When the minister sees fit to grant absolution, then he pronounces the words of the form (supra) over the penitent. It is commonly taught that the penitent must be physically present; consequently, absolution by telegraph has been declared invalid, and when questioned in regard to absolution by the telephone or email EXCEPT in exceptional circumstances, the Sacred Congregation (1 July, 1884) answered Nihil respondendum.

Exceptions may be where the penitent has no way to attend a minister or priest due to circumstances. For instance Aussie before he went to Afghanistan received the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, or anointing, as it is popularly known and the Last Blessing. He was anointed on his the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, and hands. To this blessing a plenary indulgence is attached, to be gained, however, only at the hour of death, i e. it is given nunc pro tunc so that FINAL ABSOLUTION, a full and total forgiveness and absolution for all his sins is granted. In addition any future sins may be absolved by expression of intent, even should it be his last whisper of thought on this earth, he would be forgiven.

NO drive through sorries in the Church, might be far more comfortable that way for me but no go sister AW. Fronting up in a Cathedral is not the easiest thing I have done, even in confessional. But I got a lot of peace out of it in the end.
Took some time though.

Bob Pure, suffice it to say that I take a position in strong opposition to that espoused by the Roman Catholic Church concerning forgiveness of sins and their "interpretation" of certain biblical passages to support a position of "works" based faith. In as much as Martin Luther took issue with the idea of "absolution" and the selling of "indulgences," I too, find the Scripture to take a differing viewpoint from that espoused by the Roman Catholic Church.

But I'm not sure I want to spend the time needed to address each of the points brought up in aussieswife's post, other than to say that "at issue" in this are two main points. First, that Christ's sacrifice was either insufficient, or sufficient, to cover ALL sins of a believer(past, present, and future). Second, that a true believe CAN, or cannot, lose their salvation (that Christ is NOT capable of "keeping all that the Father has given him) and IF they could lose their salvation then either they could never regain it (absolution nothwithstanding) or salvation is based upon WORKS that we humans do rather than solely upon the Grace and Mercy of God through faith alone. Attendant with this point is that "baptism" has NO part in salvation as the saving of the thief on the cross clearly shows (he was saved without the benefit of baptism, saved by faith alone, attested to by Jesus Christ. That salvation is based SOLELY upon faith is attested to throughout Scripture, and most pointedly by Paul.

However, since the thrust of this thread IS to pose questions and proffer explanations, I would submit that THE authority should be the Scripture itself, with the Holy Spirit's help in illuminating God's Word through the process of Sanctification in each individual Christian.

God bless.

FH I welcome all earnest and learned interpretations of scripture. Myself I was baptised as an adult 12 years ago, and I have little knowledge of the various sectd os Christianity.

In truth I can see the COMFORT of a single church-approved interpetation of some of the most difficult parts of God's word, but I can also see the dangers of it.

I ask learned folks on here, and elsewhere in life for opinions regarding hard stuff in scripture, but in truth i take noe of them as 'Gospel', I meditate in prayer and combine with my own stufy to try and get a grasp of how GOD is speaking to me through His word.

Its hard though. If only God had used MS word to write the Bible Himself, we wouldn't have trouble interpreting <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

* AW, MANY thanks for your highly literate post !. I married Squid in a catholic church, ( Squid was raised a Catholic) and the reading I gave to the congregation that day was from the Apocrypha - Tobit !

It may not have been 'God Bretahed', but I stand by my every word on that day :



<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thanks all.

Bob Pure, how goes the ruminating?

ForeverHers,

You said in an earlier post that you were going to take a different route than I was going. But you really didn't. I could not agree more with what you have written here. You presented it very well...and I really have nothing to add.

Just sitting back enjoying people chewing on God's word. Can't get better than that!

In His arms.

Hey Bobbo! How's the "chewing" going?

FH I've been working away from home so I am working through this slowly.
I will update when I have something approaching a conclusion ! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

( or more likely further questions!)

Thanks again all