Do protestants have a reasonable non-Roman-Catholic explanation for John 20:22-23?

[Aaron56]

Apparently you are unaware of where AI gets it's data from - it searches the internet for answers and the internet is choked full of false doctrines in case you did not know there Spanky

So, those becoming reliant upon AI instead of the leading of the Holy Spirit are primed for deception and are being deceived.

Dude, settle down. If you knew @hornetguy you'd have no qualms with what he posted. He would never knowingly post false doctrine. If you're concerned about his spiritual health reach out to him privately. Instead, we've got you posting that he's in league with Satan. Come on, man.

 

[HigherGospel]

Dude, settle down.

I'm not having any issues with my peace walk, thank you for your concern.

Nobody ever "knowingly" posts false doctrine.

That's why it's called deception.

You know old Adolf Hitler, Carl Marx, and Mao Zedong all thought they weren't teaching anything false either

 

[hornetguy]

Just wait, you'll see.

brilliant non-answer.... thank you.

 

[hornetguy]

the internet is choked full

actually, it's "chock full"..... get your hyperbole straight, ok?

 

[hornetguy]

Nobody ever "knowingly" posts false doctrine.

Wrong, scooter.... a lot of people do this on a regular basis.

You are so wrong on so many fronts, it's impossible to respond to all of them... I bet you're very popular at parties...

 

[Aaron56]

actually, it's "chock full"..... get your hyperbole straight, ok?

I can excuse a lot of things. But messing up a hyperbole... right to jail.

 

[PaulThomson]

I see this a bit differently based in the flow of John's Gospel based upon the finished work of the resurrected Christ (the past aspect of the perfect tense):

Jesus commissions the disciples to “forgive” or “retain” sins (ἄν + subjunctive), yet the perfect indicative (ἀφίενται / κεκράτηνται) shows that forgiveness or retention already exists in Christ’s completed work. The disciples’ active role is declarative, representative, and witness-bearing: they publicly announce and apply the divine reality on earth without creating it. This emphasizes both human responsibility and Spirit-empowered participation, while keeping forgiveness firmly rooted in Christ. In the flow of John, this concerns how people respond to the Spirit empowered disciples proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It mirrors Jesus’ earlier teaching in John3:18, where those who believe are not condemned, and those who disobey are already condemned.​

​

​

Let's consider a few parallel sentences that use the aorist subjunctive + perfect tense, then the present subjunctive + the perfect tense.​

​

1. Whoever drinks cyanide (aorist subjunctive) has received (perfect) a death sentence, and whoever is noticing (present subjunctive) the smell of almonds in a drink offered to him has been having (perfect) the chance to suspect cyanide and to save himself from death.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of drinking cyanide immediately initiates an ongoing real result, from that present drinking, of receiving a death sentence. As soon as any person drinks cyanide they will have received a death sentence and that death sentence will continue as real for them from that time onwards. The second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is smelling almonds in their offered drink and has not yet drunk, they have the chance to avoid fatal poisoning.​

​

2. Whoever practises (aorist subjunctive) satanism has sold (perfect) his soul to the devil, and whoever is recoiling (present subjunctive) from practising satanism, has been preserving his own control of his own soul from enslavement to satan.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of practising satanism indicates that the person at some point in the past sold their soul to the devil, and is continuing in that state. And the second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is resisting the temptation to practise satanism, they have also been preserving their own control of their own soul.​

​

Context may indicate whether we are looking at the ongoing result of a present action pr the ongoing result of a past action. But the structure itself seems to me to be ambiguous.​

​

So, is Jesus saying A."Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven from the time you began forgiving them, and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been retained ever since you began retaining them ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying B. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began retaining them (i.e. since the cross) ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying C. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and whose soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began holding the offender accountable (i.e. since the offence happened) ?​

​

Or something else?​

​

I lean to interpretation A, and think Jesus is dealing with reconciliation between those offended and the offenders of the ones offended, not reconciliation between the offender and God.​

​

When Stephen was stoned, he only granted forgiveness for the sin being executed on him, not for forgiveness for all his murderers' sins against others and God as wel (Acts 7:59-60l. When Paul and the Corinthians forgave the sexual sin practised by one of their own (2 Cor. 2) , it was a sin that had involved them too, since illicit sex by a Christian joins Christ's body (fellow believers) with the participants (1 Cor. 6:15-29).​

​

I am of the view that Paul and the Corinthians were working to reconcile the offender to the church by holding hm accountable and relenting when he repented. They were not in some way forcing God to forgive the sin as far as it was committed also against God. Fir that the sinner needed to deal with God directly through Christ, as Peter told Simon the magician to do when Simon asked Peter the advocate on his behalf to God for Simon's forgiveness.​

​

Act 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Act 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23
For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Act 8:24
Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

​

​

 

[OLDBUTNEW]

Wrong, scooter.... a lot of people do this on a regular basis.

You are so wrong on so many fronts, it's impossible to respond to all of them... I bet you're very popular at parties...

@hornetguy : You crack me up, mate! You're a funny bloke (fella) !!

 

[PaulThomson]

• ****************** ΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣΙΧΘΥΣ *****************

What “all flesh” means

1. Universal availability – The Spirit will be offered to every human being (“all flesh”) in the “last days.”
2. Conditional reception – The Spirit is received by those who respond in faith. The promise is fulfilled when individuals turn to Christ, repent, and are baptized (cf. Acts 2:38‑41; Romans 10:9‑10).
3. Empowerment for service – Those who receive the Spirit become gifted for ministry (prophecy, tongues, healing, etc.), just as the early believers did at Pentecost.

Friend ! It seems to me, that you are misapplying the concept of "grace" to replace the "authority" given the Disciples, corporately as the Church Body, ( by 2 or 3 witnesses ) a matter is determined (Duet 19:15) AND when 2 or 3 are gathered in the Name of Jesus,( Matt 18:20) ... the Church body, THEN being in one accord, (Acts 2:1), will have the authority, to forgive sin, per John 20:23-24 ... Where Jesus gave the apostles the authority ( power ) of Christ's Spirit, because of HIS Righteousness, (His right-doing, in relation to the Fathers Will,) = The Faith OF Jesus = His Holiness !! Praise His Holy Character ! = Name ! ( ref. Rev 14:12 KJV. not the NIV)
By two or three witnesses a matter is established, that by Faith, SIN is forgiven by the Spirit of Christ, presented by the Church, to the repentant sinner.
Rather than just "missing the mark", we NEED to call sin by it's correct name, SIN is the transgression of God's LAW ~ 1 John 3:4 ... SIN = is anti-Love ~ Matt 22:37 ... Sin = Not Loving Christ ~ John 15:14
& ~>John 16:7-9 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me;

John 20:22-23 does not mention authority (exousia). We are not told there whether Jesus was granting any new authority to forgive sins on God's behalf, or whether Jesus is describing the work the Holy Spirit will do in bringing reconciliation between disciples and those who have offended those disciples by enabling disciples to let go of their resentments. So, your judgment that I am replacing "authority given to disciples corporately as the Church Body" with "the concept of grace" given to disciples is moot.

There are two Greek words for sin. One is hamartia (the missing of a target) and ParaptOma (to walk beside rather than on a path; to transgress/cross the boundary and go off the path). They are different kinds of sin. Falling short of God's glory is hamartia. Transgressing one of His commandments is paraptOma.

The Holy Spirit convicts those who do not believe into Jesus that they are not reaching their potential and are falling short (hamartia) of the glory God designed them to walk in.

 

[PaulThomson]

First of all, abstinence of meat on Friday is not a doctrine. It was a practice.
As I have mentioned in #525, practices can be changed from time to time.

The instruction of the Roman Catholic sect that one must not eat meat on Friday was a doctrine.The fulfilling of the doctrine by adherents was a practice.

Second, 'Eating meat on Friday was designated by popes as a mortal sin.' not because of the meat. Early Catholic Christians doing so were knowingly and deliberately and willfully disobedience to church authority.
Number 15:32-36 was a story of a man picking wood on sabbath. The sabbath-breaker was put to Death. The sin was not picking wood, it was grave disobedience.9/QUOTE]

The picking up of sticks on the Sabbath was against God's law given through Moses. It was sin against God, not against a rule the congregational leaders made up for their congregants to follow. Transgressing teachings invented by Levites and added to the Law of Moses was never a mortal sin.

Third, the church still teaches Friday is a day of penance. Eating meat on Friday is no longer a sin if you substitute another act of penance or devotion.

The church never had authority to demand extra-biblical practices of congregants under pain of hellfire.

What Protestants do is a complete change of doctrines after leavng the Catholic Church.

If I were a fellow-pastor of a sect within Christianity and I suddenly decided I am chief bishop over all pastors in the churches of my sect, and declared myself so, and a number of church assemblies contested my claim and continued to practise as they saw fit disregardiing my pronouncement on what I determined t be correct doctrine and practice for all my sect, what would happen?

Should those rejecting my arrogation of chiefdom be considered as having left the sect to which we all once belonged ? Or have I engineered a split in our sect and peeled off a number of churches for myself. If I gained political power top impose my rules on those who had rejected my claims, would that make my original claims to superiority true ?

 

[hornetguy]

​

​

Let's consider a few parallel sentences that use the aorist subjunctive + perfect tense, then the present subjunctive + the perfect tense.​

​

1. Whoever drinks cyanide (aorist subjunctive) has received (perfect) a death sentence, and whoever is noticing (present subjunctive) the smell of almonds in a drink offered to him has been having (perfect) the chance to suspect cyanide and to save himself from death.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of drinking cyanide immediately initiates an ongoing real result, from that present drinking, of receiving a death sentence. As soon as any person drinks cyanide they will have received a death sentence and that death sentence will continue as real for them from that time onwards. The second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is smelling almonds in their offered drink and has not yet drunk, they have the chance to avoid fatal poisoning.​

​

2. Whoever practises (aorist subjunctive) satanism has sold (perfect) his soul to the devil, and whoever is recoiling (present subjunctive) from practising satanism, has been preserving his own control of his own soul from enslavement to satan.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of practising satanism indicates that the person at some point in the past sold their soul to the devil, and is continuing in that state. And the second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is resisting the temptation to practise satanism, they have also been preserving their own control of their own soul.​

​

Context may indicate whether we are looking at the ongoing result of a present action pr the ongoing result of a past action. But the structure itself seems to me to be ambiguous.​

​

So, is Jesus saying A."Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven from the time you began forgiving them, and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been retained ever since you began retaining them ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying B. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began retaining them (i.e. since the cross) ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying C. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and whose soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began holding the offender accountable (i.e. since the offence happened) ?​

​

Or something else?​

​

I lean to interpretation A, and think Jesus is dealing with reconciliation between those offended and the offenders of the ones offended, not reconciliation between the offender and God.​

​

When Stephen was stoned, he only granted forgiveness for the sin being executed on him, not for forgiveness for all his murderers' sins against others and God as wel (Acts 7:59-60l. When Paul and the Corinthians forgave the sexual sin practised by one of their own (2 Cor. 2) , it was a sin that had involved them too, since illicit sex by a Christian joins Christ's body (fellow believers) with the participants (1 Cor. 6:15-29).​

​

I am of the view that Paul and the Corinthians were working to reconcile the offender to the church by holding hm accountable and relenting when he repented. They were not in some way forcing God to forgive the sin as far as it was committed also against God. Fir that the sinner needed to deal with God directly through Christ, as Peter told Simon the magician to do when Simon asked Peter the advocate on his behalf to God for Simon's forgiveness.​

​

Act 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Act 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23
For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Act 8:24
Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

​

​

I started in on the first paragraph, then.....

 

[PaulThomson]

I started in on the first paragraph, then.....

View attachment 282023

Sounds like it's time for c-o-f-f-e-e!

 

[PaulThomson]

Tell me which Catholic church or diocese allows woman priest,or divorce, or abortion,or not teaching perpetual virginity of Mary...etc

From Google AI -

"While the official and universal teaching of the Catholic Church explicitly condemns abortion as a grave sin, some individual priests and theologians have expressed views that allow for it in certain circumstances, though these views are considered contrary to official doctrine and often lead to disciplinary action.
Historically, some theologians like the French Jesuit Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) and the Spanish Jesuit Thomas Sanchez in the 16th and 17th centuries, as well as the Archbishop of Florence St. Antoninus in the 15th century, believed that indirect or early abortion to save the life of the mother was permissible, a position tied to the historic theory of delayed "ensoulment". St. Antoninus, who was later canonized, was not criticized for this view at the time.
In modern times, the organization Catholics for Choice advocates for access to abortion, rooting its work in an emphasis on social justice, human dignity, and the primacy of individual conscience. This organization includes lay people and, in some cases, individuals who identify as "Roman Catholic women priests" (whose ordinations are not recognized by the Vatican).
However, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has stated that Catholics for Choice is not a Catholic organization and promotes positions contrary to Church teaching. Priests who publicly support abortion access face potential disciplinary measures, as the Church hierarchy maintains a strong anti-abortion stance. For example, a network called the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion was formed in the pre-Roe era to help women find safe abortions, and while it included some priests, it was predominantly composed of Protestant pastors and rabbis. "

 

[hornetguy]

In modern times, the organization Catholics for Choice advocates for access to abortion, rooting its work in an emphasis on social justice, human dignity, and the primacy of individual conscience.

I have no clue how anyone could equate aborting an unborn child to "social justice", or "human dignity"....
I find no evidence in scripture that God wants us to violate scriptural tenets simply to make ourselves feel better or more comfortable..
This reminds me of the song made popular in the early 70's.... "If it Feels Good, Do It"....

 

[studier]

​

​

Let's consider a few parallel sentences that use the aorist subjunctive + perfect tense, then the present subjunctive + the perfect tense.​

​

1. Whoever drinks cyanide (aorist subjunctive) has received (perfect) a death sentence, and whoever is noticing (present subjunctive) the smell of almonds in a drink offered to him has been having (perfect) the chance to suspect cyanide and to save himself from death.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of drinking cyanide immediately initiates an ongoing real result, from that present drinking, of receiving a death sentence. As soon as any person drinks cyanide they will have received a death sentence and that death sentence will continue as real for them from that time onwards. The second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is smelling almonds in their offered drink and has not yet drunk, they have the chance to avoid fatal poisoning.​

​

2. Whoever practises (aorist subjunctive) satanism has sold (perfect) his soul to the devil, and whoever is recoiling (present subjunctive) from practising satanism, has been preserving his own control of his own soul from enslavement to satan.​

​

In this case, the first perfect tense verb indicates that the action of practising satanism indicates that the person at some point in the past sold their soul to the devil, and is continuing in that state. And the second perfect tense verb indicates that for as long as a person is resisting the temptation to practise satanism, they have also been preserving their own control of their own soul.​

​

Context may indicate whether we are looking at the ongoing result of a present action pr the ongoing result of a past action. But the structure itself seems to me to be ambiguous.​

​

So, is Jesus saying A."Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven from the time you began forgiving them, and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been retained ever since you began retaining them ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying B. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and who soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began retaining them (i.e. since the cross) ?​

​

Or, is Jesus saying C. "Whose soever sins you forgive, they have been forgiven since before the time you forgive them (i.e. since the cross), and whose soever sins you are retaining, they have been being retained ever since before the time you began holding the offender accountable (i.e. since the offence happened) ?​

​

Or something else?​

​

I lean to interpretation A, and think Jesus is dealing with reconciliation between those offended and the offenders of the ones offended, not reconciliation between the offender and God.​

​

When Stephen was stoned, he only granted forgiveness for the sin being executed on him, not for forgiveness for all his murderers' sins against others and God as wel (Acts 7:59-60l. When Paul and the Corinthians forgave the sexual sin practised by one of their own (2 Cor. 2) , it was a sin that had involved them too, since illicit sex by a Christian joins Christ's body (fellow believers) with the participants (1 Cor. 6:15-29).​

​

I am of the view that Paul and the Corinthians were working to reconcile the offender to the church by holding hm accountable and relenting when he repented. They were not in some way forcing God to forgive the sin as far as it was committed also against God. Fir that the sinner needed to deal with God directly through Christ, as Peter told Simon the magician to do when Simon asked Peter the advocate on his behalf to God for Simon's forgiveness.​

​

Act 8:21
Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.
Act 8:22
Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23
For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Act 8:24
Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

​

​

Thanks for the work, once again.

I was not viewing the perfect tense with its full range when I first responded to you. In case you didn't see my follow-up, see here.

From what I can tell, I think we are aligned.

Thanks again!

 

[studier]

@hornetguy That's a very good quote at the bottom of your posts:

No man is really saved unless he is in his heart obedient to Christ. C.H. Spurgeon

 

[HigherGospel]

actually, it's "chock full"..... get your hyperbole straight, ok?

 

[HigherGospel]

Wrong, scooter.... a lot of people do this on a regular basis.

That's describes you and your Augustinian fake gospel to a T

Same goes for the catholics who got false doctrine from Augustine.

You are so wrong on so many fronts, it's impossible to respond to all of them...

Followers of calvinism are reprobate so they are legends in their own minds.

Following the teachings of a murderer, now that's slow man - real slow.

 

[hornetguy]

That's describes you and your Augustinian fake gospel to a T

Same goes for the catholics who got false doctrine from Augustine.





Followers of calvinism are reprobate so they are legends in their own minds.

Following the teachings of a murderer, now that's slow man - real slow. View attachment 282051

???? Where do you get this stuff?

 

[HigherGospel]

Are you on dope?

No, that's your department