Printable version
 Email to a friend

arrow_left_short all forums
topic list

Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion

Replies: (page   1   2   3   4)
Saint Grogan 06/06/2012 14:16
Craig,

You ask so many questions that I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking. My belief is If it’s personal forgiveness as in forgiving your brother, then I feel that the example is clear. Through Christ God forgives your sins as far as the East is from the West. Is it as though your sins did not exist? Yes. Does God forget your sins? I feel that the answer is No. You should forgive the sins committed against you as though they never were committed. Can you forget them as though they never happened? Sometime people can. I don’t believe that God holds that against anyone.

You said, “Jesus didn't actually say what I think He said, even with the perfect verb tense and that Translators throughout history haven't made a clear distinction in their copies.” Could you please elaborate a little on this statement or was this something that Andre told you?

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, 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.

Forgiveness of sins is based on one belief in the finished work of Christ not on a proclamation by a priest. There are no examples of this kind of confession to a priest or a sacrament of penance mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. Confession is to be made to God and Him alone.
Catholica 06/06/2012 15:28
Luke 5:21 says, with context:

Luke 5
17 One day as Jesus was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem, and the power of the Lord was with him for healing.
18 And some men brought on a stretcher a man who was paralyzed; they were trying to bring him in and set (him) in his presence.
19 But not finding a way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on the stretcher through the tiles into the middle in front of Jesus.
20 When he saw their faith, he said, "As for you, your sins are forgiven."
21 Then the scribes and Pharisees began to ask themselves, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who but God alone can forgive sins?"
22 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them in reply, "What are you thinking in your hearts?
23 Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'?
24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins''--he said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home."
25 He stood up immediately before them, picked up what he had been lying on, and went home, glorifying God.

The parallel text is one I have already quoted:

Matthew 9
1 He entered a boat, made the crossing, and came into his own town.
2 And there people brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Courage, child, your sins are forgiven."
3 At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming."
4 Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, "Why do you harbor evil thoughts?
5 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, pick up your stretcher, and go home."
7 He rose and went home.
8 When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.

In the Luke passage, in response to "God alone can forgive sins", Jesus refers to himself as the "Son of Man" which emphasizes his humanity. In Matthew, v8 makes it clear that God "had given such authority (to forgive sins) to human beings". Both make reference to Jesus' humanity, and Matthew goes so far as to not say "a human being" but rather plural: "human beings".

In response for John 20, the verse clearly says "whose sins _YOU_ FORGIVE are forgiven, whose sins _YOU_ RETAIN are retained". The verb tense on the words "forgiven" and "retained" have really no affect on /who/ is doing the forgiving of sins in this passage, but rather HOW THOROUGHLY the sins are forgiven. The tense is interesting and suggests that its as if the sins never occurred in God's eyes, but still it is clearly _human persons_ to whom God (Jesus) is giving the authority to forgive sins on His behalf - with His authority.

Finally, it makes no sense that only those present with Jesus at the time would have been granted the authority to forgive sins. Since they did have the authority to forgive sins, given to them explicitly by Jesus, and knowing that the authority to bind and loose was something always passed along in Judaism, it makes sense that the capability for some Christians to be able to forgive sins on behalf of Jesus, and makes no sense at all that such authority would have ended when those certain people died.

Ordination has no purpose if there is not some real spiritual transmittal of authority. If there is no purpose other than some sentimental human signification, sort of like a "ritual of passing" then ordination is simply an empty work which means absolutely nothing and should be rejected. But there /is/ a point to ordination: in the kingdom there is real authority, given to the Church by Jesus himself. The Bible helps us know what this authority entails, and one of those things is that the authority enables a person so endowed to forgive sins by the power of God working through them.
Craig from Illinois 06/07/2012 06:54
I am tracking with you both, but due to a lack of time I need to hold off on a response until I get some more time - which will be soon. Thank you both for your contributions. This has been an incredible discussion!
Ted C 06/07/2012 09:03
The New Testament shows multiple places besides Matthew 9 where God uses a believer to heal someone, but nowhere does it show another person besides Jesus forgiving someone of their sin. So when verse 8 says, "But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men," the authority given to men is that of healing.

Matthew 9:2-8
"And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, 'Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven.' And some of the scribes said to themselves, 'This fellow blasphemes.' And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, 'Why are you thinking evil in your hearts? Which is easier, to say, "Your sins are forgiven," or to say, "Get up, and walk"? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins'—then He said to the paralytic, 'Get up, pick up your bed and go home.' And he got up and went home. But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

Jesus preferred to refer to Himself as the Son of Man. Personally I think this is because He loves mankind and got such a kick out of actually being a Man. Anyway, Him referring to Himself as "Son of Man" does not necessarily mean Jesus is emphasizing His humanity and indicating that we can do the same things listed in the verses.

Matthew 13:41,42 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 13:16-17 "Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'"

Matthew 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS."

There are many more examples like this. In fact if you search for the string "Son of Man" on BibleGateway.com, it's clear that every time Jesus uses this phrase for Himself, He's referring to a part of His mission which was unique to His prophesied role as God, Lord and Savior.
Catholica 06/07/2012 10:06
Hi Ted,

In the passage from Matthew 9, Jesus says "But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins..." This is the "authority" spoken of later in the same passage "glorified God, who had given such authority to men". I don't see how the text can be read any other way. Obviously men had the ability to heal others through other means. Jesus uses the miraculous healing to demonstrate that he has the authority to forgive sins, and so the only way to read the last verse is that the authority spoken of is to forgive sins.

I don't doubt that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man to refer to the prophecy in Daniel. Regardless of the intention of the use in Matthew 9, I don't see how we can get around Matthew 9:8's use of "authority" meaning "the authority to forgive sins" which in context is the only authority mentioned, the miraculous healing being the proof that he did have this authority.

Then turning to John 20:23, we see Jesus giving the power to forgive to men: "whose sins YOU forgive".. "whose sins YOU retain"...

Combining the two verses, and also taking into account James 5:
Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint [him] with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

This also appears to be an act of a person, and God working through that person, that causes the person's sins to be forgiven.

Also, a question: If it is that John 20:23 means that when a person accepts Christ, his sins have already been forgiven, why does Jesus tell us to pray "Our Father... and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive... For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." ~ Matthew 6:9, 12, 14-15

If John 20 means that coming to the Lord means that our sins are already forgiven, then Jesus can't be correct in saying that our sins would not be forgiven if we do not forgive others; our sins would "already be forgiven".

I have read debates over how to translate John 20, but I can't really find coherence with the ideas of not being forgiven, or retaining sins, if all our sins, past, present and future have already been forgiven when we come to the Lord.

Rather we must repent of our sins when we sin, and then the Lord will forgive us, even after we have been baptized. And I believe that Jesus gave the apostles and their successors a very special role that was how He meant for us to repent and be forgiven. I don't know why people would take offense to what I view as such a great gift from the Lord, to insist that there are not certain people in the body of Christ whom Christ has ordained and given the authority to forgive sins. The sacrament of penance is a wonderful, beautiful gift and I treasure it. And it seems clear to me, especially in light of John 20:20-23 that not only is it valid but it is a special gift from God.
Saint Grogan 06/08/2012 13:05
Catholica wrote:
In Matthew, v8 makes it clear that God "had given such authority (to forgive sins) to human beings". Both make reference to Jesus' humanity, and Matthew goes so far as to not say "a human being" but rather plural: "human beings."

“But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Matthew 9:8)

Matthew is not saying that God had given other men the power to forgive sins. The crowd marveled that God gave Jesus (known to them not as God but as a man) the power to heal the paralyzed man. The Jews believed that the man was ill as the result of his sin. So, Jesus showed his authority by healing the man. That was how he proved God had forgiven the man. Look at the verse. “But when the multitudes saw it…” What did they see? The previous verse says that the paralyzed man got up and departed to his house. Verse 8 then says, “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God. How does one see a man forgive sins?

In Mark 2:12. There is nothing mentioned here about God having given other men the power to forgive sins.

“And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.” (Mark 2:12)

One commentary reads as follows:

“which had given such power unto men;”
of working miracles, healing diseases, and delivering miserable mortals from such maladies, as were otherwise incurable; still looking upon Christ as a mere man, by whom God did these things; not knowing yet the mystery of the incarnation, God manifest in the flesh.

To say Matthew 9:8 is proof that God had given other men the power to forgive sins is to read something into the text that isn’t there.
Catholica 06/08/2012 13:33
Grogan, while it is true that:

"To say Matthew 9:8 is proof that God had given other men the power to forgive sins is to read something into the text that isn’t there."

when you combine it with Jesus saying directly in John 20:23 that He is granting the authority to other men the power to forgive sins, then the proof is displayed. Matthew 9:8 is simply more support for what is clearly spelled out in John 20:23.
Craig from Illinois 06/09/2012 08:23


Andre said...

"Rather we must repent of our sins when we sin, and then the Lord will forgive us, even after we have been baptized. And I believe that Jesus gave the apostles and their successors a very special role that was how He meant for us to repent and be forgiven. I don't know why people would take offense to what I view as such a great gift from the Lord, to insist that there are not certain people in the body of Christ whom Christ has ordained and given the authority to forgive sins. The sacrament of penance is a wonderful, beautiful gift and I treasure it. And it seems clear to me, especially in light of John 20:20-23 that not only is it valid but it is a special gift from God."


Only ordained members of the Church body can forgive sins? I know you've stated above that there is a "real spiritual transmittal of authority (in ordination). And "If there is no purpose other than some sentimental human signification, sort of like a 'ritual of passing' then ordination is simply an empty work which means absolutely nothing and should be rejected."

This kinda opens up another topic of discussion, but wouldn't it make sense that all Christ believers/followers have the Kingdom authority to forgive sins? Maybe ordination is just a "ritual of passing" and "an empty work". Why eliminate 99% of the church body of this important and world changing power?
Catholica 06/09/2012 16:53
Craig,

It seems that it has always been so. In the OT there were only certain people who could be part of the ministerial priesthood. The entire nation of Israel was a priesthood (Exodus 19:6), just as the entire NT church is a priesthood, but yet even in ancient Israel there were only some called for that important ministry. Numbers 16 is one reference.

I don't know why God chooses to do it that way, but he did. Perhaps it is because there are many in the body of Christ who would abuse it. A priest in the sacrament has to determine if there is contrition and repentance before he grants absolution.

There has simply always been a hierarchy of authority in God's kingdom. Basically it just seems to be part of God's will.

Perhaps not the most satisfying of answers, but I know that in the NT Church, is has always been that way. There has never been the belief that just any Christian would be able to grant absolution acting in persona Christi. And this knowledge of how the early Church understood penance can indicate to us today that it is so.
Catholica 06/09/2012 17:22
Note I am not saying that the ministerial priesthood in Numbers 16 could forgive sins; I am simply noting that they had the ability to perform certain tasks, and that God made it so ONLY they could.
(page   1   2   3   4)
arrow_up_short start of topic