Anti-Catholic tap dancing around John 20:23

Thought i would share this for entertainment purposes.

I think could literally hear Mr. Slick tap dancing as I read this ‘rebuttal’.

First he stumbles his way around by saying Apostolic succession isn’t valid. So I guess the Church started a major reformation project as soon as the apostles died? Where’s that at in the bible since it’s bible alone??

But wait, then he says only God can forgive sins…well, duh, that’s what the Church is saying, a priest acts in Persona Christi.

Notice in his linguistical gymnastics how he doesn’t address in the passage in it’s entirety. If you forgive they are forgiven, if you retain they are retained. Dang!! how much clearer did the Lord have to be? Yet it’s Catholics he accuses of twisting scripture. Then Jesus says " as the Father has sent Me, I also send you." How did the Father send Jesus? With the authority to forgive sins:

Mark 2:10International Standard Version (ISV)

10 But I want you to know[a] that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he told the paralyzed man,

Slick even quotes that passage in the article and still went over his head lol.

carm.org/john2023-priests-forgive-sins

by Matt Slick

Does John 20:23 mean that Catholic priests can forgive sins? No, it does not.

“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 20:23).

Context is king when interpreting scripture, and this is no exception. Let’s take a look.

"When therefore 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 therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus therefore 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).

The context of John 20:23 is that Jesus was speaking to the disciples (v. 19). He breathed on them to receive the Holy Spirit (v. 22). There is nothing in here about priests having the authority to forgive sins. There is nothing here (or anywhere else in the New Testament) about apostolic succession that says priests have the authority to forgive sins and that it is passed down. The Bible does mention appointing elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), and that the disciples of Jesus had special authority (Matt. 16:18). It speaks of the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:19) as well as ordaining men to the ministry (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6; Titus 1:5). At best, the laying on of hands deals with ordination–not apostolic authority being passed down. After all, they were ordaining elders and not apostles; and it was the apostles who were given the authority by Christ to do miracles and write scripture. Nothing is said here about apostolic authority being passed down.

Have been forgiven
In John 20:23 the words “have been forgiven” is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect passive. The perfect tense is “I have been.” The pluperfect is “I had been.” The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., “I have been eating.” The disciples were not doing the forgiving but pronouncing the sins that “have been” forgiven by God. We find that the Psalmist says, “Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; and deliver us, and forgive our sins, for Your name’s sake.” (Psalm 79:9). Also, consider the following:

"Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’? 10 “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He *said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this.” (Mark 2:5-12).

Jesus forgave sins; and the Scribes, students of the Law, rightly stated that only God forgives sins. If they were wrong about that, then why didn’t Jesus correct them? Instead, he affirms their claim, states he has the authority to forgive sins, and then heals the paralytic. It should be clear that only God forgives sins; and Christians, as representatives of Christ, pronounce to people what has already been forgiven them by God.

So, John 20:23 is not saying that Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins. It is saying that Christian disciples have the authority to pronounce what sins “have been forgiven.”

Here’s another real doozy:

“The Roman Catholic Church was not in existence until the late 200’s early 300’s as an organization”

carm.org/didnt-church-burn-books-keep-them-out-bible

What is a organization?

Definition of organization
1
a : the act or process of organizing or of being organized
b : the condition or manner of being organized

So what do we call the first council in ACTS 15? What about Matthias being chosen to replace Judas? What about Paul writing letters and his missionary work communicating with others in the Church? Are these not organized acts and inner workings within the Church?

Right, they weren’t Catholics, that’s the claim. So where did the Church go from the book of Acts till the year 300 since he claims the Catholic Church didn’t actually exist?

Beyond ridiculous :rotfl:

I have been fighting a few trolls on YouTube. Very creative history in the “arguments” they come up with. Utterly amazing to me is the fact that so many allege the old canard of the illicit Constantinian Church - which then went on to produce the bible that they hold as sacred. Hmmm…

I love Dr. David Anders’ point: How did Jesus intend for the faith to be handed on? Did he command the writing and distribution of bibles and tell everyone to go and figure things out, or did He send Apostles? Some anti-Catholics believe in Apostolic cessationism, asserting that the bible has replaced the Apostles. Confusion reigns. Sad.

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven”

That verse doesn’t say anything about forgiving sins, also, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

I’ve tried to understand his logic, and it makes no sense whatsoever. Sadly, this isn’t the only verse he’s done this with. Matt Slick might be the only person I’ve read who can take a sentence with a very clear meaning and try to make it mean something completely different.

“Hey, Matt, I saw a blue car.”
“No, what you really mean is that you heard a pink bicycle.”
“Ummm, no, I used my eyes and focused on a car that was blue.”
“Really, what you have said to me is that pickle 25 I-9 spider right vanilla.”
“OK, Matt, whatever you say bro.”

Sometimes, it’s just better to let people like him do their own thing.

It’s clearly revisionist history. And in some cases just plain ignorance. Did you know that John the Baptist started the baptist denomination? And that the KJV was the first ever bible? Commonly held beliefs.

I love Dr. David Anders’ point: How did Jesus intend for the faith to be handed on? Did he command the writing and distribution of bibles and tell everyone to go and figure things out, or did He send Apostles? Some anti-Catholics believe in Apostolic cessationism, asserting that the bible has replaced the Apostles. Confusion reigns. Sad.

Heard plenty of theories but never the bible replacing Church leaders. But it doesn’t surprise me.

What the Jesus doesn’t say:

Therefore go and baptize people even though it’s symbolic and basically meaningless. Then write a book, making millions of copies, giving it to everyone and telling them to figure things out on their own.

What Jesus does say:

Matthew 28:19-20New International Version (NIV)

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

So I’ve seen him debate a few Catholic apologists. Went something like this:

youtube.com/watch?v=cnA3nADAcMo

I agree. There’s no reaching someone like this.

My granddaughter has fallen “in love” with a preacher’s son who has filled her head with all this nonsense. She did not receive much formation in the faith as she lived with her dad who went thru RCIA just so he could have more facts with which to argue.

She has bought it all, lock stock and barrel and since, in the end it’s about the boy, there is no talking to her at this point.

The problem is when he goes out and debates atheists and makes a fool out of himself with all his double speak, which then leads those who are watching to think that all Christians are like him.

:thumbsup:

It’s really frustrating that serious religious thinkers get lumped in with that lot.

Just a few things I noticed in his writings…

“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 20:23)…

In John 20:23 the words “have been forgiven” is the single Greek word aphiami…

The disciples were not doing the forgiving but pronouncing the sins that “have been” forgiven by God.

He must of really been winded after that tap dance. By any chance did you ask him to explain how the disciples knew which sins to retain? :wink:

That’s the part of the verse that speaks to me the most…if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained. Whatcha talkin bout John :confused: You just try to retain my sins while I go over your head directly to God. :smiley:

I have never heard a good explanation for that part of the verse.

At best, the laying on of hands deals with ordination–not apostolic authority being passed down. After all, they were ordaining elders and not apostles; and it was the apostles who were given the authority by Christ to do miracles and write scripture. Nothing is said here about apostolic authority being passed down.

Ok since the laying on of hands doesn’t pass on Apostolic authority and only Apostles were given authority to do miracles and “write scripture”. Wow, he didn’t pull a groin muscle on that one did he. In that one statement he basically states that the Gospels of Mark and Luke aren’t authoritative because they weren’t written by Apostles.

Therefore, it would be incorrect to use Mark 2:5-12 to prove his next point. Therefore, we would need to go to the authoritative scripture of Matthew.

Matthew 9:1-8
Jesus Heals a Paralytic
9 And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. 2 And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, knowing[a] their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

Who he admits was given the authority of Christ to write scripture and we all agree was inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote…they glorified God, who had given such authority(to forgive sins) to men. Not a man but to men.

I hope he doesn’t break a leg on that one. :wink:

Sometimes I think all we can do is pray for these people.

I was listening to a talk the other day and all of the sudden it dawned on me that in this generation common sense has been replaced with feelings. It doesn’t matter what the truth is or what is right, all that matters is how I feel about it. :banghead:

To his credit he did say elsewhere that those under the guidance of the apostles could also write scripture. He thinks very highly of himself and his own ability to interpret scripture. Has this big chart of essential Christian teachings according to Matt Slick. And if you don’t believe like he does you are going to hell.

And in regards to forgiving or retaining, I actually saw a CARM poster once say that this just meant if the apostles were walking down the street or something and happen to see someone sinning they could then exercise this option of forgive/retain. LOL! Yes, they actually said this.:rolleyes:

Oh boy, that is gonna be tough to overcome. He is going to be filling her head with all those reformed ideas day after day.

I actually listened to a couple of his debates. Usually when I hear someone debating outa context it frustrates me. But Slicky was so far off the mark when trying to avoid questions on where he gets his authority to interpret the Bible it was laughable. I was losing track of how many times he contradicted himself or couldn’t come up with a response other than you are wrong. We can only pray the Holy Spirit will someday open his heart and mind.

He got his clock cleaned by Mark Bonocore and especially Dr. Sungenis. And i was a protestant at the time rooting for him. I’ve noticed he no longer debates heavy weight Catholic apologists. Probably a good idea because he isn’t helping cause there.

He’s another claiming that Jesus physically manifested himself to him. Often times those kind of folks are unreachable as they become so convinced they cant be wrong and are on some sort of personal mission for God

In John 20:23 the words “have been forgiven” is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect passive. The perfect tense is “I have been.” The pluperfect is “I had been.” The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., “I have been eating.”

Wow, does he butcher the Greek grammar here!

The verb appears twice in this sentence – in the action of the apostles, it’s a 2nd person plural aorist subjunctive active verb, and in the second occurrence, we see the 3rd person plural perfect indicative passive form.

The perfect tense designates completed action whose effects continue into the present (not an action that “continues into the present”). The appropriate English phrase would be “I have eaten”, not “I have been eating.”

The aorist doesn’t indicate a time when it’s in the subjunctive mood; rather, it’s treated as if it happened at a particular point in time without indication as to when it occurred.

So, the meaning is that, if ya’ll (i.e., the apostles) were to forgive sins at some point in time, then they (i.e., those sins) were forgiven (and that effect of that forgiveness continues on).

I can almost hear Yoda saying, “mmm… the eisegesis is strong in this one…” :rolleyes:

Ah, yes. ‘Slick’ Matt. One of many whose self-assured smile and self-developed theology are drawing souls away from the truth.

I can envision their arrival at the pearly gates:
Anti-Catholic: "Oiga señor, we are the Christians, you know, the ‘born agains’!
Saint Peter: “If you are the born agains, where are your baptisms?”
Anti-Catholics: “Baptisms? We ain’t got no baptisms. We don’t need no baptisms! We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ baptisms!”

They need prayer.

He recently had a debate with a guy who is, I guess a universalist.

youtube.com/watch?v=I8GbvV4Dsck

Go to 2:06:10

And he gets into it with the guy he is debating and with his daughter. Shouting and acting unprofessional. Then the young lady shouts back at him about his daughter(who left Christianity for Atheism) And he totally loses it and storms out of the debate. Unbelievable…

I think he just does not have the temperament for this stuff and should leave it alone.

Thanks for the info. I you tubed Mark Bonocore and Dr. Sungenis debates and talks. Man those guys are well informed and deep. They both had some oldies but goodies as well as some angles and verses of scripture that I haven’t heard in the past. Definitely learned a lot in the past couple of days.

Thanks again.

Although certainly painful, I may watch it. I have noted that, in the case of YouTube trolls, they are normally not even baptized. They wiggle their way around it, but certainly not convincingly. I do not know about Slick Matt, but since CARM teaches that baptism is no longer needed, he may not be baptized.

There are quite a few who could use the “washing of regeneration.”

:thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.