Confession ...

[Willie T]

in scripture, we do see the Apostles rebuking a person who has bad intentions and is looking for spiritual power

Simon Magus in Acts chapter 8 tries to buy the authoirty for te laying on of hands

this is not exactly what you were asking about, but it does show that sometimes the Apostles were called to act with discernment

Simon was looking for a power trick to add to his act.... never was he asking for forgiveness.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I may have more to add later, if I survive the feat of shoveling a snot-load of heavy wet snow so my cat can go out and play. For now, just a few things.

...

I really need to learn to get into the tenses and such in Greek, I am so limited sometimes in figuring out what the Bible actually said. I appreciate the help.

All I did was compare a few different translations in my free Bible study program.

Overall, thank you so much for your post, NorrinRadd. If you'd care at any point to add more, or if anyone else would? I would guess your beliefs are more along the lines of not confessing to men, but to God?

That is certainly my *practice*. But even apart from specific verses, I think one can make an argument from the whole of the NT that we Christians should be must more interdependent, and much more honest and vulnerable with each other than is typical of our western individualistic culture. So I'm not sure my practice is ideal.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Despite differences of opinion on this issue, we all do have to admit that we are called to repent, are we not?

It can be said that we are saved by Faith, and that's true--or we can say that the Cross or Jesus' sacrifice bought eternal life, etc., but we are still taught to repent of our sins. We do commit them, after all, even as saved persons. So that's the main reason IMO that we incorporate some sort of confession into our lives as members of the church.

There's no reason to think it's a sacrament or that the minister can arbitrarily judge the penitent's sincerity as a condition for forgiving anything confessed, but for there to be at least a General Confession prior to the reception of the Lord's Supper is entirely appropriate..

No reason except for scripture ("If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."), Church teaching and the fact that it works.
I thought we were saved by grace through faith But I guess it depends on which thread we are in. In another we are saved only by Christ. Too many solas to keep up with.

 

[Willie T]

The binding of sins would be used in cases where a Christian refuses to repent of a sin. Let's say it comes to the knowledge of the church that John Doe has fornicated (just an example of something obviously sinful) and someone (maybe the Pastor) talks to him about it, pointing out that it's wrong and he needs to repent of it..to which John Doe says "no way, I really enjoyed it and I don't regret it one bit, leave me alone!". In such a case, it would be utterly wrong to say to him: "Your sin is forgiven, go in peace", rather he should be told and warned that God does not approve of that attitude and that sin still stands in the way between him and God until he repents.

A very good point. (except for the last 14 words)

 

[Albion]

No reason except for scripture ("If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.")

Of course it's always easy as pie to say "look at scripture." But that doesn't help without the right understanding of it. The passage you cited doesn't tell us who today can forgive and retain sins (if that is your contention). Is it any ordained person? Is it any cleric in Apostolic Succession? Is it only the Twelve Apostles who are referred to by the Scripture?

No, in this case, it's far too simple to point to Scripture as though that's all that's needed. In fact, most, if not all, of the various approaches to the subject that have been voiced on this thread, different as they are, probably can point to that same verse and say "That's what I'm sayin'"

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Of course it's always easy as pie to say "look at scripture." But that doesn't help without the right understanding of it. The passage you cited doesn't tell us who today can forgive and retain sins (if that is your contention). Is it any ordained person? Is it any cleric in Apostolic Succession? Is it only the Twelve Apostles who are referred to by the Scripture?

No, in this case, it's far too simple to point to Scripture as though that's all that's needed. In fact, most, if not all, of the various approaches to the subject that have been voiced on this thread, different as they are, probably can point to that same verse and say "That's what I'm sayin'"

I don't know how easy pie is but reading is not that difficult. It was given to the apostles. It seems some think that only twelve men followed Christ. I'm wondering where the other 109 suddenly came from in that upper room (Judas being gone).
The scripture is not void of Ordinations by the laying on of hands. Christ did not speak this to twelve but to eleven. In the beginning of the next book we see another ordained making it twelve again. Later as the church grew we see more.
Enjoy some more pie:
"And after they had appointed elders for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe."
Pie is good.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

One question I have always had of that passage: Did Jesus ever refuse to forgive anyone's sins?

The how does the interpretation you seem to have of this scripture make any sense, with that realization?

Are the disciple now given some mystic power to decide maybe to just not forgive some people who ask for forgiveness?

One must read on another verse to understand. "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit".

 

[Tangible]

One question I have always had of that passage: Did Jesus ever refuse to forgive anyone's sins?

The how does the interpretation you seem to have of this scripture make any sense, with that realization?

Are the disciple now given some mystic power to decide maybe to just not forgive some people who ask for forgiveness?

The rich young ruler for one, and many who were trying to justify themselves before God by works. But the gospels are more interested in showing how Jesus is God and is therefore able to forgive sins, raise the dead, control nature, etc., through the use of his word.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Getting a chance to catch up just now, and you all asked most of the questions I would have asked ... especially it struck me too, "any whose sins you retain, are retained". That doesn't seem to make sense. But I see it's already been discussed, so unless I think of a more direct question than has been asked already.

I see not only a difference of opinion on which people we should confess to, but also what happens as a result. Whether one can give absolution, or whether that comes from God.

I would have questioned the same verse, about the apostles forgiving sins, in relation to that, but I see y'all already talked about that too.

I appreciate everyone's answers. Always seems to get busy around here when I have to be offline for a few hours.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I may have more to add later, if I survive the feat of shoveling a snot-load of heavy wet snow so my cat can go out and play. For now, just a few things.

You shovel snow so your cat can play? I love my kitty ... but I'm not shoveling snow for her, LOL. I hope you survive and don't get too tired!

All I did was compare a few different translations in my free Bible study program.

LOL ok. I always do that when I have a question, it has about 30 or so translations, and they generally all say roughly the same thing. It's a good practice to identify "leanings" in translations though.

That is certainly my *practice*. But even apart from specific verses, I think one can make an argument from the whole of the NT that we Christians should be must more interdependent, and much more honest and vulnerable with each other than is typical of our western individualistic culture. So I'm not sure my practice is ideal.

Yes ... me too (as far as it being my practice). You know, we teach "accountability" even in churches that reject confession. I remember when my husband and I were engaged, our pastor asked us every time he saw us if we were "behaving".

I had the conviction to want to do things in such a way as to be pleasing to God anyway, but knowing I was going to be asked and would have to admit any wrongdoing sure kept me motivated when my resolve might have wavered.

I think the concept of "easy grace" would vanish if we thought about having to confess to others. I can see ways in which it could actually be good for us.

On the other hand, it would require some maturity in the church. The sin of pride ("holier than thou") might be something some people would be tempted to? I'm sure Christ would not set up a model of something that would be bad for the body though. Perhaps those tendencies could be identified more quickly and routed out instead.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The binding of sins would be used in cases where a Christian refuses to repent of a sin. Let's say it comes to the knowledge of the church that John Doe has fornicated (just an example of something obviously sinful) and someone (maybe the Pastor) talks to him about it, pointing out that it's wrong and he needs to repent of it..to which John Doe says "no way, I really enjoyed it and I don't regret it one bit, leave me alone!". In such a case, it would be utterly wrong to say to him: "Your sin is forgiven, go in peace", rather he should be told and warned that God does not approve of that attitude and that sin still stands in the way between him and God until he repents.

This is the only explanation I've seen that makes any sense at all for the apostles being given the authority to retain sins. If anyone can come up with any other reasons/ideas, I'd be interested. I can't think of an instance of non-forgiveness though. Actually, this seems more like a "choice not to forgive" rather than actively retaining, but maybe I'm nit-picking.

Speaking of nit-picking, I saw your reply, Willie, and I thought about it. Would it be so wrong to warn a brother that he is in sin? (since you didn't like the last 14 words?) I can imagine I might have possibly said that to someone at some time - not that I recall. But it might have been appropriate under some circumstances?

 

[concretecamper]

One must read on another verse to understand. "And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit".

Exactly!

John 20:22 - the Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.

 

[~Anastasia~]

He, at one time seems to equate healing of their bodies with forgiveness of sins. (Not even going to pretend I fully understand that... but He did say it)

I don't pretend to understand it either, but it's not the only place. In the original question, I mentioned James 5

14 Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

It seems they are praying for healing, and that prayer offered in faith restores the one who is sick. BUT he is also forgiven. Just as Jesus said - I always wondered why Jesus seemed to almost equate healing with forgiveness. And then it immediately follows to confess and pray for one another that they may be healed.

I am tending to think that if one needs to be healed - the prayer for healing and forgiveness ought to go together? And in asking for prayer to be healed, one ought to confess?

That wasn't my intent with this thread, but in searching Scriptures I see that the two seem tied together.

Hmmmm .... sin results in sickness? I am also reminded that I have been studying about those who would take communion in an unworthy manner, and sicken and/or die as a result. Surely that is sin, but I had taken it to be more than just that (and I still think it is).

All these things I would keep separate keep weaving together. Very interesting.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those who are in Christ HAVE forgiveness. It is vitally important to understand that.

Do we throw out what scripture plainly and repeatedly tells us about our forgiveness because one verse seems to contradict that? Do we throw out the obvious and cling to the obscure?

You will never understand 1 John if you do not understand that he is refuting an opponent, and he is doing so by contrasting true believers with those opponents who are not believers. Specifically, he is refuting an early form of Gnosticism that was being preached among the believers.

I have forgiveness because I have the One in whom is forgiveness. My forgiveness is based in Jesus Christ, through His shed blood on the cross, not through my keeping myself fessed' up.

Thanks, Steeno.

I was taught at one point that all sins - past and future ones, were forgiven at the moment we were saved. But that was the same church that emphasized no matter what we did, we would stay saved, and that kind of mindset seemed to imply that it was ok to presume on grace and live however one wants.

If your take on 1 John is something else, I appreciate the info. I'll try to re-read it and understand it from your point of view.

And I don't want to seem argumentative - in fact I really WANT to hear an opposing view, because I'm not getting them on the basic question. But I'm afraid (sorry if I'm dense here) that it isn't plainly and repeatedly in Scripture that we don't need to confess our ongoing sins - at least not to the point that I can identify it? Of course I searched for Scriptures on confession to get the ones I put in the original post, and I'm not sure what to search for that says we don't need to confess.

I understand what you are saying, but I just can't bring to mind Scripture to support it. And I appreciate your reply, and if you happen to be busy, I don't want to presume on your time. But I'd like to see Scripture from the other point of view, since I just can't refute it myself.

Thanks for your reply either way. I'll look into the gnosticism thing.

 

[cerette]

. Actually, this seems more like a "choice not to forgive" rather than actively retaining, but maybe I'm nit-picking.

How do you mean "choice" not to forgive? I don't quite understand?
I don't think anyone has the ability to choose not to forgive someone for whatever reason. A repentant person's forgiveness can't be hindered by someone else's choice to hinder it.
If you sin, and don't repent, God isn't forgiving you that sin. (He is retaining it.) That is the fact we are telling someone when binding them in their sin. It's not a matter of "nah, I don't want him to be forgiven so now I'll bring out the keys and retain forgiveness from him". It's a matter of stating the truth to an unrepentant person.

 

[Steeno7]

Thanks, Steeno.

I was taught at one point that all sins - past and future ones, were forgiven at the moment we were saved. But that was the same church that emphasized no matter what we did, we would stay saved, and that kind of mindset seemed to imply that it was ok to presume on grace and live however one wants.

If your take on 1 John is something else, I appreciate the info. I'll try to re-read it and understand it from your point of view.

And I don't want to seem argumentative - in fact I really WANT to hear an opposing view, because I'm not getting them on the basic question. But I'm afraid (sorry if I'm dense here) that it isn't plainly and repeatedly in Scripture that we don't need to confess our ongoing sins - at least not to the point that I can identify it? Of course I searched for Scriptures on confession to get the ones I put in the original post, and I'm not sure what to search for that says we don't need to confess.

I understand what you are saying, but I just can't bring to mind Scripture to support it. And I appreciate your reply, and if you happen to be busy, I don't want to presume on your time. But I'd like to see Scripture from the other point of view, since I just can't refute it myself.

Thanks for your reply either way. I'll look into the gnosticism thing.

Heres a few: 2 Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 1:14, Colossians 2:13, Colossians 3:13, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 4:32, 1 John 2:12, Hebrews 8:12, Hebrews 10:17.

 

[stan1953]

Ah, I forgot about the "one mediator" and that has been used to say that no man is needed for confession. I'm not sure if you meant it that way.
So you are saying it is a matter of only recognizing whose sins are forgiven, or retained?

Correct. As our sins effect others, we should confess to them and ask forgiveness. This is clearly instructed, but it means we have to recognize that sin and confess (which means agree) to God that we have sinned. See [BIBLE]Matthew 5:23[/BIBLE] and [BIBLE]Matthew 18:15 [/BIBLE] Sins that aren't against people/brothers and sisters, need only be confessed to God. We do NOT require and intermediary to do so. Read the parable in Luke 18:9-14 to see Jesus' perspective on confessing sin.

In 1 Cor 5, Paul writes
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
and I'm guessing that's the one you refer to?

Yes, but also what he said in verse 12-13. This does not mean condemn, but determine by the Holy Spirit or not, that someone is in sin and needs to be dealt with. Paul is just affirming what Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15-17

I'd have to look into that further, and it may be beyond my ability to be completely sure of the original text.

I think you worry to much about original language texts. Most modern English translation like the NIV, HCSB, NRSV and NET Bible, do quite well at conveying the actual Greek text.

(Though I am really interested in v. 5 ... I had intended to ask that question someday - regarding the destruction of his flesh for the sake that his spirit may still be saved.)

The flesh in this instance, connotes carnal nature, not his actual body. Some people just need to have their carnal nature really dealt with, just like an addict does, in order to not be bound by it. We all have problems with our carnal nature but in the case that Jesus was dealing with, it was one that the person in question was not willing to submit to.

 

[~Anastasia~]

How do you mean "choice" not to forgive? I don't quite understand?
I don't think anyone has the ability to choose not to forgive someone for whatever reason. A repentant person's forgiveness can't be hindered by someone else's choice to hinder it.
If you sin, and don't repent, God isn't forgiving you that sin. (He is retaining it.) That is the fact we are telling someone when binding them in their sin. It's not a matter of "nah, I don't want him to be forgiven so now I'll bring out the keys and retain forgiveness from him". It's a matter of stating the truth to an unrepentant person.

Sorry Cerette, I was abbreviating too much.

I was talking about the apostles being told that whoever's sins they forgave, were forgiven, and whoever's sins they retained, were retained.

What I meant was, as far as them "retaining sins" - perhaps it's more like they chose not to forgive? As in your example of a person who might refuse to repent?

I don't know about retaining someone's sins against them forever. More likely it seems that situation would be they would choose not to forgive.

Until the person repents.

That's the reason I worded it that way. To allow for the hope that they would later repent, and could then be forgiven. If that makes sense.

I was speaking in completely hypothetical terms. Which I probably should not have done, since I just managed to be confusing.

 

[cerette]

Sorry Cerette, I was abbreviating too much.

I was talking about the apostles being told that whoever's sins they forgave, were forgiven, and whoever's sins they retained, were retained.

What I meant was, as far as them "retaining sins" - perhaps it's more like they chose not to forgive? As in your example of a person who might refuse to repent?

I don't know about retaining someone's sins against them forever. More likely it seems that situation would be they would choose not to forgive.

Until the person repents.

That's the reason I worded it that way. To allow for the hope that they would later repent, and could then be forgiven. If that makes sense.

I was speaking in completely hypothetical terms. Which I probably should not have done, since I just managed to be confusing.

I hope you didn't get the word "forever" from anything I've said. That's of course not the purpose of retaining. The wish is always for the unrepentant to actually repent.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I hope you didn't get the word "forever" from anything I've said. That's of course not the purpose of retaining. The wish is always for the unrepentant to actually repent.

No, not at all

It's just that "retain" isn't stated as temporary (though we know it would only be the case until repentance).

But no, I knew you didn't mean that. Tonight I'm typing one-fingered on a tiny screen waiting for my daughter to finish interviews, so I'm probably not that clear, sorry.

Hopefully be back on my computer soon.