One feature of the [Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) movement's teaching is that you can "call things into existence" by faith, by which proponents primarily apply to health and wealth, since they say that because - we are given promise (Mark 11:22-24), - we are given a share in Jesus's divinity as children of God, - God wants to give us good things (Matt 7:11), - we inherit Abrahamic blessings if we have faith that can move mountains (Matt 17:20) we can also speak restorations into existence **just like how Jesus *as man* was given the power by God and was able to**: - declare someone to be healed in the manner of Genesis 1 (see [this interpretation of Matt 9:24](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102587/10672)) , - command the demons to leave a possessed person (Matt 8:28-34) or - calms the storm simply by speaking (Mark 4:35-41), noting that Jesus's disciples can do "greater things" (John 14:12) BY FAITH **following the example** of post-Pentecost healers like Paul & Peter, while noting that Jesus could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of unbelief (Matt 13:58). Of course [WoF movement is *not* Biblical](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html) , but my question is a HISTORICAL one, **whether a similar movement has happened in the past 20 centuries**, *even if* it was not as "full featured" as the 20th century charismatic-tinged Word of Faith movement. More specifically I'm asking whether the element of **calling restorations into existence by word of faith** has ever been taught before, **especially keeping in mind that Jesus, Paul and Peter were doing that as well**. Please note that the work of restoration itself **IS** orthodox because we Christians are also called into Jesus's ministry of restoration, although understood more along the lines of restoring injustice, human dignity, and most importantly peace with God through repentance, which then flows over into the restoration in our horizontal relationships, bringing healing to humanity's many facets of brokenness. The preaching of the gospel can be seen as a means to this end. For example, orthodox Christians *can* declare "your sins have been forgiven" to a repentant person, or declare "Jesus loves you" to them (thus removing shame and bringing psychological healing), which in a sense bringing something not previously there into reality. I wonder whether there has been any group that teaches this style of explicit declaration **as a standard practice by *all* members of the group**, apart from Catholic priests declaring "I absolve you from your sins" during the Catholic [Sacrament of Penance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance) .

In 1 Samuel chapter 8 we see an aged Samuel giving his sons authority to judge Israel. His sons did not act with integrity and the leaders of Israel come asking Samuel to set a king over them like the nations surrounding them. Samuel is distressed over this request and prays to the Lord, who replies: > Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. - 1 Samuel 8:7b We see, then, a clear demonstration that the presiding over Israel of a human king is a tacit rejection of God as King. That is to say that God's intention, His highest ideal for Israel is as a theocracy rather than a monarchy: God as King speaking through his prophets. *Note: Even the implementation of the prophetic office was a condescension to the fearful request of the people (Exodus 20:19).* The monarchy, even under God's anointed king, David, is a graceful condescension (and not without consequence) to a wayward and idolatrous people: > According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. - v. 8-9 We know that Jesus Christ is given to sit on the throne of his father David and reign as King forever: > He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. - Luke 1:32-33 We also know that Jesus' kingdom is not a worldly kingdom: > My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. - John 18:36 Since Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and the throne of that kingdom is David's throne it stands to reason that David's kingdom was not ultimately of this world either. It was, to use the language of John 17:14-16, in this world but not of this world. Looking back to 1 Samuel we see that it is God's kingdom and God's place on the throne thereof that was rejected. Therefore, since God's kingdom and throne are everlasting, we may say that all human kings (good or bad) sitting on that throne reigned as proxies because God, Himself, was rejected as king. For those who believe that Jesus is less than or other than God (whether merely human or a lesser created being), how does a non-God Jesus sitting as King correct the rejection of God as King that began in Samuel's day and continues even now? In other words, if a proxy King is indicative of the problem of God's being rejected, how is that problem solved by yet another proxy King?

Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Misericordia Dei (Mercy of God), he wrote: > 1. Ordinaries are to remind all the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance that the universal law of the Church, applying Catholic > doctrine in this area, has established that: > > a) “Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole > ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are > reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral > impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case > reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”.(12) > > b) Therefore, “all those of whom it is required by virtue of their > ministry in the care of souls are obliged to ensure that the > confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they > reasonably ask, and that they are given the opportunity to approach > individual confession, on days and at times set down for their > convenience”.(13) Then in Catechism of Catholic Church said: > 2487 Every offense committed against justice and truth entails the > duty of reparation, even if its author has been forgiven. When it is > impossible publicly to make reparation for a wrong, it must be made > secretly. If someone who has suffered harm cannot be directly > compensated, he must be given moral satisfaction in the name of > charity. This duty of reparation also concerns offenses against > another's reputation. This reparation, moral and sometimes material, > must be evaluated in terms of the extent of the damage inflicted. It > obliges in conscience. And in New Testament (Study Bible) Jesus said (Book of St. Mark): > 23Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there > remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your > gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your > brother; then come and offer your gift. 25Reconcile quickly with your > adversary, while you are still on the way to court. Otherwise he may > hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the > officer, and you may be thrown into prison.… So it seems like just the confession is not enough to unshackle ourselves from the slavery of sins. We have to do reparation for our sins. When I was in Catechism class before my first confession a nun from Sisters of Charity told the Catechism class Our soul is like a clean white slate when we take the sacrament of baptism. And after that when we commit mortal or cardinal sins that cry toward heaven deep dark marks are left behind on the slate. We can do fair and honest confession and then the dark marks can go away now but the marks won't be filled up as they are scratched with hurt and the slate won't look new again until we do reparation for our sins. So can anyone tell me how and in what form or ways according to the Catholic approach one can do reparation exactly as Jesus Christ talked about, the apostolic letter and Catechism of the Catholic Church referred to with some examples? I can give an example where I need to do reparation. The other day my mom was driving the car and I was at Costco parking lot with my family and she was parking the car. Now there was a car in front of us wanting to back up. There was another car just behind us. So couldn't move. We were stuck. But the front driver was honking and telling me to move from his way so he can park. We had no space to move out of the way. He was honking about 20 seconds. And was backing up though there was no space in between his car and ours. So we gave a silent honk so he stops. He came out of his, was angry and was shouting. And I got angry and was yelling at him. He was yelling again. So I quiet down finally. Let him be himself. But later I thought as a Christian I shouldn't have behaved that way. I should have shown compassion and patience. So finally he parked his car. And finally, we understood he did all that because he thought we will get his spot. So I was proved a fool. Felt ashamed also. So need to do reparation for sins after an honest confession. How does the Catholic Church tell us to do reparation for our sins?

If universal reconciliation is true- so that everybody will *eventually* come to know God because of his son Yeshua, and therefore nobody will have their flesh burned forever and ever- why should we obey God?

Absolution can be withheld, I was wondering under what conditions such an action can be considered to be valid(not licit or illicit), if any are needed at all. Furthermore I want to know if a priest can validly absolve the sins of someone who has been refused absolution from another priest validly.

If a priest prematurely says the prayer for absolution, is the confession still valid? Is the confession still valid even when the priest is not wearing his normal vestments? Or if I didn't say the prayers the priest asked me to pray until I got home because I couldn't focus during the mass? Is it necessary for a penitent to bring up unconfenssed sins the next time they receive the sacrament of reconciliation?

When preparing for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, we are instructed to perform an examination of conscience. How exactly are we supposed to go about doing this? I am looking for a thorough, sourced, pragmatic, and detailed answer focused on the spiritual actions of the penitent in sequential order.

Paragraph 1457 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, without qualification, > Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time. On the other hand, in some Eastern rite churches, *infants* receive the Eucharist. Paragraph 1233 of the Catechism says, > In the Eastern rites the Christian initiation of infants also begins with Baptism followed immediately by Confirmation and the Eucharist, while in the Roman rite it is followed by years of catechesis before being completed later by Confirmation and the Eucharist, the summit of their Christian initiation. Since infants have not committed any personal sins, it doesn't seem like it would make sense to require them to receive the sacrament of Penance. Should Paragraph 1457 have an exception for infants?

When packing for a trip, sometimes we forget something small: a toothbrush, shaving cream, or socks. In order to compensate, we simply make a quick pit stop at a nearby convenience or department store to buy a replacement for the missing item. Can confession work similarly? My Question: - According to Catholic teaching, if I die before I can confess my sins, can I just confess them to God in Heaven? If you think about it, it would probably be much better to confess your sins to God than any human on planet Earth.

God unveiled to us through apostle Paul His plan... >**Colossians 1:20, NASB** > >to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." With what "things" did God reconcile in heaven through the blood of His cross?

When someone commits a wrong against another person, what is he supposed to do to make things right? Is seeking forgiveness from God sufficient, or do you first need to set things right with the other person? If the latter, what are you obligated to do -- apologize, make amends (what kinds), something else? Does the answer depend on the type of damage done? For example, is gossip different from property damage, or injury? Does the answer depend on who was wronged? Is the obligation to a fellow Christian different than one to a non-Christian? -------- I'm looking for a general Christian teaching on this subject. If there's a wide range of opinions on this, I'd like to know what the teachings are, and the Scriptural support for them. I am not Christian and thus am not asking what I should do in this case. I know what is expected of me as a Jew if I have wronged somebody else, and I am curious about how that compares to what your religion teaches about what is expected of a Christian who wrongs another. I'm not asking about the other side of the case, the obligation to forgive.

Is forgiveness and reconciliation the same thing? What needs to happen for forgiveness to occur? What needs to happen for reconciliation to take place?

I was raised a Lutheran, and am looking for an answer from someone (like a Lutheran) who believes in salvation by grace alone (by faith alone, etc.). I still believe in salvation by faith alone because much of the New Testament seems to indicate this (John 3:16, Romans 3:28, 1 Corinthians 3:11, etc), but I am wondering how we rationalize these words of Jesus (below) and how they can be reconciled with the 'faith alone' philosophy. They seem to explicitly state that one 'must do the will of the father' in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (have salvation, right?). Jesus said, in Matt 7:21-23 (NASB) 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a] miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

Over at Judaism.SE, there's a question: How should we respond to objectionable content in a public forum? It got me thinking, how should we apply Jesus' teaching on reconciliation: > “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.”—Matthew 18:15 (ESV ) Sometimes, we are in a public forum with someone who is our brother or sister in Christ, and they say or do something that hurts us or is a sin against us. When in person or when a private communication channel is provided (e.g., Facebook, email, and many internet forums), it's easy enough to take them aside. But what should we do where there is no way to initiate a private conversation with a fellow Christian? Obviously, this very site is an example of where this might come up. But I'm not making it a meta-question since it's really a question about how Christians should behave in _any_ public forum. And of course, it must be an ecumenical position since, unless the forum happens to be specific to a particular branch of Christianity, the other person might come from any faith tradition (or none at all). How do we love those who sin against us in strictly public places?

In a small town, the height of ecumenism is a joint Christmas choir concert. We certainly tolerate each other enough not to throw our respective clerics/elders out of our steeples. But we don't really come to any sort of understanding of each other. I've learned more about protestantism in 2 weeks of this website than I have in the last 20 years of parish life. Which raises the question, what is the overarching goal of ecumenism? It would seem to me that there are two natural ends. 1. Reconciliation, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed on our different courses towards salvation in harmony with one another or 2. Reunification, where we acknowledge our differences and proceed with our one course toward salvation in a sonorous melody. perhaps there are more goals, but are there any ecumenical documents to show that we're making any progress toward these goals? Also, are they polar opposites, if we proceed toward Reconciliation do we throw out Reunification?

In the book The Three Muskateers a character is given a note from the Cardinal Duke saying that >By My word and for the good of the state, The bearer has done what has been done. Was the Cardinal [who did exist](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu) able to do this as the Highest religious official in the country, or as a person in great power during a time of war? Or is this just a total fabrication of Dumas, with respect to princes secular or religious? If not, this doesn't also qualify as absolution does it?

I always hear people say things like, 'the debt was too large' ... well, why? Why couldn't I pay for my own sin? I don't like that Jesus took punishment for me, I would hate for my earthly father to get fined or beaten or imprisoned for me, it would enrage me, it's completely unfair. I want to pay the price myself. Why can't I? The only thing that seems to make sense is that for some reason there had to be a blood sacrfice and that sacrfice had to be a perfect being (similar to how animals could not be sacrficed if they had any defects.) ... but why? Why does the person/animal dying need to be perfect? It doesn't make sense to me yet, I know it's the truth because I believe in God but I feel like there's a block in my understanding, like I'm waiting for a lightbulb moment where I go 'ahhhh ok now I get it.' PLEASE DON'T SAY 'there are some things we will never understand because God is God and mysterious and we just have to deal with that.' I don't believe that is the case with such a critically important issue. The early Christians seemed to have such a good grasp on the whole concept but it's evading me. Please offer your understanding if you get it. Please don't say anything if you're not 100% sure. Thank you so much, I really want to get this so I can move forward in my faith.

What are the main theological stances on the doctrine of forgiveness vs Reconciliation? I think at the far far extreme (or perhaps the most biblical definition is): * we should forgive others as God forgave us * God forgives us for our sins, not bringing them into account * God treats us with the imputed righteousness of Christ * therefore, we should not bring others sins into account and treat them with the righteousness of Christ. I'm interested in an overview of other theological stances on forgiveness / reconciliation (I suspect there's a spectrum). The ideal answer would be something that present an ordered list, where each item has a name along with a description of how forgiveness / reconciliation is viewed within that stance. Thanks!