The debate about forgiving -- is it just priests that forgive?

[BobRyan]

I will go one step further and say you cannot KNOW If any of those confessions were actually sincere or for that matter if any have been forgiven, even if every fiber of your being thinks they have. UNLESS you have heard directly from God

Certainly none of us are the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit "convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment" John 16.

The point of this thread is that we have to know what the Bible says (including on this topic) and this should inform our faith, our teaching our view of God and our view of the gospel.

 

[BobRyan]

16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

If you follow what Christ said in his 1st coming, that is knowing Christ after the flesh.

There is a big problem with the inference you are adding there.

Matt 28 - Jesus tells the disciples to tell all mankind "all the things I commanded you" - which is exactly why we have the teaching of Christ recorded and preserved for us in the Gospel accounts.

There is no "followers of Christ ignore the teaching of Christ in the gospels" doctrine in the NT.

The disciples knew Christ in the flesh - literally walking with him for over 3 years. But they had faulty understanding of him then... And that is what the statement above references.

Matt 16 is an example of Jesus telling Peter that his understanding of Christ and His mission was faulty at that time.

 

[Guojing]

That's where we agree but you do not see the problem here. The problem here is that the verse makes it clear that the declaration of forgiveness can ONLY be when someone is forgiven. There is no wiggle room for mistakes because the declaration is definitive based on what God has done, the God that doesn't make mistakes.

Well said, that is the elephant in the room about John 20:23.

 

[Guojing]

There is a big problem with the inference you are adding there.

Matt 28 - Jesus tells the disciples to tell all mankind "all the things I commanded you" - which is exactly why we have the teaching of Christ recorded and preserved for us in the Gospel accounts.

There is no "followers of Christ ignore the teaching of Christ in the gospels" doctrine in the NT.

The disciples knew Christ in the flesh - literally walking with him for over 3 years. But they had faulty understanding of him then... And that is what the statement above references.

Matt 16 is an example of Jesus telling Peter that his understanding of Christ and His mission was faulty at that time.

As I have already said to you before, and others in this thread, see Matthew 15:24 and Romans 15:8 to understand who Jesus was instructing in those passages.

Rightly divide the word of truth to Israel AND the Body of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:16 stated what it meant and meant what it stated.

 

[Darren Court]

Those of us who practice confession are being criticised, and asked to defend ourselves, in this thread in a way which everyone else is not.

That's seems to be because you have assumed an authority take confession and speak for God but it does not mean the rest of us are not practicing confession. Would we be following biblical instructions to "...confess your sins to each other.." if we were not practicing confession?
.
As for being criticised.... you might take it personally, but since I knew you not, my points were not made toward you, but rather the principles as laid out in the scripture. Most people don't like criticism, but reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

 

[BobRyan]

Those of us who practice confession are being criticised, and asked to defend ourselves, in this thread in a way which everyone else is not.

It is not my intent to put anyone in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves. My intent is just to have us look at what the Bible says on the topic of confession and forgiveness.

You have made some very positive statements about people needing to be assured of God's forgiveness which is an encouragement for someone who may be at point of sorrow and even doubt as to whether God is willing to forgive them. I get that. The Matt 18 example is a good one showing how it can be very encouraging for a church member to see the church extending forgiveness for them as they have been caught in a sin/failing that has become apparent to the church - but then have repented.

So I am asking that we look at the Bible details as compared to some people having "The power" to forgive etc. Which is where some other threads have taken this idea.

 

[Paidiske]

That's seems to be because you have assumed an authority...

No, I haven't assumed. I have been given that authority by the Church.

but it does not mean the rest of us are not practicing confession. Would we be following biblical instructions to "...confess your sins to each other.." if we were not practicing confession?

I make no assumptions about what you are or are not doing. It seems clear that you disapprove of private confession to a priest, though.

.
As for being criticised.... you might take it personally, but since I knew you not, my points were not made toward you,

My point is that it is deeply personal whether you intend it that way, or not.

 

[Paidiske]

It is not my intent to put anyone in a position where they feel they have to defend themselves.

Surely you realise that that is the impact a thread like this is going to have, though?

 

[Darren Court]

o, I haven't assumed. I have been given that authority by the Church.

Sorry I rephrase that because you are right, you personally haven't assumed that authority. The church has assumed this authority but it's not, in my view, supported by scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Surely you realise that that is the impact a thread like this is going to have, though?

There are a few threads currently active on this topic in General Theology - I added this to that active group to narrow the focus.

1. We can all see a kind of forgiveness each one of us is to offer to others in the case of the Lord's prayer in Matt 6.. and it shows up in the case of Matt 18 again as Peter says "How many times shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?"

I think we can agree that those texts are accepted by everyone.

2. But there is the question of whether a certain office in the church is identified in the Bible as having some powers - regarding confession and forgiveness of sins. Powers that the membership does not have. A division of the form "sacred clergy vs profane laity" is how I have heard it stated in the past. Where the sacred group has certain powers to mark the soul, to hear confession and forgive sins. In fact in the Catholic church - I have heard that it is said that even if a priest is defrocked for heresy - they "retain the powers" to conduct the mass and hear confession and forgive sins.

I think we can at least agree that this teaching is significant enough that almost everyone has some interest in knowing what the Bible says about it.

 

[Darren Court]

I make no assumptions about what you are or are not doing. It seems clear that you disapprove of private confession to a priest, though

Firstly, when you stated "For those of us for whom this is part of our life, the whole thread is pretty personal." you didn't mean to imply that doesn't include mean? It would seem to directly infer such!
.
Secondly, I thought after all this time it would have been clear that I have absolutely no problem with confession to anyone which includes a Priest. I do have a problem if the Priest acts or even is perceived to act as God's mouthpiece when they are not doing so... especially when the comfort and truth could so easily be presented in the form "If you are sincere in your confession, God has forgiven you" Something every Christian can preach, teach and declare!

 

[Darren Court]

My point is that it is deeply personal whether you intend it that way, or not.

I think that's a problem. If we are truly interested in biblical truth, the first thing we must do is put aside the personal investments we have made in arriving at our belief in order to face the potentially difficult reality that we have been wrong. If we cannot do that then the personal investment that we think is right is no different than the personal investment others have made that we think is wrong.
.
Moreover, we should all welcome challenges to our faith, because they provide us not only with the opportunity to allow truth in that we were unaware of but also because such challenges can confirm and strengthen our resolution when we have openly considered.
.
...perhaps this is why the bible does not speak of the pain of what feel like personal attacks and tells us that ...
reprove a wise man, and he will love you.

 

[Guojing]

My point is that it is deeply personal whether you intend it that way, or not.

I always consider such forums as a "safe space" for Christians to discuss issues that they could not discuss with fellow believers face to face.

These are questions we want to ask in bible study groups but due to lack of time, and the difficulty of presenting them in speech instead of typed words, we would rather just agree with what the leader says.

But I guess for your case, you have put your "real picture" in your profile and thus may not see it the same way.

 

[Paidiske]

2. But there is the question of whether a certain office in the church is identified in the Bible as having some powers - regarding confession and forgiveness of sins. Powers that the membership does not have. A division of the form "sacred clergy vs profane laity" is how I have heard it stated in the past. Where the sacred group has certain powers to mark the soul, to hear confession and forgive sins. In fact in the Catholic church - I have heard that it is said that even if a priest is defrocked for heresy - they "retain the powers" to conduct the mass and hear confession and forgive sins.

This certainly doesn't reflect my understanding. It's not about "powers," and it's certainly not about "sacred clergy vs profane laity."

I think giving responsibiliity for this to the clergy does two things. One is that it allows, for want of a better term, for a degree of quality control. The person hearing confessions can be trained in how to respond, and - should they abuse that position in any way - it can allow for their discipline or removal. The other is that it allows for confidence in confidentiality. If I speak to my friend who holds no particular position, and later they blab to everyone, there's no recourse; they can't be held accountable in any way. But the clergy are vowed to keep that confidential and that can allow for greater openness and trust.

I do have a problem if the Priest acts or even is perceived to act as God's mouthpiece when they are not doing so... especially when the comfort and truth could so easily be presented in the form "If you are sincere in your confession, God has forgiven you" Something every Christian can preach, teach and declare!

So your issue is purely with the words of absolution? I think what you're looking for is made clear through the process of confession. I don't see it as a real issue in practice.

 

[Paidiske]

the personal investment that we think is right is no different than the personal investment others have made that we think is wrong.

Indeed. And I think those investments, often deeply costly, ought to be treated with respect and gentleness in the way we interact with each other.

Moreover, we should all welcome challenges to our faith, because they provide us not only with the opportunity to allow truth in that we were unaware of but also because such challenges can confirm and strengthen our resolution when we have openly considered.

And that's part of the benefit of a forum like this.

The only point I was making was that you thought we should drop the topic because it had become personal, whereas for some of us it was deeply personal from the first post.

But I guess for your case, you have put your "real picture" in your profile and thus may not see it the same way.

It's more, I am very used to threads on this forum which attack this or that group, or denomination, or practice, (or, very often, women in particular). It's tiresome. I would prefer that we find ways to open up discussion without it being about attacking those with whom we disagree.

 

[Darren Court]

This certainly doesn't reflect my understanding. It's not about "powers," and it's certainly not about "sacred clergy vs profane laity."

I think giving responsibiliity for this to the clergy does two things. One is that it allows, for want of a better term, for a degree of quality control. The person hearing confessions can be trained in how to respond, and - should they abuse that position in any way - it can allow for their discipline or removal. The other is that it allows for confidence in confidentiality. If I speak to my friend who holds no particular position, and later they blab to everyone, there's no recourse; they can't be held accountable in any way. But the clergy are vowed to keep that confidential and that can allow for greater openness and trust.

Logically and humanly speaking this makes perfect sense, but that's not what we're talking about here if there is some kind of divine authority given to clergy. If not, then I've no problem with it.

 

[Darren Court]

So your issue is purely with the words of absolution? I think what you're looking for is made clear through the process of confession. I don't see it as a real issue in practice.

Absolutely, I think it's imperative that our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no"... i.e we are clear. In this case we're clear Priest's aren't declaring God has forgiven but that God has forgiven if you are sincere, where there can be no ambiguity or misunderstanding.

 

[Darren Court]

Indeed. And I think those investments, often deeply costly, ought to be treated with respect and gentleness in the way we interact with each other.

I would agree but add that it is almost beholden on the person who feels attacked to reflect on the reality that any statement that seems to undermine their personal investment is going to FEEL like a personal attack, but that they should not deem it so!

 

[Guojing]

It's more, I am very used to threads on this forum which attack this or that group, or denomination, or practice, (or, very often, women in particular). It's tiresome. I would prefer that we find ways to open up discussion without it being about attacking those with whom we disagree.

Well, I have been attacked many times in such discussions too, people who have disagreed with me and have called me "following Satan, being anti-Christ, not a Christian" etc.

I simply shrug them off, like I said, its easier due to anoymomity. That is the price one pays for participating in such anonymous discussions.

I remind myself "How others choose to respond to you is on them, how you respond to their attack is on you."

 

[Darren Court]

The only point I was making was that you thought we should drop the topic because it had become personal, whereas for some of us it was deeply personal from the first post.

I misunderstood that response as I took it to be saying "Too late you've already gone way over that line"