Conference yukon::christian_v7

    bob-
    
        you from cambridge, ma.? i knew a bobby shallow from there...
    
                     thomas

Well, first of all, the "electronic confessional" on the Internet has
nothing to do with the Church; it is an anti-religious joke.

Second, the bible clearly gives the authority to bind and loose sins
to the apostles and their successors.

Third, the bible clearly talks of confessing sins to each other.

Fourth, the practice is not limited to Roman Catholics, but is used by
a number of churches, including Lutherans.

Fifth, it is God who forgives the sins through the ministry of reconciliation.

Sixth, the penance has nothing to do with the forgiveness, but with creating
the disposition to avoid future sin.

/john

� Second, the bible clearly gives the authority to bind and loose sins
� to the apostles and their successors.

Matthew 18:18, in the context of church discipline, where an interpersonal 
resolution has been rejected, even when ultimately escalated to the church 
membership.

� Third, the bible clearly talks of confessing sins to each other.

James 5:16, in the context of body ministry between individuals.

� Fifth, it is God who forgives the sins through the ministry of reconciliation.

There are many verses which support this, starting from the LORD's prayer
in Matthew 6:12-15 - "Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors
... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
Father will not forgive your sins."  Poignantly underlined by the parable of
the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35. 

� Sixth, the penance has nothing to do with the forgiveness, but with creating
� the disposition to avoid future sin.

ie, the practise is seen as a discouragement to potential sin, not as
having any temporal or eternal effect on the committed sin for which the
penance is exacted?   I had not realised that at all.  In fact, I had heard
of penance almost used as an accepted 'fine' or overhead, when the path of
a particular sin is contemplated.  Obviously not by sincerely spiritual
folk, though, but nonetheless, as though this would prevent the sin from
affecting the relationship between the individual and God, even when the
path is premeditated and consciously chosen. 

Incidentally - just a detail - your points concern Biblical confession,
which nonconformists would generally take to be between any appropriate /
available Christians, and on request, rather than as applied by a hierarchy
of church leadership in a formal process. 

However I guess I missed where the introduction of any form of temporal 
penalty is seen as having a scriptural basis?

Thanks, /john

								Andrew

    re: .1
    
    Hi Thomas,
    
    No, from Salem NH...never lived in Cambridge, but I've been there.
    Definately a different Bob S. 
    
    re: .2 .3,
    
    Thanks John and Andrew for the info. I've always been quite ignorant on
    the reasoning behind that. I knew of the admonition to forgive others,
    but thought "forgiveness" in the absolute meaning came only from God, 
    remembering David in Psalms saying "against thee only have I sinned".
    
    Thanks, and God bless!
    
    Bob

|� Fifth, it is God who forgives the sins through the ministry of reconciliation.

| There are many verses which support this, starting from the LORD's prayer
| in Matthew 6:12-15 - "Forgive us our debts, as we have forgiven our debtors
| ... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father
| will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive men their sins, your
| Father will not forgive your sins."  Poignantly underlined by the parable of
| the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:21-35. 

I ought to underline that the verses I refer to here do not in any way
imply a 'forgiveness' in terms of absolution of guilt; they are concerned
with the state of the one forgiving, in human terms, not that of the one
forgiven.  They emphasise that if anyone holds a grudge in their heart,
judging himself to be wronged by a fellow sinner, his vision is distorted;
he has lost sight of the infinite debt we owe to the LORD our God, by
efectively judging one better than another.

ie - this is very different from the James 5:16 case, which concerns the 
state of the one who sinned

							Andrew

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    Does this really apply to sin?  I've never been comfortable with
    confessing sin with anyone but God.  Even while in Catholic H.S. I had
    a difficult time calling anyone Father or Holy Father but my Heavenly
    Father.
    
James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be
healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

    I agree with Andrew on the interpretation of this.  At our church, and
    even in Promise Keepers, they stress the buddy system for
    accountability.
    
    Mike

re .6

>Does this really apply to sin?

Take a look at the paragraph in which this verse appears.

/john

   | I have never been comfortable with confessing sins with anyone but God
   
   A Minister is the physical representation of God. Giving advise in answer 
   to any problem area you may have and to any question you may have.
   
   Before making a confession I always ask God to lead me to a minister that 
   is specialized in my problem area and I ask Him to speak through the 
   minister so that I receive the correct advise.
   
   With the graces you receive from confession the "penance" becomes a joy.
   
   
   In love of Jesus
   
   Peter 
   

      Hi,
    
        My understanding is that when Jesus said "upon this Rock", He
        was referring to Himself, i.e. He was contrasting Peter with
        Himself.
    
        The reason the gates of hell do not prevail against the true
        church is because the church is built on the Rock and not on
        the sand (which Rock is the chief cornerstone is Christ).
    
        When Jesus asked Peter 3 times, "Do you love Me?" He used the
        Greek 'agapao' and when Peter replied, "You know that I love
        you" he used the Greek 'eros'.  Evidence of a contrast.  The
        water from the Rock is agape and the Rock is Christ.  Peter has
        no grace outside of Christ.
    
        Taken alone (i.e. in solitude from the rest of scripture), the
        "upon this rock" text is ambiguous.  It can go either way.  The
        rock can be Christ or Peter.
    
        BUT, when the entirety of Holy Writ is brought to view, such as
        the storm parable (on rock or sand), the "Do you love Me" account
        between Peter and Christ, the chief cornerstone texts, the failing
        of Peter in (was it Ephesus?) where Paul rebukes him (see Galatians),
        and other scripture...I believe the ambiguity goes away.
    
        And it becomes quite plain that when Jesus said, "And upon this
        Rock", he was referring to Himself.
    
        And of course how this passage is translated leads to VERY different
        paths.
                                    
    							jmo,
    
    							Tony
    

                      <<< Note 754.9 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>
                             -< "Upon This Rock" >-

	Hmm, I've always thought Jesus meant that He would build
his Church upon the "rock" of the proclamation (and those making
the proclamation) that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living
God, as Peter had just made.

 That was my understanding as well.





 Jim

    
    
    Seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. Although I am in
    the other camp which says that Jesus said to Peter;
    
    	"You are Peter, and upon this rock...." 
    
    Indicating that, since the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was
    indicating His choice, then Jesus affirms this. I can't see it any
    other way.
    "I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith will not fail, and when
     you come back to me you must strengthen your brothers"
    
    	Peace,
    
    		Tom	
     
    

      Hi,
    
        I think 1 Corin 3:5-15 is relevent here.
    
    						Tony

>      <<< Note 754.12 by DPPSO::FYFE "I have much more to tell you..." >>>
>                        -< A matter of interpretation >-
    
>    Seems to me to be a matter of interpretation. Although I am in
>    the other camp which says that Jesus said to Peter;
    
>    	"You are Peter, and upon this rock...." 
    
>    Indicating that, since the Father revealed to Peter who Jesus was
>    indicating His choice, then Jesus affirms this. I can't see it any
>    other way.
>    "I have prayed for you Peter, that your faith will not fail, and when
>     you come back to me you must strengthen your brothers"

    My understanding from sermons in the past is that if you look at the
    Greek on the above verse, the word used for "Peter" is petros - a small
    pebble, while the word for "rock" (as in, upon THIS rock) is petra - a
    large, unmovable boulder.  I could have the words wrong, possibly even
    backwards, but I'm sure I have the definitions correct.

    Ron

    Tony, and all,
    
    Thanks for the note.
    
    It is fascinating and intriguing.
    
    I tend to agree with Tony, that the Rock as it is used elsewhere is
    Christ.  But the play on words(rock/pebble) is interesting.
    
                                        Patricia

      re: -1
    
      Hi Bob,
    
        Others have echoed the same thought.
    
        I'm sure open to it!
    
        "The MESSAGE [revelation] of the cross is the power of
         God."
    
        I happen to believe that the sole efficacy of the cross is
        revelatory, i.e. what they revelation does in the hearts of
        those who by faith embrace it.
    
        Thanks Bob!
    
    						Bless You,
    
    						Tony

 Did God give the Bible to the deep thinkers who could come up with all
 of this efficacy stuff, or did He give it to the common man so that He could
 be revealed and that the common man could come to know Him and his expectations
 of us and bridge the gap created by the Fall?  Sometimes we get into the 
 twists and turns and all sorts of stuff, when I think we are missing the
 main message.




 Jim

   
>        "The MESSAGE [revelation] of the cross is the power of
>         God."
    
>        I happen to believe that the sole efficacy of the cross is
>        revelatory, i.e. what they revelation does in the hearts of
>        those who by faith embrace it.


Tony,

I was just browsing through here, and though I think that Yeshua's
willingly allowing Himself to be executed for our sins affects hearts, 
I think that it really is a whole lot more than that.  He made real atonement 
for us by taking our sin upon Himself.  I'm not sure why life is required as 
the cure for sin, but it is, and He gave His to redeem ours.

Leslie

    But just to make things clear, I agree with Bob P. that the
    rock on which the church was to be founded is that Yeshua is
    the Son of God, and the promised and looked for Messiah.

    Leslie

      Hi Jim,
    
        Please excuse me for using the word 'efficacy' which actually
        is a fairly common theological term and means 'what it
        accomplishes.'
    
      Hi Leslie,
    
        This is a topic that has been quite the rathole thanks largely
        to me.
    
        I believe that all that we are delivered from is sin and only
        the love that is demonstrated at the cross could be sufficient
        revelation to deliver from sin.  So yeah, His death was required.
    
        So actually, my view is in harmony with what you said though
        I am sure in a way in which you do not agree.
    
        (And thats ok with me!!!)
    
    						Tony
                                                                         

    I think the "rock" is Christ as well as faith in Him.

    
    
    Re: .19
    
    	Hi Leslie,
    
    		His life was required in order to satsify the requirements
    	of redemption or atonement. Man in the form of Adam sinned against
    	God, but Adam being a man, and therefore finite, could not atone
    	for this sin, since the person offended was God who is infinite.
    
    	Therefore the ONLY solution, was that the Son of God, Jesus, became	
    	man. Hence, being a man, the same race of Adam and being at the 
    	same time God, could indeed atone perfectly for this sin.
    	
    	There's a whole lotta theology in there somewhere.
    	
    	Peace,
    
    		Tom
    

      I'm open to that Mike.
    
      A tad belated, but...
    
        Your welcome Pat and thanks for the thanks!
    
    						Tony

>    My understanding from sermons in the past is that if you look at the
>    Greek on the above verse, the word used for "Peter" is petros - a small
>    pebble, while the word for "rock" (as in, upon THIS rock) is petra - a
>    large, unmovable boulder.  I could have the words wrong, possibly even
>    backwards, but I'm sure I have the definitions correct.

Yes, but you shouldn't look at the Greek, you should look at tha Aramaic.

Jesus named Simon "Kephas" in Aramaic, which doesn't have the "pebble/rock"
distinction.  The "petra/petros" distinction didn't enter the text until it
was translated into Greek.

/john

hi John,

� Yes, but you shouldn't look at the Greek, you should look at tha Aramaic.

What's your source for Aramaic usage giving the Greek of the New Testament?

								Andrew

>What's your source

John 1:42
1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5
Gal 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14

And scholarly knowledge of the Aramaic language.

/john

      Hi John,
    
        Support then of ambiguity, no?
    
        I mean, Jesus could have referred to Peter or Himself when
        He said, "upon this rock" as Jesus is a Kephas as well.
    
        Just another key example of the need to study "line upon
        line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little."
    
        No ambiguity as to who the Rock the church is built on *IF*
        this is done.
    
        If its not done...plenty of ambiguity!
    
        Again (jmo).
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    
    
    	little rock - big rock, I don't think it's the size that matters.
    	it is the implication that it was to Peter he was addressing this,
    	not to anyone or anything else.
    
	BTW: Today is the feast day of Sts.Peter & Paul as celebrated by the
    	Church.
    
	Peace,
    		
    		Tom
    

      Hi Tom,
    
        Well, yeah, it does matter if when Jesus said "upon this rock"
        it referred to a _bigger_ rock than when he said, "You are a
        "rock".  Then clearly, though Peter is called a rock, he cannot
        be the one referred to as that which the church is built on.
    
        If, as John Covert showed us, the rocks are actually the same
        word (from the original), it just means there is ambiguity.
        When Jesus says, "upon this rock", He can be continuing his
        discussion to Peter ABOUT Peter OR He can be drawing a contrast
        between Peter and Himself.
    
        That is, taking the passage all by itself, one cannot know who
        the rock is when Jesus says "upon this Rock."
    
        And thus we need to compare spiritual with spiritual.  Study the
        entirety of the scriptures and introduce all texts with similar
        word usages, phrase usages. thematic parallels.
    
        And that is the essence of my input.  Don't take the text by
        itself.  Bring in the whole word.  And if one does this, I believe
        it becomes apparent that Jesus was _contrasting_ Peter with Himself
        and the rock referred to when He says "upon this rock" is none 
        other than Himself.
    
        Again, (jmo).
    
    						Peace and God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                 

             <<< Note 754.25 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Jesus named Simon "Kephas" in Aramaic, which doesn't have the "pebble/rock"
>distinction.  The "petra/petros" distinction didn't enter the text until it
>was translated into Greek.

    	In addition, I recall hearing that in Aramaic, Simon's original
    	name meant "grain of sand".  If Jesus was going to simply change 
    	Peter's name to "pebble" from "grain of sand", well why bother?

� <<< Note 754.25 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
� The "petra/petros" distinction didn't enter the text until it was
� translated into Greek. 
Hi John,

Do you consider the Greek New Testament a translation of a Hebrew original, 
or the original inspired text?

							Andrew

    
    	
    	RE: .30	
    
    		Hi Tony,
    
    			I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this.
    
    	I just cannot see any literary justification for taking the
    	interpretation that you take.
    	
    	The Father made HIS decision known. Jesus, recognising this, says;
    	
    	"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
    	
        The sentence indicates that the person upon which the Church will
    	be built is Peter. Peter rallies the other Apostles after the
    	crucifixion and together they build the foundations of the early
    	Church. The building is the structure of the Church to which all
    	are called to hear the Good News. It is the Church which dispenses
    	the Word of God. 
    	It was to man that Christ entrusted His Word, and it was upon man
    	that Christ chose to build the structure that would keep His Truth
    	intact and safe until he should come again. The Holy Spirit was
    	given to them that they would safeguard the Truth and lead them
    	into the fullness of that Truth.
        Christ was going back to His Father, he could not leave His
    	embryonic Church without a leader, just as He was leader, he had
    	learned everything from His Father and given this to His disciples.
    	Then when it was His time to return to the Father, they chose
    	another to be the anchor, the rock, the leader to hold his flock 	
    	together and continue to build the Kingdom of God on earth.
    	
    	If you choose to intepret this passage as you do, then you overturn
    	the Church's teaching from the beginning, you choose not to accept
    	that the Church was built on Peter which is what the Church has 
    	believed from it's beginning. This is the belief enlightened by the 
    	guidance of the Holy Spirit and entrusted to the Church.  
    
        Peace,
    		
    		Tom	

Hi Tom, 

The critical point is that Peter is a part of the church, rather than the
church being a 'part' of Peter.  The original text makes this clear.  In
context, we also see the great significance of the recognition that Jesus
is 'The Christ, the Son of the living God'.  This is a crucial step for
anyone becoming a Christian, particularly in terms of recognition at that
stage, prior to Jesus' death. 

In John 14:26 and 16:13 it is clear that it is a ministry of the Holy 
Spirit to reveal the Word of God to men's hearts.

Peter had responsibility among the apostles, rather than over the apostles.
1 Corinthians 14:29 show that there is a collective responsibility to test 
each other in principle, and in Galatians 2:11 we see this principle 
applied to Peter - and by implication, accepted by him, as near the end of 
his life he affirms Paul's value and standing as a brother, who has been 
used to pen scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

�	I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this.
I rather think that is the bottom line on this one!  I doubt I can persuade 
anyone, much less the pope!  ;-)

								Andrew

    .35
    
    Amen Bob!  I really agree with what you have written and appreciate the
    way it was written, very understandable and clear.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    My study Bible backs up the statement that Jesus is the Rock on which
    the church is built (according to the original greek). The fact is that
    Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone and how can that Cornerstone be laid on
    a human foundation?? The church cannot be based upon a human (or line
    of humans) because that foundation is not a strong enough base and it
    would be blasphemy to say that the Cornerstone is laid on a human
    foundation.
    
    The church must be built on the foundation of Jesus because (as
    Gamaliel said in Acts 5:38-39) if it is built on a human foundation it
    will crumble (the wise man built his house upon the Rock not the sand).
    
    Love
    Ben