POPE FRANCIS SPEAKS WITH FORKED TONGUE

When I was a kid, we watched many “cowboy and Indian” television shows.  One of the phrases that the Indians would sometimes use was, “White man speak with forked tongue.”  They would say this when someone would speak out of both sides of his mouth, i.e., when he would say one thing and then say something that contradicts what he first said.

Double Standard

Recently, Pope Francis has done exactly this when speaking to two different groups.  On November 5, 2019, an article from Catholic News Service, states that the pope recently said, “The Catholic Church must follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every person, otherwise it will not fulfill its mission of bearing witness to Christ.” 

He also said in that article, “Either she [the Church] evangelizes or she is not (the) Church.”  And again, “…to evangelize means to deliver Christ’s teachings ‘in simple and precise words like the apostles did.’”  See here:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/11/if-church-does-not-evangelize-it-will-decay-pope-says/

Ok, assuming that the Catholic Church did evangelize with the true gospel, the pope’s comments sound pretty good, but a month later in December, 2019, at Pilo Albertell high school in Rome, Pope Francis had a totally different message for the students there.  Here are a couple of articles that cover the pope’s statements:

https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/12/22/pope-francis-tells-christians-not-to-try-to-convert-nonbelievers/

https://disrn.com/news/pope-says-christians-should-never-try-to-convert-unbelievers-anyone-who-proselytizes-is-not-a-disciple-of-jesus

These are some of his comments:

•           After being asked by a student about people of other faiths, the pope said, “We are all the same, all children of God.
•   "If someone says they are a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism [sharing his faith or attempting to convert], they are not a disciple of Jesus.”
•       “In front of an unbeliever, the last thing I have to do is try to convince him.  Never.  The last thing I have to do is speak.  I have to live consistent with my faith.  And it will be my testimony to awaken the curiosity of the other who says: ‘But why do you do this?’  And yes, I can speak then.”
•       “Never, never bring the gospel by proselytizing.”
•       “Proselytism is not done, the church does not grow by proselytism.”
•       “We are not in the time of the Crusades.”
•       He stated that football teams and political parties proselytize, but there is no proselytizing with the faith.

So, to sum up his message to these high school students, a believer should never approach anyone to share his faith (proselytize) to win him over to the truth.  He must first live out his faith in front of that person for an undetermined amount of time, and wait until the person comes up to him and asks him about his beliefs.  Then (and only then) should he share the truth with him.  Anyone who does share his faith before he is approached is NOT a disciple of Jesus Christ.  Never try to convince anyone of the truth of Jesus Christ by speaking first.  One must awaken their curiosity first.

Wow!  This is so anti-biblical, it is unbelievable.  Neither Jesus nor any of His apostles evangelized this way. The early church certainly lived out the gospel before others, but they didn’t wait until someone questioned them before verbally sharing the gospel with them.

God’s Commandment to the Church

Jesus gave us the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28:18-20:

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “All power is given unto Me in Heaven and in earth.  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.  Amen.”

I would think that Jesus’ parting words to mankind were pretty important, but He says nothing whatsoever about waiting for people to approach you first.  On the contrary, there is a sense of urgency in His words.

Peter, the supposed “first pope,” boldly proclaimed the gospel to a large and mixed crowd (Acts 2:14-40).  But notice that Peter approached THEM with the truth – the truth that they were sinners who cooperated in the death of Jesus, the Messiah – and after this, the crowds asked Peter what they should do (v. 37).  He then continues to share how they could get saved.  But he did not wait around for them to approach him first.   And there are many other cases in Scripture that refute the pope’s method of witnessing (e.g., Matthew 4:17, 23; John 4:7-26; Acts 8:4-5, 26-35; 13:4-5;14:1; 18:24-28, etc.).

If we really believe that many are going to Hell (Matthew 7:13), how can we delay?  If you have the message of eternal life, shouldn’t you be quick to share it, both passionately and often?

 

Yes, as the pope suggests, we should be so faithful and obedient to live out the gospel message that unbelievers would take notice and approach us to ask about the gospel.  But we dare not remain silent until that day comes!

And today, there should be an even greater urgency to verbally and clearly share the gospel, seeing that the time is short before Jesus’ return (Matthew 24; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The world would never have been turned upside down by Christianity if the apostles had taken the pope’s advice.

Defining the Term

But in an attempt to defend the pope’s comments, some Catholics have said the issue has to do with the pope’s use of the term, “proselytize,” and that he uses the word to mean a forced conversion.  Thus, the reference to “we are not in the times of the Crusades” (when forced conversions were common).

But that doesn’t seem to be a good argument.  According to the Meriam-Webster dictionary, “proselytize” means:

“To induce someone to convert to one’s faith; to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause.”

Cambridge English Dictionary:

“To try to persuade someone to change his or her religious beliefs, political party, etc., to your own.”

Dictionary.com:

“To convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit.”

There is no hint of a forced conversion in these definitions.  Even more authoritative, the New Testament uses the word “proselyte” four times, and it simply refers to one who is the result of proselytizing… a convert.  Nowhere in the New Testament are proselytes shown to be forced converts. (Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:10, 6:5, and 13:43)

I just want to remind the reader that the pope had said above that football teams and political parties “proselytize,” and he also said that this shouldn’t happen in the church.  Does he mean that football teams and political parties FORCE their members to join, under threat of penalty or death?  This is highly unlikely, but to be consistent, he would have to say this.  But I doubt seriously that political parties and football teams use this method to obtain members.

 

Furthermore, since the word “proselyte” is a biblical term, it should be agreed upon by all who follow Christ.  The biblical concept of “proselyte / proselytism” cannot properly mean one thing in English and something else in Italian, or Russian, or Japanese.  For Christians, our understanding of it should always line up with the biblical use of it, since the Bible is inspired.  It doesn’t matter how the Vatican defines the term, nor the World Council of Churches, nor any individual church.  The God-breathed Scriptures are greater than all of these (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Conclusion

The pope’s “evangelizing” method is neither practical nor biblical.  Ironically, we should actually welcome the pope’s desire to NOT share his Catholic gospel, since this false, works-based gospel has done enough spiritual damage already.  But for true believers, it is imperative to share the biblical gospel message as often and as fervently as possible, using any good (and biblical) means to open doors, and to take advantage of every opportunity – not wait for the lost to approach us. 

We should all agree that our witnessing should not involve force, deception, threats, manipulation, etc.  Anyone who does that is not acting as a Christian, just as the Catholic Church was not acting Christ-like in the Crusades.  But the pope is now going to the other extreme.

 

I believe that what is happening is that, in the Catholic Church’s ongoing quest to promote the ecumenical movement, Pope Francis is playing both sides.  On the one hand, to his own people, he wants to appear biblical by insisting that the gospel is preached (as we saw in the very first article linked above), but on the other hand, he wants to appear friendly and willing to cooperate with, and accept, all other religious groups.  But this is very dangerous.  There is such a thing as spiritual unity, but only unity in the TRUTH is biblical. 

Remember at the beginning of this article when the pope was asked about people of other faiths, and he said that “We are all the same, all children of God”?  This is an extremely irresponsible and false claim.  We are all created by God, but we are certainly not all His children (Matthew 13:38; John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10).  It seems that no one wants to say it, but the truth is that all non-Christians (whether atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, etc.) need to be evangelized.  This is the greatest love we can show them.

I believe that most people in Christianity understand the terms “proselytize,” “evangelize,” and “convert” to be synonyms.  According to the dictionary and the Bible, they all mean basically the same thing.  And since the pope’s message to these high schoolers will be made known to the whole world, don’t you think that there will be very much confusion because of it?  The evidence shows that there is indeed.  Did he believe that everyone would automatically think that “proselytize” means to “force” a conversion?  This pope is very controversial and has a knack for not being very clear on some key spiritual issues.  It almost appears that he is doing this on purpose.

So, my Catholic friends, what is it that the pope is asking you to do?  Does he want you to “follow Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to every creature”?  Or does he want you to just live the Christian life while waiting to “awaken the curiosity” of others until they question you about your faith?

How can Pope Francis be trusted if he can’t be consistent with what he said just a month before on a key spiritual issue?  This man is indeed highly intelligent, but he speaks with a forked tongue.  

MATTHEW 16 - HAVE THE GATES OF HELL PREVAILED?

Matthew 16

v. 13) When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?”

v. 14) And they said, “Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.”

v. 15) He said unto them, “But whom say you that I am?”

v. 16) And Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

v. 17) And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood have not revealed it unto you, by My Father which is in Heaven.”

v. 18) And I say also unto you, “That you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

v. 19) “And I will give unto you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Introduction

This will be the first article in a series dealing with Matthew 16.  This wonderful passage above contains great encouragement for the church of Jesus Christ.  However, the Catholic Church claims that this passage  is “proof” that they are the church that Jesus has established from the beginning.  Here, they believe that Christ singled out Peter the apostle and made him the first of many popes.  They also see in this passage a special gift given to Peter alone, and they believe this somehow points specifically to the Catholic Church.  They derive some of their foundational doctrines by misreading these verses.  But these Catholic doctrines are founded on shifting sand (Matthew 7:24-27).

The Tactic

When someone accuses the Catholic Church of teaching false doctrine, the Catholic will often say, “Oh, no!  If the Catholic church would fall into error, then this would mean that Jesus’ words to Peter (“the gates of hell will not prevail against it”) would be false.  You wouldn’t want to call Jesus a liar, would you?!!  Therefore, the Catholic church cannot possibly teach error.  It is indefectible.  It is infallible.”

Or so they say.

The Gift of Indefectibility?

In last month’s article, we mentioned that the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia stated:

“The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” 

Well, the Catholic Church is not indefectible by any means, and this supposed gift of indefectibility was not at all “expressly promised” to them, or to anyone else, for that matter.  This is a misinterpretation of the passage.  See this article:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-indefectible-church.html

The Gift of Infallibility?

And neither is the church infallible.  “Infallible” means, in part, that one cannot teach error.  Since Peter was an apostle and since he wrote two infallible books of Scripture (1 and 2 Peter), he did have access to infallibility when teaching or writing under the inspiration of God.  But there is nothing whatsoever in the above passage that would suggest that Peter’s successors would be infallible or teach infallibly.  The Catholic Church reads into this passage a special privilege for themselves that no one else can claim.  After all, according to them, they are the true church of Jesus Christ.  But every article on this blog is a testimony to the fact that the Catholic Church is NOT the church that Jesus Christ built.

The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail

Jesus promised the true church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.  There are several arguments over what exactly this means, but basically, we know that Jesus is saying that the true church will endure to the end and succeed in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and His saving work on the cross, and winning souls, keeping those souls from going to hell.  This is how the gates of hell will not prevail.  It has nothing to do with a particular group “never teaching error.”

Error in the Church

Again, the Catholic Church believes that this is a “can’t-teach-error” passage, and that it only applies to THEM.  But if “hell prevailing” means that error was taught, then hell did indeed prevail, because there were all sorts of error in the early church.  That’s the very reason why the great majority of the epistles in the New Testament were written in the first place.  They were written to correct FALSE TEACHING within the church!  Although the church did not experience a complete apostasy, error was present in different degrees and at different times, even in the early church.  See these examples:  Acts 20:17, 28-30; Galatians 3:1-3; 2 Thess. 2:3, 10-11; 1 Tim. 4:1-2; 2 Tim. 4:3-4;  2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 3-4; Revelation chapters 2 and 3.

Therefore, Matthew 16:18 must have a different meaning than what they think it means.  It is not about an office of a “pope” with successors who could not possibly teach error.  It is not about indefectibility or infallibility for a particular denomination.  It is about the gospel, the good news of the salvation of Jesus Christ, the True Messiah, Who is the head of the church, and Whose gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16).  THIS is the foundation on which the church is built, and it has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Qualifiers

Yet, the Catholic Church continues to teach that this passage is about an infallible church.  But they will “qualify” (limit or restrict) the scope of this “gift of infallibility” by saying things like, “But this ONLY applies to OFFICIAL teachings of the Church.  For example, the Catholic Church’s gift of infallibility only applies when the pope is making an official pronouncement; and it’s got to be directed to the whole Church.  It’s not just when a pope offers his opinion or some unofficial comments about a teaching, nor for ‘disciplinary decisions,’ but it has to be when he is formally declaring something.  Furthermore, it is only a ‘negative protection’ for the Church.  This means that although the pope doesn’t necessarily always teach what he needs to teach, this gift simply prevents him from teaching error as truth, so it’s only used in a negative sense.”

But this is all special pleading.  The Catholic Church conveniently tailors this “gift” with ridiculous qualifiers to suit the needs (and ego) of the Church.  There is so much read into these verses that the original meaning of the passage is unrecognizable!  Their interpretation of the passage is a fantasy… and it is a perversion of the Scriptures.

And using “supporting” verses like 1 Timothy 3:15 (“the church is the pillar and foundation of truth”) doesn’t help, either.  Here, Paul’s instruction to Timothy was basically, “You need to be a pillar,” not “You are guaranteed to be an infallible pillar.”  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=pillar

And they also try to support their interpretation of Matthew 16 with verses like Luke 10:16 (“he that hears you hears Me”), but this was spoken by Jesus to the seventy, not to the apostles.  So, when ANY believer shares the truth of the gospel, Jesus is saying to that believer, “He that hears you hears Me.”  So, these verses do not at all support the Catholic Church’s twisting of Matthew 16 and their claim of an infallible papacy.

Conclusion

Two things we know for sure:  1) “The gates of hell have not prevailed against the church” is a true statement, but NOT for the same reason that the Catholic Church says.  It is not because the church cannot teach error.  It is because of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) of spreading the gospel, which is the power of Jesus Christ for every believer.  And 2) The Catholic Church is NOT exempt from error, even in its official statements.  There are far too many contradictions between what the Bible says and what they teach.

We will continue addressing Matthew 16 and the Catholic Church’s view of it in our next article.

THE HI-JACKING OF JOHN 20:23

If you are a Catholic or if you know many Catholics, then you are probably familiar with the concept of confessing your sins to a priest in a small private room called a “confessional.” While much has been written about the abuses of the Catholic confessional, our focus today will instead be on the Catholic Church’s abuse of John 20:23 (which they claim supports this type of confession). Here is the passage and its context:

19) So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20) And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21) So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." 22) And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23) If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (John 20:19-23 - NASV)

The Catholic Church tells us that when Jesus said, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them: if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained”… that He was not only giving the disciples the authority to forgive sins, but He also intended to establish the “Sacrament of Penance,” part of which involves the Catholic practice of confessing sins to a priest (also known as “auricular confession”).

CONDEMNATION AND FALSE CLAIMS

Not only do they claim this, but the Catholic Church also condemns anyone who denies this interpretation. According to the Fourteenth Session of the Council of Trent:

If any one saith, that those words of the Lord the Saviour, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and of retaining sins in the Sacrament of penance, as the Catholic Church has always from the beginning understood them; but wrests them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the gospel; let him be anathema. (Canon III – emphasis added)

AND

If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right; or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema. (Canon VI – emphasis added)

Note the anathemas at the end of each Canon. When the Catholic Church declares someone “anathema,” she is pronouncing the gravest form of excommunication possible… one which eternally condemns the person to Hell unless and until he does penance to the Church’s satisfaction (see the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia – under the topic, “anathema”).

Note also the claim that this type of secret auricular confession was “always from the beginning understood” by the Church in this way, and “ever observed from the beginning.” But this is not true, even according to the Church’s own teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that private confession to a priest was a NEW practice introduced in the seventh century:

…During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on [i.e., from the seventh century], the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament… (CCC #1447)

So, private confession to a priest was NOT “ever observed from the beginning,” and church history verifies this fact. Remember that these statements above (Canon III and VI) are dogmatic statements from a supposedly “infallible ecumenical council” and must be believed by every Catholic, yet they contradict (and condemn) the Catholic Catechism on this point. It seems that the Council of Trent, in a knee-jerk reaction to the Reformation, made false claims, forcing today’s Catholic to have to do damage control.

CAN A PRIEST FORGIVE SINS?

Just to be clear, we’re not talking here about when someone sins against you personally and you need to forgive him for it. This is about someone officially absolving (forgiving) all your sins, giving you a clean slate. So, in light of this, what about the Catholic Church’s interpretation of John 20:23? Is it really speaking of auricular confession to a priest? Did Jesus actually give anyone the power to forgive sins (like He does)? On the surface, it may look like it, but no, there is something else going on here. The Catholic interpretation is not valid for several reasons…

First of all, although there were “ministerial” priests in the Old Testament, there are NONE in the New Testament, contrary to what the Catholic Church claims. According to the Bible, all Christians are considered to be priests (1 Peter 2: 5, 9; Revelation 1:6). So this special class of ministers does not exist anymore. See this article on the priesthood:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/search?q=priesthood

Just this point alone destroys the foundation of the Catholic concept of auricular confession.

Second, there are absolutely no New Testament examples of anyone having his sins absolved by confessing to a designated person (unless that Person was Jesus). There are examples of public confession (Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:18-19), but we find no special person whose “job” it was to hear confessions (as in the Catholic Church).

Third, we DO have examples of those who prayed (or were instructed to pray) directly to God for forgiveness (Matthew 6:9,12; Acts 8:20-22; Luke 18:13-14). Jesus’ dying on the cross gives us direct access to God, without a ministerial priesthood.

Fourth, the structure of the Greek grammar in John 20:23 is rare, and important to recognize. The first pair of verbs (“forgive” and “retain”) are present tense. But the second pair of verbs, ("are forgiven" and "are retained") are both perfect tense, indicating a continual state that began before the action of the first verbs. In other words, the grammar indicates that God’s forgiving or retaining comes first, and then man’s PROCLAIMING of it afterward (based on what the person has chosen to do).

Many scholars will admit that the literal meaning of this verse, although awkward, is more accurately, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN forgiven,” or … “SHALL HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.” So, Jesus was simply giving the disciples authority to announce forgiveness to people that God had forgiven already. This is not a situation where a man DECIDES to forgive or retain your sins – it is a situation in which a man simply declares / proclaims / confirms what God has already clearly stated in His Word, concerning your response to the gospel. Forgiveness depends on whether a person is repentant and how he reacts to the gospel, not on some special formula that the “priest,” rabbi, or minister uses.

By the way, a very similar type of Greek construction is found in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 concerning “binding” and “loosing.” Here again, it is NOT a case of a man deciding something and afterward, God being obligated to give His seal of approval. It is simply a proclaiming of what God has already done.

For those who may not be quite sure what we mean when we use the term “the gospel,” it means “good news” and is simply the message that God loves us enough to have sent His Son Jesus Christ to Earth to suffer and die on the cross for our sins. He paid our penalty. It is a gift that none of us deserve and the payment of a debt that we could never pay. So, we don’t have to try and earn it… all we need to do is believe / trust Him for it. This is indeed good news.

Fifth, when it comes to absolving (i.e., forgiving all of a person’s sins), it is impossible to do unless you first know with absolute certainty what’s in the person’s heart. That’s why only God can absolve, and He doesn’t need a “middle man” to do it.

It is possible for a Catholic in the confessional to fool a priest into thinking that he is genuinely sorry for his sins, when he is not. And if the priest is convinced, he will mistakenly declare that the person is forgiven. In this case, we would agree with Catholics that this person is certainly not forgiven, since he is not fooling God. On the other hand, the priest could also retain the person’s sins when he is actually repentant. The job of the Catholic priest here is (supposedly) to forgive or retain sins. Yet, he cannot faithfully and “accurately” do it because he does not positively know the person’s heart. The priest is dependent on the honesty of the penitent (the one confessing). But only God really knows the heart of man, therefore, only He can absolve sins. Even the pompous scribes and Pharisees recognized this. (Luke 5:21)

Sixth, we must look to other verses that pertain to the same topic to get a fuller understanding of a passage. Jesus’ words in John 20:23 can be understood in a non-Catholic way when reconciled with the other three gospels. Let’s be sure not to miss the fact that this passage is unmistakably connected to the “Great Commission,” to the preaching of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was sending them to preach the gospel. When He breathed on them, He was empowering them by the Holy Spirit to do exactly that.

There are three times in the gospels where a specific group is given this Great Commission of preaching the gospel message and being sent out with power. The first time was after Jesus chose His twelve apostles. (Matthew 10:1-15; Mark 6:7-11; Luke 9:1-5) The second was when He sent out the seventy disciples. (Luke 10:1-12) The third was after He arose from the dead, when He addresses His apostles again. (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49; John 20:19-23). A close look at all these passages in their contexts will tie them all together as a unit, while never suggesting the concept of auricular confession. John 20:23 must not be interpreted apart from the other three gospel accounts where the Great Commission was issued. When placing the four gospels side-by-side, you can begin to see how John 20:23 is simply the Great Commission stated another way.

Also, within the gospels, there is a common theme of shaking off the dust from the feet of the preacher of the good news, condemning those who have rejected the message:

And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10:14-15 - NASV)

This practice was to show those who rejected the gospel that he (the preacher) wanted nothing to do with their evil ways, not even wanting their dust clinging to his feet. The concept of shaking off the dust in protest is also found in Mark 6:11, Luke 9:5; 10:10-11, and Acts 13:50-51. This act is an excellent example of “retaining” one’s sins, and is actually applying the principle of John 20:23 to those who reject the message.

Speaking of rejecting the gospel, notice what Jesus says:

The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me. (Luke 10:16 - NASV)

This ties in directly with the concepts of “dusting off the feet” and “retaining one’s sins,” yet, notice that Jesus was speaking here to the seventy disciples, not just the apostles. Both of these concepts are about rejecting the gospel, and those who reject the message / messenger are actually rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, there is a common thread here, a continuous line of thought within the four gospel accounts and when they are viewed together, there is no auricular confession.

As stated before, it is the acceptance (believing) of this gospel message with an attitude of repentance that will cause a person to be forgiven of his sins. The gospel has everything to do with forgiveness. This is because it is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16)

CATHOLIC ARGUMENTS

CATHOLIC CLAIM: ALTHOUGH WE CATHOLICS CONFESS TO A PRIEST, IT DOESN’T MEAN WE CAN’T CONFESS DIRECTLY TO GOD. IN FACT, WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO.

Perhaps so, but this seems to be somewhat confusing, since the Catechism repeatedly tells us that confessing to a priest is “essential.” (CCC #1424, #1448, #1449, #1456) So, this “freedom” for Catholics to go directly to God for forgiveness is questionable. It is either essential to go through the priest, or it’s not. Which is it?

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JESUS SAID, “AS THE FATHER HAS SENT ME, I ALSO SEND YOU.” JESUS WAS SENT TO FORGIVE SINS, THEREFORE, THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS MUST HAVE THE SAME OBLIGATION.

Using this line of reasoning, we could also say that since Jesus came to die on a cross, then every one of the apostles and every one of their “successors” were also expected to be crucified… right? Of course not. Did God also expect all the apostles (and “successors”) to be born of a virgin, since this too, was part of Jesus’ mission? Did He expect each one to be the Messiah, or to be the fulfillment of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? Absolutely not. These things (including forgiving sins) were specific to Jesus and His ministry, not anyone else’s. Not everything that applies to Him applies to us. Being fully God and fully human, He is in a different category than we are. Once again, when Jesus said, “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you,” He was simply referring to the spreading of the gospel.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: PRIESTS ARE NOT MIND READERS, SO THEREFORE, JESUS MUST HAVE INTENDED FOR THE PEOPLE TO ORALLY CONFESS THEIR SINS TO THEM IN ORDER TO BE FORGIVEN. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN’T FORGIVE THEM IF YOU DON’T HEAR THEIR CONFESSIONS.

The very fact that priests are not mind readers weakens the Catholic position. The power to absolve sins would necessarily require infallible knowledge of what’s in the person’s heart and mind. Priests don’t have this infallible knowledge and they can’t be absolutely sure if the person is repentant, so therefore, they can’t absolve sin.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: MATTHEW 9:8 SHOWS THAT GOD HAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS “TO MEN”… PLURAL. NOT JUST TO JESUS. HENCE, IF “MEN” HAVE THIS POWER, THEN IT MUST ALSO BE FOR THE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES, i.e., THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Notice what Matthew 9:8 actually says:

But when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. (NASV)

What the crowds actually SAW was the miracle of a healing (v. 6-7) – that’s what they were marveling about.

Furthermore, (if we’re going to be consistent with this passage) if “men” have the power to forgive sins today, then shouldn’t they also have the power to heal today? Can the priest say, “…which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk…’” (v. 5) and then back up his claim like Jesus did? Hardly. The whole point of Jesus’ saying, “Which is easier…” was to demonstrate His authority to do BOTH, because He is God. If priests have the authority for one, why not for both? If the priest can forgive at will (like Jesus), then why can’t he also heal at will (like Jesus)? Because of inconsistent logic, Catholics cannot use this verse to support their claim.

CATHOLIC CLAIM: JAMES 5:16 SAYS TO CALL FOR THE PRIESTS IF SOMEONE IS SICK, AND TO CONFESS YOUR SINS TO ONE ANOTHER. THIS IS INDEED CATHOLIC CONFESSION.

First of all, it says to call for the elders of the church, not the “priests.” These are two different words in the Greek. Secondly, if we should “confess to one another,” then why do we never see Catholic priests confessing their sins to a lay person (non-priest)? That’s what “confessing to one another” would be, wouldn’t it? It means BOTH PARTIES confessing. The confessing is mutual… it is to “each other,” just as this same verse also says to “pray for one another.” Here again, the Catholic argument is inconsistent. If “confessing” is a “one-way” street in this context, then “praying” would have to be also. But we know that Catholics expect both sides (priests and “laity”) to pray for each other. So, the Catholic interpretation reduces this verse to nonsense.

When the Bible says to “confess to one another” or “forgive each other,” it is simply saying that we must be willing to humble ourselves and admit our faults and shortcomings to our brothers and sisters, in order to reconcile with each other. THAT’S what James 5:16 is about. This verse in no way supports auricular confession.

CONCLUSION

The apostle Paul, when expressing his deep concern for the souls of men, did not ask, “How will they be forgiven without an ‘official absolver’?” No, he asked, “How will they hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14) He was most concerned with the spread of the life-giving message of the gospel. Paul knew very well where to find truth and forgiveness.

Please don’t be deceived – no one -- no “priest,” no rabbi, no minister… has the power to absolve sins. That is reserved for God, alone. God expects men to proclaim the gospel by the authority of His Word. And IF you repent of your sins and trust only in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, then you are indeed forgiven. We are never told in Scripture to confess our sins to a particular person. Again, forgiveness does not depend on a man telling you that you are forgiven, but it depends on your repenting and accepting the gospel.

The Catholic Church’s attempt to hi-jack John 20:23 and force it (under penalty of anathema, no less) to apply to auricular confession is:

· contradicting many scriptural principles

· ignoring the continuity and context of all four gospels as a unit

· simply reading a Catholic concept into the passage, and

· attempting to put people in bondage to the Catholic sacramental system.

Yes, we CAN and SHOULD go directly to God for forgiveness. We don’t need a “middle man,” a “professional forgiver” – what we do need is a right relationship with the One Who died on the cross for us… because He is the only one who knows our heart.