I fear there may have been a little satire in their tone.
They remain to be convinced that, in the words of the Prayer Book:
Almighty God... hath given power and commandment to his Ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their sins
BCP, the absolution from Morning Prayer, p3
Perhaps some further Bible study is called for.
Posts
6 comments:
But surely the key question is whether this is a "declaration and pronouncement" of a thing already true, or whether it becomes true by your doing it? Ex opere operato and all that.
If it's just a declaration of a thing that's true, then there would be no problem with me, when I was leading the service in church this morning, telling people, after they had confessed ("being penitent"), that their sins were forgiven (although I didn't say that explicitly, as it happens).
However, if it requires a minister to do this for it to happen, a special and chosen person, then there would have been difficulty.
The former view has no problem with "given ... commandment to" but might have trouble with "given power ... to". The latter view sits well with both words, but it seems to me that you end up in a position where a human priest, as well as Christ, is required for people to be forgiven.
Gerv, thank you.
Clearly the minister has no personal power to forgive sins. His authority comes from Jesus through his word. So the minister can only declare forgiven those who are penitent and believing the holy gospel. Fine, I'm sure you agree with that?
In a sense the minister is catching up with what God has already done. This is especially clear if we translate "that which you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven" etc. But that still does not make the binding on earth a nothing.
I would say the absolution is an important speech-act that we evangelicals have somewhat neglected and misunderstood. DP said something similar to me once.
I would want to see a very full on declaration of God's forgiveness.
I think it is somewhat analogous to lay presidency: anyone *could* do it, ministers should. It is most appropriate for the elder to do this as it is tied to Bible teaching, church discipline and the ministry of the sacraments.
Could anyone excommunicate?
Gerv, perhaps I should have added that of course as you know I dont think that a human priest is needed to forgive sins.
I think we can also show that Cranmer and the Prayer Book did not think that. After all, the people are still forgiven if a deacon takes the service, though the form of the absolution is a bit different.
I would say a human priest (minister / elder / PRESBYTER) is not needed for the forgiveness of sins but he is fitting for the authoritative public pronouncement of forgivess.
Of course it is good for all of us to reassure one another from God's word that God forgives repentant sinners when situation demands.
Bestest,
Marc
Our brief family Bible study on Sun afternoon wasn't entirely conclusive.
We chatted about Mt 18 and James 5 but its not crystal clear there that Presbyters are primarily in view.
So we could still use some help with the exegetical basis for presbyterial absolution, especially as Bishop Wallace is going to get me to sign up to it on Sunday?!
How about presbyter as father/overseer of God's household, speaking on behalf of the Father/Overseer (1 Tim 3:15, cf. 3:4)?
Or presbyter as undershepherd, representing the Great Shepherd of the sheep (1 Pet 5:1f; cf. 5:4; 2:24f)?
As, in the absolution, it's the Lord Jesus, the Good Shepherd who says "Your sins are forgiven", one would expect him to do it through his appointed representative undershepherd.
Thanks, Matthew. That sounds persuasive to me.
Post a Comment