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

[BobRyan]

So then "hate your mother and father" in Matt 10 should be isolated from all other Bible texts about loving our neighbor as ourselves as in Matt 22?? in your POV?

No text says 'The apostles' rather it is always "you" and it is in fact "each one of you" in Matt 18 just as in Matt 6 "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors". There is never a "just the Apostles" qualifier

That is a reference to the church discipline he called the church to exercise in 1 Cor 5 -- disfellowshiping someone who was in open sin - to try and convince them to repent and return. It was a corporate action by the entire church to cast that person out.

2 Cor 2:5 But if anyone has caused sorrow, he has caused sorrow not for me, but in some degree—not to say too much—for all of you. 6 Sufficient for such a person is this punishment which was imposed by the majority, 7 so that on the other hand, you should rather forgive and comfort him, otherwise such a person might be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 For to this end I also wrote, so that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things. 10 But one whom you forgive anything, I also forgive; for indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did so for your sakes in the presence of Christ, 11 so that no advantage would be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes.

He calls for the entire church to forgive the repentant offender

2 Cor 7:8 For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while— 9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. 10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. 11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. 12 So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness in our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God. 13 Because of this, we have been comforted.

Forgiveness in the two epistles to the church of Corinth has to do with the church itself dealing with a wayward member and disfellowshiping them only to accept them back into the church when that person repents.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not possible in the cases I gave -

For example in Matt 6 "Forgive us our debts as we forgive those who sin against us" - is a prayer not at all confined to clergy and not at all in the form "my clergy prayed that prayer for me - so I don't do it".

Nothing is beyond God’s power to forgive. The pastor is entrusted by the congregation to, among other things, lead them in prayer, particularly the Lord’s prayer, for their forgiveness and to pronounce absolution, but it is God who forgives.

I don't know of any denomination that goes to the extreme of telling members not to pray the Lord's prayer or that the clergy pray it for them so they are not supposed to pray that prayer etc.

No denomination has ever done that, and I would not suggest for a moment they would. The oldest liturgical text we have, the Didache, required early Christians to say the Lord’s Prayer three times daily, and the Lord’s Prayer is a part of every ancient liturgy of the early church as well as every liturgy of more recent provenance that I am aware of.

 

[The Liturgist]

Forgiveness in the two epistles to the church of Corinth has to do with the church itself dealing with a wayward member and disfellowshiping them only to accept them back into the church when that person repents.

Indeed, that is not the issue here.

 

[Paidiske]

It is not the point, it was never the point, it will never be the point. The passive voice DOES NOT mean passive in activity or function.

It can, however, indicate that something is done by God. (You might like to google "divine passive.")

And it does, in this particular text, indicate that it is not the action of the human being which brings about forgiveness/absolution, but that their words point to forgiveness already given by God.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed, that is not the issue here.

title says "is it just priests".

 

[The Liturgist]

title says "is it just priests".

Well you’ve had actual priests whose business card says Priest, like @Paidiske , answer that question, so I am not sure what Corinth has to do with anything.

 

[The Liturgist]

It’s really 490 times for each offense daily. Like God will do for us, when we need it and haven’t turned away from God. We must repent each time, so as to make it such a burden that we can’t continue doing it.

Our Lord clearly was seeking to convey to a people who lacked the conceptual understanding of infinities and very large numbers, the idea of God’s boundless mercy. The use of the phrase “not seven, but seven times seventy” is relevant here in the sense of how one might speak to a small child.

 

[concretecamper]

It can, however, indicate that something is done by God. (You might like to google "divine passive.")

And it does, in this particular text, indicate that it is not the action of the human being which brings about forgiveness/absolution, but that their words point to forgiveness already given by God.

Hmm, who to believe? I'll listen to

St John Chrysostom:

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

 

[Erose]

Uh no, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Methodists, Moravians, Baptists, Reformed Presbyterian and Congregationalists all recognize this, which is indicated by the confiteors in their liturgy, and in the case of Lutherans, not only do Lutherans recognize it, but Martin Luther considered that confession might constitute a third sacrament in addition to the usual two recognized Protestant sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Lutherans and Anglicans, who both recognize that priests have an apostolic authority to bind and loose, and reflect this in their liturgy, and also offer auricular confession (private confession with a priest), are the fourth and third largest groupings of denominations, after Eastern Orthodoxy, which is the second, and Roman Catholicism, which is the largest, and Reformed Protestantism is the fifth largest grouping. There was a thread last year in which the numbers on the size of denominational groupings, communions and individual denominations was crunched and there was some controversy which I would prefer not to repeat. Suffice it to say a clear majority of Christian denominations believe that ordained clergy who have the authority to bind and loose.

I don't think Baptists should be in your list. Maybe some, I don't know, but I do know that Southern Baptists and primitive Baptists do not believe this.

 

[rturner76]

I think it's something like it is God who forgives and the Priest is the guide to how to break the habit and show repentance. But it is up to the Parishioner to repent and God is the judge of your repentance's sincerity. Something like that.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Forgiveness in the two epistles to the church of Corinth has to do with the church itself dealing with a wayward member and disfellowshiping them only to accept them back into the church when that person repents.

Indeed, that is not the issue here.

well then maybe we all agree that forgiving others is in fact limited to "just priests" as per the title of the thread.

And as we see in the Lord's prayer - it applies to all Christians who pray the Lord's prayer - which is pretty much everyone.

Peter gets right down "to details" on this subject in Matt 18 - in his discussion with Christ on this topic

HTacianas said:
That is you forgiving others who have sinned against you. The authority of a priest to forgive sins is written at John 20:

Jhn 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

As Peter said "How many times shall my brother sin against me- and I still forgive him?" Matt 18

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm, who to believe?

That is the right question:

Listen to the Bible -

What doe the Bible say about confession and forgiveness?

Matt 6 “Forgive us our debts AS we forgive those who sin against us”

In Matt 18:18 Christ tells ALL "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound.. and whatever you loose..." regarding those who sin against you and then you forgiving them

Matt 18
15 "" If your brother sins , go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 ""But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 ""If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
18 ""Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

#1. In this case it is very clear that the sin is open and observed by others. (The one sinning is not coming to a priest in confession). This is the context for the “Binding” and “Loosing” – it is corporate action by the church itself.

#2. it is the entire church that must be called upon before the action is valid. The Matt 18 scenario gives no room for allowing a few leaders to curse someone. And as we see in 2Cor 7 once that person is excluded, then returns – the entire group must choose to welcome them back in again (the group has no choice at that point)

Matt 18:
21 Then Peter came up and said to Him, “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me and I still forgive him? Up to seven times?” 22 Jesus *said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy-seven times.

Luke 17
3 "Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
4 "And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, 'I repent,' forgive him."

#3. Luke shows us that the case is specific to one who “sins against you” and to public sin where one brother rebukes another for open sin.


James 5: the scope is "everyone in church" -- all Christians, just as in the Lord's prayer in Matt 6.

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. 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 of 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. A prayer of a righteous person, when it is brought about, can accomplish much. 17 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. 18 Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.
19 My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

I'll listen to

St John Chrysostom:

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ ...

You have free will - listen to whomever you wish

 

[concretecamper]

You have free will - listen to whomever you wish

I'll listen to Christ and His Church 100% of the time!

 

[The Liturgist]

Frankly @BobRyan I find myself a bit confused by your most recent posts.

Here is what I can say: we as Christians are commanded to forgive others, and the Lord’s Prayer has us ask God for our forgiveness. The absolution pronounced by pastors of churches is a declaration of God’s forgiveness, which they can pronounce according to Matthew 16:18. There is no conflict between these concepts.

 

[Paidiske]

Hmm, who to believe? I'll listen to

St John Chrysostom:

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

I would suggest that the quote from Chrysostom is making a rhetorical point which needs to be understood in a larger context.

 

[concretecamper]

which needs to be understood in a larger context

Haha. Don't be bothered I chose his explanation over an Anglican Minister, Wikipedia, and google.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Frankly @BobRyan I find myself a bit confused by your most recent posts.

Here is what I can say: we as Christians are commanded to forgive others, and the Lord’s Prayer has us ask God for our forgiveness. The absolution pronounced by pastors of churches is a declaration of God’s forgiveness, which they can pronounce according to Matthew 16:18. There is no conflict between these concepts.

No conflict whatever.
But Helen White wrote quite a lot about her perceptions of Catholicism - which were very negative - and perhaps that is the reason for the posts we see from BobRyan.

 

[Guojing]

Frankly @BobRyan I find myself a bit confused by your most recent posts.

Here is what I can say: we as Christians are commanded to forgive others, and the Lord’s Prayer has us ask God for our forgiveness. The absolution pronounced by pastors of churches is a declaration of God’s forgiveness, which they can pronounce according to Matthew 16:18. There is no conflict between these concepts.

I think the elephant in the room is this:

If God has already forgiven us our sins in the first place when we believed the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, why do we need anyone else to pronounce absolution on us?

 

[Guojing]

It can, however, indicate that something is done by God. (You might like to google "divine passive.")

And it does, in this particular text, indicate that it is not the action of the human being which brings about forgiveness/absolution, but that their words point to forgiveness already given by God.

I think the elephant in the room is this:

If God has already forgiven us our sins in the first place when we believed the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, why do we need anyone else to pronounce absolution on us?

 

[The Liturgist]

I think the elephant in the room is this:

If God has already forgiven us our sins in the first place when we believed the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, why do we need anyone else to pronounce absolution on us?

When we convert to Christianity, our sins up until that point are washed away in the waters of Baptism, but that does not mean we stop sinning. Some in the early church like Tertullian mistakenly thought that we could stop sinning, and went so far as to say that those who sinned after Baptism would not be forgiven, which is obviously erroneous, and this view, which culminated in Pelagianism, the error that we can save ourselves without the help provided by the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, and this heresy was refuted by St. John Cassian and also by St. Augustine.

Thus, the New Testament makes it clear that we have two means of sacramental grace available to us: the ability of pastors to pronounce absolution on us when we confess sins, either collectively with the congregation or individually, or both (which we see our Lord do many times, and we also see him grant this authority to the Apostles in Matthew 16), and consequently, as we see in all the traditional liturgies, in texts dating as far back as the Second and Third Century* whether Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, etc) and in Holy Communion, where we partake of the Body of Christ, broken for us and for many for the remittance of sin (1 Corinthians 1:1-26’.

These means of grace are administered first through congregational or private confession and reconciliation, wherein a priest like @Paidiske pronounces God’s absolution over us, relying on the pastoral authority to bind and loose as described in Matthew 16:18, and then through Holy Communion, the rational and bloodless sacrifice of the Eucharist, wherein our sins are remitted, we drink the blood of the New Covenant poured out by our Lord, and become partakers of the Divine Nature (2 Peter 1:4). The reason for this order is so that we approach with reverence the Eucharist, lest we casually partake and fail to discern the Body and Blood of our Lord, which is spiritually and physically dangerous (1 Corinthians 11:27-34). However, it is imperative that we faithfully eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord, as He declared in John 6.

*The oldest liturgies are those of Alexandria, commonly known as the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark in the Greek Orthodox Church and the Divine Liturgy of St. Cyril in the Coptic Orthodox Church, which is attested to in the Strasbourg Papyrus and other fragments from the second century, the Liturgy of the Apostles Addai and Mari, used by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of East, which historically was the largest church in the world until the Muslims killed most of them, but the surviving Assyrian community is the largest remaining population that speaks Aramaic in the vernacular, and the Anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, which has become prominent in recent decades owing to its use as Eucharistic Prayer no. 2 in the Novus Ordo Missae and Eucharistic Prayer B in the 1979 Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer, and in many other recent Protestant liturgical texts including the United Methodist Book of Worship, the Book of Worship of the Presbyterian Church USA, and Common Worship, the excellent liturgical resource that supplements the Book of Common Prayer in the Church of England; in all of these churches, this prayer has become extremely popular because of its brevity, however, most people are unaware that in addition to being used since the third century in Antioch, and possibly Rome, it has since the fourth century been the most commonly used liturgy in the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox churches, and the Ethiopian Orthodox is the largest of the Oriental Orthodox churches, nearly twice as large as the others combined, with 40 million members, and also one of the largest churches in the world.