Forgiveness of sins

[Deuteronomy]

...If you can't accept what Jesus actually said then there is no reason to discuss things.

Here is one last (little) thing to consider, what the Bible APPEARS to say at times is not necessarily what it actually means or intends (because even when it appears to be speaking in a way that can be clearly understood, there are times when there is much more to it than that/much more to arriving at a proper exegesis or understanding of the Text than seems to be needed when we first read it.

On instance of this that comes to mind is from the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She said that one of the big reasons that she became an atheist was due to the fact that the Bible itself says, "there is no God". You know what, she's correct, it does say that, several times, in fact, but do you believe for even a second that that was the intended meaning

Another instance of this is this famous verse from the NT.

1 Timothy 2​

15 Women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.​

Wait, what

So, men are saved by believing, by grace through faith, but women are saved by having kids It certainly LOOKS like that's what it's saying, doesn't it, but we also know that the first blush meaning of that verse can hardly be what the Lord intended.

Here's another that quickly comes to mind. This one is from the Lord Jesus directly (I'll make this the last example, just FYI).

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

Sounds harsh (and in opposition to the 10 Commandments), but that's what Jesus clearly said to us. The REAL question becomes this, of course, what did He REALLY mean For that we often get some help from other parts of the Bible, not the least of which (in this particular case) is found in the following, similar verse (this is also Jesus speaking, BTW),

Matthew 10​

37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.​

In reality, I believe that taking Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37 together (IOW, as they are understood in harmony with one another) probably gets us as close to the Lord's intended meaning as possible.

So it is with the rest of the Bible, we normally need to take a deeper look, even with texts that ~appear~ to be clearly/easily understood, and ESPECIALLY when we know that the first blush reading of one verse ~directly contradicts~ what is clearly stated in a different verse!!

At the very least we need to understand the context of what was written, be that historical, theological, and/or contextual. So then, our knowledge of what Mark 2:7 says about who actually forgives sins should at least give us pause when we read what John 20:23 has to say about the same subject matter, yes!

God bless you!!

~Deut
p.s. - I'm sorry that these last two posts of mine have ended up on the longer side, but I was trying to explain myself as best I could, and it took more ink to do so than I thought that it would.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Hello Arch Stanton, perhaps I have misunderstood Trent's anathema, the one that is placed upon the head of any who do not agree that the RCC both observed AND required that atonement for and forgiveness of one's sins could ONLY happen via the means prescribed in the Sacrament of Penance .. and that, specifically, "from the beginning". That's how it reads to me, though the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to make it clear that this means of forgiveness not "required" by the RCC until the 7th Century.

If I was wrong, please let me know what Trent is actually saying.

Thanks

~Deut

No need to worry about the word 'anathema' as that pertained to Catholics.

 

[Nedsk]

Here is one last (little) thing to consider, what the Bible APPEARS to say at times is not necessarily what it actually means or intends (because even when it appears to be speaking in a way that can be clearly understood, there are times when there is much more to it than that/much more to arriving at a proper exegesis or understanding of the Text than seems to be needed when we first read it.

On instance of this that comes to mind is from the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She said that one of the big reasons that she became an atheist was due to the fact that the Bible itself says, "there is no God". You know what, she's correct, it does say that, several times, in fact, but do you believe for even a second that that was the intended meaning

Another instance of this is this famous verse from the NT.

1 Timothy 2​

15 Women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.​

Wait, what

So, men are saved by believing, by grace through faith, but women are saved by having kids It certainly LOOKS like that's what it's saying, doesn't it, but we also know that the first blush meaning of that verse can hardly be what the Lord intended.

Here's another that quickly comes to mind. This one is from the Lord Jesus directly (I'll make this the last example, just FYI).

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

Sounds harsh (and in opposition to the 10 Commandments), but that's what Jesus clearly said to us. The REAL question becomes this, of course, what did He REALLY mean For that we often get some help from other parts of the Bible, not the least of which (in this particular case) is found in the following, similar verse (this is also Jesus speaking, BTW),

Matthew 10​

37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.​

In reality, I believe that taking Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37 together (IOW, as they are understood in harmony with one another) probably gets us as close to the Lord's intended meaning as possible.

So it is with the rest of the Bible, we normally need to take a deeper look, even with texts that ~appear~ to be clearly/easily understood, and ESPECIALLY when we know that the first blush reading of one verse ~directly contradicts~ what is clearly stated in a different verse!!

At the very least we need to understand the context of what was written, be that historical, theological, and/or contextual. So then, our knowledge of what Mark 2:7 says about who actually forgives sins should at least give us pause when we read what John 20:23 has to say about the same subject matter, yes!

God bless you!!

~Deut
p.s. - I'm sorry that these last two posts of mine have ended up on the longer side, but I was trying to explain myself as best I could, and it took more ink to do so than I thought that it would.

I apologize for interrupting and I haven't read all the interactions but I am troubled by your first paragraph here in the above post. All I could think when I read it was, if someone gave me directions to get to their home and the directions read, "Take a left at Elm St", what would compel me to think, that may not be what they actually meant and I should consider what they actually meant to say. I don't mean to be so bold but that almost sounds like you want to interpret it in a way that better suits your position. In my example wouldnt take a left on Elm St just mean take a left on Elm St. If not then what's the point of writing it if things can be interpreted to suit personal tastes or opinions?

The bible reads, God said let there be light. Do we need to interpret that?

 

[Deuteronomy]

I apologize for interrupting and I haven't read all the interactions but I am troubled by your first paragraph here in the above post. All I could think when I read it was, if someone gave me directions to get to their home and the directions read, "Take a left at Elm St", what would compel me to think, that may not be what they actually meant and I should consider what they actually meant to say. I don't mean to be so bold but that almost sounds like you want to interpret it in a way that better suits your position. In my example wouldnt take a left on Elm St just mean take a left on Elm St. If not then what's the point of writing it if things can be interpreted to suit personal tastes or opinions?

The bible reads, God said let there be light. Do we need to interpret that?

Hello Nedsk, those are very good questions/points, so let me see if I can address them adequately for you (just FYI, I did my best to anticipate those kind of questions/points in my post #121 at the top of this page).

That said, the first (or perhaps better, principal) thing that should compel us to question what appears to be the plain meaning of verse in Scripture is other verses and passages in the Bible that contradict what the "plain" or "first blush" meaning of a verse ~appears~ to be telling us.

Take this verse from St. Paul as a for instance,

1 Timothy 2​

15 Women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.​

Or this one from the Lord Jesus,

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

Surely you do not believe that we can take either of those verses at face value (so to speak), ESPECIALLY when we know that there are other verses and passages that directly contradict what they ~seem~ to be telling us, yes And there are MANY more verses like those in the Bible.

Rightly dividing the word of God, and thereby arriving at a proper exegesis of a verse/passage, is oft times more difficult than it seems like it should be at first, but it is far from impossible to do, especially since we have so much help in doing do if we are willing to lose our presuppositions and truly listen to/learn from Him, that is .. see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16.

I'll stop here. Please check out post #121 above for a little bit more, and then don't hesitate to get back to me if you still have questions or points to make about what I've said in this thread (I'm still learning/deepening my understanding about all of these things too, just FYI, so I am always open to the fact that I may be wrong .. and I want to be corrected if I am, so I certainly appreciate your input here ).

God bless you!!

~Deut
p.s. - finally, is there a reason that we should consider taking a deeper look into God saying "let there be light, and there was light" .. Genesis 1:3 on Creation Day 1 My answer to you about that would be "yes" (a number of times over), with the first reason for doing so being right there in Genesis 1, on Creation Day 4 (when God created the sun, the moon and the stars).
.

 

[Deuteronomy]

No need to worry about the word 'anathema' as that pertained to Catholics.

Hello Arch Stanton, that's interesting, as I always thought Trent's "anathemas" were aimed directly at the Reformers (Trent being the document that is at the very heart of the Counter-Reformation, and all).

So, you are saying that these warnings were actually issued to RC's alone, IOW, to those in the RCC who may have been otherwise persuaded to agree with the Reformers (instead of continuing to strictly abide by RC doctrines/beliefs)

Thanks!

God bless you!!

~Deut

 

[Nedsk]

Hello Nedsk, those are very good questions/points, so let me see if I can address them adequately for you (just FYI, I did my best to anticipate those kind of questions/points in my post #121 at the top of this page).

That said, the first (or perhaps better, principal) thing that should compel us to question what appears to be the plain meaning of verse in Scripture is other verses and passages in the Bible that contradict what the "plain" or "first blush" meaning of a verse ~appears~ to be telling us.

Take this verse from St. Paul as a for instance,

1 Timothy 2​

15 Women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.​

Or this one from the Lord Jesus,

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

Surely you do not believe that we can take either of those verses at face value (so to speak), ESPECIALLY when we know that there are other verses and passages that directly contradict what they ~seem~ to be telling us, yes And there are MANY more verses like those in the Bible.

Rightly dividing the word of God, and thereby arriving at a proper exegesis of a verse/passage, is oft times more difficult than it seems like it should be at first, but it is far from impossible to do, especially since we have so much help in doing do if we are willing to lose our presuppositions and truly listen to/learn from Him, that is .. see, for instance, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16.

I'll stop here. Please check out post #121 above for a little bit more, and then don't hesitate to get back to me if you still have questions or points to make about what I've said in this thread (I'm still learning/deepening my understanding about all of these things too, just FYI, so I am always open to the fact that I may be wrong .. and I want to be corrected if I am, so I certainly appreciate your input here ).

God bless you!!

~Deut
p.s. - finally, is there a reason that we should consider taking a deeper look into God saying "let there be light, and there was light" .. Genesis 1:3 on Creation Day 1 My answer to you about that would be "yes" (a number of times over), with the first reason for doing so being right there in Genesis 1, on Creation Day 4 (when God created the sun, the moon and the stars).
.

The examples you gave lend themselves to questioning. Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins is pretty clear just like let there be light. I don't really see the problem unless it doesn't fit with a preconceived narrative.

 

[Deuteronomy]

The examples you gave lend themselves to questioning. Jesus giving the apostles the authority to forgive sins is pretty clear just like let there be light. I don't really see the problem unless it doesn't fit with a preconceived narrative.

Hello again Ned, no matter how clear a verse appears to be in the Bible, if there's another portion of the Holy Writ that contradicts it (or at least appears to anyway), it always warrants investigation.

So it is in the case of John 20:23, as we have other verses and passages in the Bible that tell us that God alone forgives sins, as well that it is blasphemous for us to say otherwise (e.g. Mark 2:7).

This leaves us with the kind of problem that I mentioned in my last post and should, therefore, leave us wanting to get to the bottom of what the Lord Jesus ~actually~ meant in V23, yes?

We also have the Roman Catholic Church (in this case) which teaches the necessity of something called sacerdotalism (IOW, that priests are required to both hear confessions and forgive penitent sinners .. or they will not/cannot be forgiven) also teaching that, God alone forgives sins .. e.g. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1441.

So, while the RCC (like the Bible) ~seems~ to teach both at the same time, IOW that 1. their priests can and must forgive sins, but that 2. God alone forgives sins, we know that both cannot be true, so we need to look deeper and find out why they appear to teach two contradictory principals/doctrines, yes

God bless you!!

~Deut

 

[Nedsk]

Hello again Ned, no matter how clear a verse appears to be in the Bible, if there's another portion of the Holy Writ that contradicts it (or at least appears to anyway), it always warrants investigation.

So it is in the case of John 20:23, as we have other verses and passages in the Bible that tell us that God alone forgives sins, as well that it is blasphemous for us to say otherwise (e.g. Mark 2:7).

This leaves us with the kind of problem that I mentioned in my last post and should, therefore, leave us wanting to get to the bottom of what the Lord Jesus ~actually~ meant in V23, yes?

We also have the Roman Catholic Church (in this case) which teaches the necessity of something called sacerdotalism (IOW, that priests are required to both hear confessions and forgive penitent sinners .. or they will not/cannot be forgiven) also teaching that, God alone forgives sins .. e.g. the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1441.

So, while the RCC (like the Bible) ~seems~ to teach both at the same time, IOW that 1. their priests can and must forgive sins, but that 2. God alone forgives sins, we know that both cannot be true, so we need to look deeper and find out why they appear to teach two contradictory principals/doctrines, yes

God bless you!!

~Deut

I see contradictions

 

[Deuteronomy]

I see contradictions

Indeed, there are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. Fortunately, I have found that there are no actual contradictions in God's word, only verses that look contradictory until we discover what the Lord really meant.

 

[Nedsk]

Indeed, there are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. Fortunately, I have found that there are no actual contradictions in God's word, only verses that look contradictory until we discover what the Lord really meant.

Sorry it should have read NO contradictions. Jesus clearly said what he said and no contradictions exist unless again you have a preconceived notion of what you think the Bible should say.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Indeed, there are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. Fortunately, I have found that there are no actual contradictions in God's word, only verses that look contradictory until we discover what the Lord really meant.

going back to the CCC you will see this --

1461 Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

1465 When he celebrates the sacrament of Penance, the priest is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Hello Arch Stanton, that's interesting, as I always thought Trent's "anathemas" were aimed directly at the Reformers (Trent being the document that is at the very heart of the Counter-Reformation, and all).

So, you are saying that these warnings were actually issued to RC's alone, IOW, to those in the RCC who may have been otherwise persuaded to agree with the Reformers (instead of continuing to strictly abide by RC doctrines/beliefs)

Thanks!

God bless you!!

~Deut

This is an excellent article on anathema -- https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/anathema [look closely at #6].

and this from CA --

Question:​

Could you explain anathema? Does the Church teach that Protestants are anathema because they don't agree with the Church?

Answer:​

The use of the word anathema has evolved during the history of the Church, and today it means the same thing as excommunication. (The word anathema is no longer officially used.) Because a person must be a Catholic to be anathema (excommunicated) the term does not apply to Protestants.

 

[Nedsk]

Indeed, there are many seemingly contradictory statements in the Bible. Fortunately, I have found that there are no actual contradictions in God's word, only verses that look contradictory until we discover what the Lord really meant.

There are no contradictions in the bible just within men.

 

[Yakuda]

There are no contradictions in the bible just within men.

This is well stated. The problem I see is that some people see passages that don't agree with their interpretations and they work to explain them away. Any apparent contradiction exists only in peoples minds not the bible. Excellent

 

[Deuteronomy]

Sorry it should have read NO contradictions. Jesus clearly said what he said and no contradictions exist unless again you have a preconceived notion of what you think the Bible should say.

Hello again Ned, I apologize for taking so long to reply, but sometimes "offline" life gets in the way for one reason or another (as I'm sure you already know). Also, thank you for clarifying your reply in post #128.

If (as you just stated) the Lord Jesus "said what He said" in John 20:23 (meaning that v23 stands alone and means what you believe that it does w/o the possibility of qualification of any kind, including other things that are said about this topic in the Bible), then the same would have to be equally true of any number of other statements that the Lord made in other verses (a couple of which I have already mentioned in this thread), e.g.,

Luke 14​

26 If anyone comes to Me and does not HATE his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.​

What, then, is the basis for your belief that (unlike John 20:23) what the Lord Jesus said in Luke 14:26 CANNOT to be understood as being true just as it is stated there by Him (and how did you arrive at that conclusion)

Thanks!

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

 

[Deuteronomy]

going back to the CCC you will see this --

1461 Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

1465 When he celebrates the sacrament of Penance, the priest is fulfilling the ministry of the Good Shepherd who seeks the lost sheep, of the Good Samaritan who binds up wounds, of the Father who awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him on his return, and of the just and impartial judge whose judgment is both just and merciful. The priest is the sign and the instrument of God's merciful love for the sinner.

Hello again Arch Stanton, yes, much of this is consistent with the early section that I mentioned from the CCC, section 1441.

Only God forgives sin​

​

1441 Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.”40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. (270, 431; 589)​

Question, how does the RCC reconcile the two, IOW, how is the CCC statement, "he gives this power to men", understood in light of the earlier CCC statement that, "ONLY GOD forgives sins"/how are the two understood together

Thanks, I appreciate the help!

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy
.

 

[Deuteronomy]

Hello again @Arch Stanton, et al, I have another question or two about this as well.

The "ministry of reconciliation" that was mentioned in your last reply to me (for which the CCC references 2 Corinthians 5:18) appears to have been originally given to a group that has a scope in size that is just a tad larger than RCC "priests" alone So why does the CCC (and thereby the RCC) seem to restrict that ministry to its bishops and priests

That said, where does the idea that RCC priests are the official "successors" of the Apostles come from, and where is such a thing stated (or even insinuated) in the Bible

Finally (for now), where do we see the practice of confession to and then absolution by a priest for the forgiveness of our sins being practiced in the NT (in the days/years following the Lord's Ascension)

Likewise (and perhaps ~most importantly~), where does the Bible tell us that our ongoing sins must now be satisfied/atoned for by works that 'we' do, instead of by the sacrificial work of atonement & satisfaction that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the Cross (do you and/or the RCC believe/teach that the Lord Jesus' death was in anyway ~insufficient~ to atone for our sins, to satisfy His Father's wrath, and/or to reconcile us to Him, or that His work on our behalf must now be added to in some way by us to make it sufficient)

Thanks

~Deuteronomy

Hebrews 9​

22 All things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.​

​

 

[Yakuda]

Hello again @Arch Stanton, et al, I have another question or two about this as well.

The "ministry of reconciliation" that was mentioned in your last reply to me (for which the CCC references 2 Corinthians 5:18) appears to have been originally given to a group that has a scope in size that is just a tad larger than RCC "priests" alone So why does the CCC (and thereby the RCC) seem to restrict that ministry to its bishops and priests

That said, where does the idea that RCC priests are the official "successors" of the Apostles come from, and where is such a thing stated (or even insinuated) in the Bible

Finally (for now), where do we see the practice of confession to and then absolution by a priest for the forgiveness of our sins being practiced in the NT (in the days/years following the Lord's Ascension)

Likewise (and perhaps ~most importantly~), where does the Bible tell us that our ongoing sins must now be satisfied/atoned for by works that 'we' do, instead of by the sacrificial work of atonement & satisfaction that the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the Cross (do you and/or the RCC believe/teach that the Lord Jesus' death was in anyway ~insufficient~ to atone for our sins, to satisfy His Father's wrath, and/or to reconcile us to Him, or that His work on our behalf must now be added to in some way by us to make it sufficient)

Thanks

~Deuteronomy

Hebrews 9​

22 All things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.​

​

It's limited because Jesus didn't give everyone the author to forgive sins

 

[S.T.Ranger]

for anyone God would be still holding sins against, they would have a serious Problem

I would suggest that there is a distinction to be drawn between sin in our temporal lives and sin from the eternal perspective. God has forgiven our sins in Christ on an eternal basis, but that doesn't mean we do not still sin, nor that we do not have a need to ask forgiveness of that sin.

We have been sanctified on an eternal basis through Christ and His death (Hebrews 10:14), but we are still being sanctified in the temporal context (Progressive Sanctification). Along the way we will sin and we should ask forgiveness. From God, and from those who we sin against in this world.


2 Corinthians 2:5-8 King James Version

5 But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.

6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.

7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.


Here we see a man in need of forgiveness from brethren, and a need for brethren to forgive for the man's sake.


Ephesians 4:32
And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


Again, it is a matter of distinguishing a temporal context with the eternal.


God bless.

 

[American Gothic]

I would suggest that there is a distinction to be drawn between sin in our temporal lives and sin from the eternal perspective. God has forgiven our sins in Christ on an eternal basis, but that doesn't mean we do not still sin, nor that we do not have a need to ask forgiveness of that sin.
We have been sanctified on an eternal basis through Christ and His death (Hebrews 10:14), but we are still being sanctified in the temporal context (Progressive Sanctification). Along the way we will sin and we should ask forgiveness. From God, and from those who we sin against in this world.

I think, as far as God is concerned, we are already forgiven

that doesn't mean our sins have no effect on our lives
asking forgiveness from those we wrong, making amends as necessary, etc....sure
if a Believer is a grievous sinner, God may take them Home - I don't think they have lost their Salvation

but Believers at this point really should be able to be confident in the work of Messiah on or behalf concerning this issue
in Jesus, nothing can separate us from the Love of God