The power to forgive sins...

kelly1

Hello all,

I'd like to begin a debate on the subject of "the power to forgive sins".

In the Gospel of John, chapter 20, Jesus has just risen from the dead and while the apostles were gathered together behind locked doors, Jesus appeared among them and granted them peace. And then He said to them:

Jn 20:21 .... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

I think it's clear from this passage that Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. They also had the power to deny absolution if they felt that the proper conditions for forgiveness weren't met. e.g. the person had no intention of amending his ways.

See also:

Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

and

2 Cor 5:18 But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. 19 For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation.

By confessing you sins to a priest you exercise humility and confess to God as Christ intented.

I'd like to hear comments especially from non-catholic Christians please. What's your take on the above passages?

God bless,
Noel.

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote:

Hello all,

I'd like to begin a debate on the subject of "the power to forgive sins".

In the Gospel of John, chapter 20, Jesus has just risen from the dead and while the apostles were gathered together behind locked doors, Jesus appeared among them and granted them peace. And then He said to them:

Jn 20:21 .... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.



I think it's clear from this passage that Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. They also had the power to deny absolution if they felt that the proper conditions for forgiveness weren't met. e.g. the person had no intention of amending his ways.

I'm just curious about this interpretation...what if they disagreed on a particular case?

See also:



and



By confessing you sins to a priest you exercise humility and confess to God as Christ intented.

I'd like to hear comments especially from non-catholic Christians please. What's your take on the above passages?

God bless,
Noel.

How is it indicated that he's referring to apostles here? Again, just curious.

kelly1

The Mad Hatter wrote:

I'm just curious about this interpretation...what if they disagreed on a particular case?

This would never arise. Confession is on a one-to-one basis. If a person is sorry for their sins and has a firm intention of amending their ways, there's no reason not to receive absolution.

The Mad Hatter wrote:

How is it indicated that he's referring to apostles here? Again, just curious.

Which passage does this refer to?

God bless,
Noel.

The Mad Hatter

kelly1 wrote:

This would never arise. Confession is on a one-to-one basis. If a person is sorry for their sins and has a firm intention of amending their ways, there's no reason not to receive absolution.

Well, I don't see anything to suggest that. But I imagine you know the scripture here considerably better than I do.

[/quote]Which passage does this refer to?

God bless,
Noel.[/QUOTE]

The second and third.

kelly1

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Well, I don't see anything to suggest that.

Tradition is equally important as scripture (keeping in mind that the bible came from the Church). It's now formalized in canon law.

Re you question on the references to the apostles, the apostles were referred to as disciples in the Gospel.

Re Matthew 18:18, verse 1 begins with "At that hour the disciples came to Jesus"

Re 2 Cor 5:18, it doesn't specifically mention the apostles but I don't see who else it could refer to. In John 20:21, it only refers to the disciples being present when Jesus gave them the power to forgive sins.

God bless,
Noel.

Run_to_da_hills

There is not a unbiblical practice than the confessional. The idea that a sinful man can forgive someone's sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer ."For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

According to Catholic.org ..."The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is a Sacrament in which we are sorry for our sins, confess them to a priest, receive forgiveness for them and are reconciled with God and the Church." -SOURCE http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/reconciliation.shtml

What a bunch of lies! No priest can forgive anyone's sins. He can't even forgive his own sins! Come to think of it, who does forgive the priests sins? and many priests have committed abominable acts as you all know. Does he go to confession too? If the priest goes directly to God, then why can't you? Even the corrupt religious leaders of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, "who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7).

MeatProduct

I believe Jesus saw sin as an illusion. He tells the apostles to forgive what they can forgive and don't what you can't. The power of sin lies with the observer, not with the sinner. For you to perceive sin you have already separated yourself from god and see differences in others. To see sin we have to first see it in ourselves and we then project it outward onto the world. To avoid feeling guilt we put sin onto others. The more I read the teachings of Jesus the more obvious this is becoming. We are the creators, each and every one of us and that's a lot of responsibility so it's much easier to dump it on someone else.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we started to see what joins us instead of what separates us

Nick

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

There is not a unbiblical practice than the confessional. The idea that a sinful man can forgive someone's sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer ."For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

According to Catholic.org ..."The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is a Sacrament in which we are sorry for our sins, confess them to a priest, receive forgiveness for them and are reconciled with God and the Church." -SOURCE http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/reconciliation.shtml

What a bunch of lies! No priest can forgive anyone's sins. He can't even forgive his own sins! Come to think of it, who does forgive the priests sins? and many priests have committed abominable acts as you all know. Does he go to confession too? If the priest goes directly to God, then why can't you? Even the corrupt religious leaders of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, "who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7).

Priests cannot absolve their own sins. They need to go to another priest for absolution.

I would ask you please to read this verse again:

Jn 20:21 .... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

How could this verse be interpreted as anything other than Christ conferring the power to forgive sins. BTW, it isn't the priest who forgives sins but God. Jesus by the authority given to Him by His Father, gave the Church the authority to forgive sins.

Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

God bless,
Noel.

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

There is not a unbiblical practice than the confessional. The idea that a sinful man can forgive someone's sins is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 1st Timothy 2:5 couldn't be clearer ."For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Jesus NEVER gave His Apostles the power to forgive people's sins.

According to Catholic.org ..."The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is a Sacrament in which we are sorry for our sins, confess them to a priest, receive forgiveness for them and are reconciled with God and the Church." -SOURCE http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/reconciliation.shtml

What a bunch of lies! No priest can forgive anyone's sins. He can't even forgive his own sins! Come to think of it, who does forgive the priests sins? and many priests have committed abominable acts as you all know. Does he go to confession too? If the priest goes directly to God, then why can't you? Even the corrupt religious leaders of Jesus' time knew that only God can forgive sin, "who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7).

X - Roman Catholic comment:
Is it not that the Priest advises you how to seek forgiveness by giving you penance?

I don't see how the tradition of reading New Testament Scripture can be separated from the tradition of the Church that decided what was New Testament scripture it in the first place.

Should you not just take them both or reject them both?

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote:

X - Roman Catholic comment:
Is it not that the Priest advises you how to seek forgiveness by giving you penance?

I'm not sure I understand the question but penance is given in order to atone for sins and shorten temporal punishment in Purgatory. It is the eternal punishment due to sin that is forgiven in confession.

God bless,
Noel.

JoeB-

LOL

Why would anybody go to a sinful priest in order to be forgiven? Simply because some other sinful man in a fancy robe says it is the way to do things?

The issue of priests 'deciding' whether or not a person is repentant raises some interesting questions for me... for example, what if someone goes for confession and the priest says he is not repentant... so the person goes to a second priest who 'forgives' him... presumably Catholics will say the sinner 'tricked' the second priest into forgiving him and God will see through this ploy... if they take this position then why confess to priests at all, why not simply confess to God directly... simply by thinking about it as God apparently has a direct line into the minds of 6 billion people.

LOL

quote one
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

quote 2
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

The above statements are contridictory and aren't self consistent... like the rest of the bible... an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek etc.... it seems clear that the bible can be used to support any position and so people who quote from it in order to support an opinion are simply delusional (in my humble opinion).

Cheers
Joe

Medina

kelly1 wrote:

Hello all,

I'd like to begin a debate on the subject of "the power to forgive sins".

In the Gospel of John, chapter 20, Jesus has just risen from the dead and while the apostles were gathered together behind locked doors, Jesus appeared among them and granted them peace. And then He said to them:



I think it's clear from this passage that Jesus gave the apostles the power to forgive sins. They also had the power to deny absolution if they felt that the proper conditions for forgiveness weren't met. e.g. the person had no intention of amending his ways.

See also:



and



By confessing you sins to a priest you exercise humility and confess to God as Christ intented.

I'd like to hear comments especially from non-catholic Christians please. What's your take on the above passages?

God bless,
Noel.

Kelly1 you sound so much like I used to.
I remembering arguing on this forum about 18 months ago about how confessing to a priest was an expression of humility (I was Catholic then..now I'm Muslim elhamdulillah).

Then I realised...
IF theoretically the holy spirit does exist ( i believe it does not)
(Quran mentions a 'holy spirit also but this is reference to Gabriel the angel)
it was bestowed upon those 11 apostles only
and Jesus (through the 'holy spirit' gave the power to forgive) but ultimately this came from God 'The Father' ...
It was not bestowed upon all mankind ..'priests' did not exist back then
just those apostles.
So the 'priests' of today have no rights or power to forgive sin.
Paul just told his followers they had the right to do so.

There is nothing in the New Testament which backs up that ALL apostles of Jesus had the power to forgive sins...only those original ones in that room.

kelly1

In an effor the get this thread moving again, could I have some protestant interpretations on the verses below please?

Jn 20:21 .... As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Did or didn't Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins in His name?

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote:

Did or didn't Jesus give the apostles the power to forgive sins in His name?

God bless,
Noel.

I believe he did yes. He bestowed power to his apostles, and sent them out to continue the ministry that his Father had sent him for. Now, how does that tie in with confessing to a priest?

kelly1

JimiTime wrote:

I believe he did yes. He bestowed power to his apostles, and sent them out to continue the ministry that his Father had sent him for. Now, how does that tie in with confessing to a priest?

Because authority (to forgive sins) is transferred by the sacrament of ordination.

There are several example of ordination NT and they all involve the laying on of hands. e.g.

Choosing a replacement for Judas:

Acts1:20 ...And his bishopric let another take. ...... 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship.

Acts 6:5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith, and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
6 These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

Paul's ordination:

Acts9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou camest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:3 Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. 4 So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

Acts 14:22 And when they had ordained to them priests in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed.

Paul says that his office is divinely appointed:

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister according to the dispensation of God, which is given me towards you, that I may fulfill the word of God:

Paul says that being a bishop means to hold office:

1 Tim 1:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

1 Tim 4:13 Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. 14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.

Paul warns that the office of bishop isn't to be taken lightly:

1 Timothy 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man.

2 Tim 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

Assuming that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, would it make any sense if they didn't pass this office on? What would be the point in Jesus' giving this authority for a limited period of time?

God bless,
Noel.

PDN

kelly1 wrote:

Paul says that being a bishop means to hold office:

Noel, aren't you been just a wee bit selective here? You quote 1 Timothy 3:1, but miss out the next verse that says the bishop must be a husband of one wife.

kelly1

PDN wrote:

Noel, aren't you been just a wee bit selective here? You quote 1 Timothy 3:1, but miss out the next verse that says the bishop must be a husband of one wife.

You've conveniently side-stepped my points.

Paul recommended celibacy in fact:

1 Corinthians 1:7 For I would that all men were even as myself [unmarried]: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN

kelly1 wrote:

You've conveniently side-stepped my points.

Paul recommended celibacy in fact:



God bless,
Noel.

And you have conveniently ignored my question.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote:

Because authority (to forgive sins) is transferred by the sacrament of ordination.
There are several example of ordination NT and they all involve the laying on of hands. e.g.

Choosing a replacement for Judas:

Paul's ordination:

Paul says that his office is divinely appointed:
Paul says that being a bishop means to hold office:
Paul warns that the office of bishop isn't to be taken lightly:
Assuming that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, would it make any sense if they didn't pass this office on? What would be the point in Jesus' giving this authority for a limited period of time?

God bless,
Noel.

Noel, use your reason. What you are saying is that priests are apostles. That they have inherited apostleship from Jesus' day. Remember, that apostles healed the sick, gave sight to the blind etc. They were filled with spirit. In being filled with spirit, they could ressurect the dead, as both Jesus and Elijah had done. Apostleship was for those who were messangers of the Spirit. In fact Paul qualify's his apostleship by stating that he was an apostle based on the fact that he was not trained or selected by men (Galatians 1:11-12)

Paul called himself an apostle born out of due time (I Corinthians 15:8). Think on what this implies. There was a season when apostles were selected. Paul was an unusual case. He was an exception to the rule because he came later than the other apostles. If apostles were to continue to appear, then Paul's case would not have been unusual. He would not have been born out of due time. Obviously, there was a limited season for apostles to be on the earth.

kelly1

PDN wrote:

And you have conveniently ignored my question.

I think my response answered your question about my selectivity. My response shows how Paul prefers the unmarried state for the clergy. In 1 Timothy 3:2, he means that you cannot have more than one wife if you want to be ordained he doesn't say you have to be married. Paul wasn't married and recommended celibacy.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote:

You've conveniently side-stepped my points.

Paul recommended celibacy in fact:



God bless,
Noel.

Noel, this reaffirms what I said to you before. You are approaching everything from a 'i must defend the RCC' perspective, instead of reasoning in Christ. You have your arsenal of rebutals, and no-ones gonna beat you. Well Noel, i am personally not here to attack the RCC, i am here to try reason in Christ. I find issue with the RCC, yes, and will express it at the appropriate time, such as now. All I can say is let the seed grow, and rip up the weeds. but never think, that you are weed free, for to do so is to become lacklustre and prone to deceit.

PDN

JimiTime wrote:

Noel, use your reason. What you are saying is that priests are apostles. That they have inherited apostleship from Jesus' day. Remember, that apostles healed the sick, gave sight to the blind etc. They were filled with spirit. In being filled with spirit, they could ressurect the dead, as both Jesus and Elijah had done. Apostleship was for those who were messangers of the Spirit. In fact Paul qualify's his apostleship by stating that he was an apostle based on the fact that he was not trained or selected by men (Galatians 1:11-12)

Paul called himself an apostle born out of due time (I Corinthians 15:8). Think on what this implies. There was a season when apostles were selected. Paul was an unusual case. He was an exception to the rule because he came later than the other apostles. If apostles were to continue to appear, then Paul's case would not have been unusual. He would not have been born out of due time. Obviously, there was a limited season for apostles to be on the earth.

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)

Apostles, like evangelists or pastors, are necessary until the Church becomes unified, knowledgeable, mature and attains to the fullness of Christ. It seems reasonable to me, looking at the state of Christianity, that this has not happened yet.

Other apostles, apart from Paul and the Twelve, are mentioned in Scripture. They are Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14), James, the brother of Jesus (Gal. 1:19; 1 Cor. 15:7), perhaps Silas (1 Thess. 2:7), Andronicus (Rom. 16:7) and Junias (Rom. 16:7). Interestingly, Junias is a feminine name.

JimiTime

PDN wrote:

Apostles, like evangelists or pastors, are necessary until the Church becomes unified, knowledgeable, mature and attains to the fullness of Christ. It seems reasonable to me, looking at the state of Christianity, that this has not happened yet.

are you reasoning that there are modern day apostles? If so, where?

solas

22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.

I remember being 'breathed on' and the subsequent filling of the holy spirit. thankfully i've almost just about forgotten.

JimiTime

solas wrote:

I remember being 'breathed on' and the subsequent filling of the holy spirit. thankfully i've almost just about forgotten.

eh??

solas

JimiTime wrote:

eh??

thats what most people say

JimiTime

solas wrote:

thats what most people say

maybe thats because they don't know what ur saying. Sorry, but you've lost me, I don't get wat ur saying? in fact, reading it again and the emphasis on 'breathing on' and 'filling', are you making some kind of abuse reference? Maybe you could clarify?

solas

JimiTime wrote:

maybe thats because they don't know what ur saying. Sorry, but you've lost me, I don't get wat ur saying? in fact, reading it again and the emphasis on 'breathing on' and 'filling', are you making some kind of abuse reference? Maybe you could clarify?

the breathing and filling (receiving) reference was quoted in the ops first post on the subject.

JimiTime

solas wrote:

the breathing and filling (receiving) reference was quoted in the ops first post on the subject.

Ok, the bit I'm not understanding is, what is your point about 'thankfully i've almost just about forgotten.

solas

wouldnt know where to start explaining that bit

JimiTime

solas wrote:

wouldnt know where to start explaining that bit

Then why did you post it?

solas

JimiTime wrote:

Then why did you post it?

maybe I needed to.
So often I see people talking of things that I have experienced and yet for so many reasons I can't express them. I decided to say how I felt.

philologos

kelly1 wrote:

Paul wasn't married and recommended celibacy.

That was Paul's choice not a command, and nowhere did it say that priests were required to be celibate. I'd direct you to Leviticus 21.

JimiTime

solas wrote:

maybe I needed to.
So often I see people talking of things that I have experienced and yet for so many reasons I can't express them. I decided to say how I felt.

So are you saying you experienced the feeling of being filled with holy spirit, but you have thankfully forgot about it due to the fact that you are now atheist or something and realise it was nonsense to begin with.

Or were you speaking about some kind of abuse you suffered.

I'm afraid You've still lost me

solas

I really would like to be able to explain it but I genuinely don't think I can.
The breath I was referring to and which is referred to in the OP's post was a literal description.

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:8

PND spoke of gifts of the spirit and in hindsight I believe I was not ready to understand or receive them and they felt like a burden to me so effectively I made an effort to remove myself from that sphere of understanding.

I really don't know if you can understand what I'm referring to, its not a subject thats discussed here in much depth.