Scripture and retaining or remitting sins

Typically, if anything even looks like development, I immediately buck up against it. Let the Romans develop doctrine, while we keep the actual original deposit of faith. So even if a doctrine appeared in the 4-5th centuries (safe by Anglican standards), I would not push for it.

What seals the deal for me for absolution (apart from the teaching of the church) is that it already existed prior to the New Testament. It is similar to how baptism emerged out of the ascetic practices of the Essences and other "monastic" Jews, who engaged in ritual purification and it is assumed that John the Baptist himself was an Essene. There is a whole school of studies today called the Jewish Roots of the New Testament.

Anyway, on the existence of absolution prior to the New Testament.

Here are some articles on "binding and loosing" (which is connected to absolution); what that phrase meant in Hebrew and in the specifically Jewish context:
https://www.emethatorah.com/binding-and-loosing-properly-understood
https://sidroth.org/articles/binding-loosing-torah-power/
https://weekly.israelbiblecenter.com/binding-loosing-first-century-style/

 

If I understand correctly, the idea being put forth is that the church leaders, led by the Holy Spirit, have authority to forbid or allow various practices (such as in the order of a church service or liturgy, among other things). Is that right?

If that's correct, then one may conclude that the leaders of the Anglican Church had the authority to place a general confession and an absolution statement in the weekly liturgy, and this authority 'makes it so' in heaven as well as on earth. Assuming, of course, that they have been accurately led by the Holy Spirit in doing so.

But one could also conclude that the leaders of, say, the Baptists had the authority to refrain from placing any general confession & absolution in their liturgy. And their authority 'makes it so' for them; since they have so ruled, their laity are free from the practice. Assuming once again that the Holy Spirit has so led them.

This seems to suggest that church leaders are given considerable leeway to make administrative decisions like this, and the laity need not trouble their 'pretty little heads' about it; they can relax and go with what their leaders have decided. Anglicans have their way. Baptists have theirs. And God isn't going to be upset about either one, if the leaders are serving their people according to what they believe God intends.

Comments?