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

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob... I think we're talking about cross purposes here. Where we are personal sinned against, we are to forgive 70x7 i.e infinite number of times.
.
Are you're saying " If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” is confined to just sins that are committed against you?

Hi Darren,

I am saying that in Matt 18 the context is a corporate setting where the entire church either forgives or not - dealing with public sin.

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.


IN the second case - as we see in the Matt 6 and Peter's question for more details in Matt 18 -- it is always a personal interaction where someone has "sinned against you" -- which again is a case where the sin is known to at least one other person besides the person that sinned.

No example in all of the NT is one where only the sinner knows about the sin and goes and reveals it to someone else (assuming it is not a sin against others -- like theft or ...).

So that is the book's context for the phrase we find in Matt 18 - vs18 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.

It is more than a little "odd" that each time the Bible spells out the context in detail - we can get someone to respond "well then not that context".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most of the people I speak to on this have many people in their church who are confused and take two different views. Some will say the Priest does forgive because that's precisely what the bible says, even though their "official doctrine" endorses the fact that only God forgives. The rest state their belief as you do.... that the Priest only pronounces forgiveness of sins. However, they get a bit stuck when we dig into this a bit further....
.
1) If the Priest is acting on behalf of God in declaring sins, are they acting with divine guidance/authority or just human fallibility. It's important to know which because I cannot see any case to make for God's authority being given to someone with human fallibility whilst they're making a mistake. If it's with divine guidance, there will never be a mistake, though.

What does God's word say? "If we confess our sins, then He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

If in proclaiming the sins of the penitent forgiven is based not on the authority of the pastor, but on the authority of God who promises forgiveness--for Christ died once and for the sins of all--then that declaration of forgiveness is true because God Himself says it. His word is true, His word cannot lie.

.
2) "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” There are two clear parts to this. Forgiving and not forgiving, but as far as I'm aware there is no part of "not forgiving" in the confession or Priest's withholding absolution. Unless there are clear grounds upon which sins are forgiven or not forgiven, and we are implementing those grounds then we are not following scripture in the process. Thus it seems to me that if we're going to use scripture to defend our process of Priest's declaring forgiveness then they must also include the process of declaring not forgiven!

Shalom aleichem

If I make an appointment with my pastor and I tell him, "I did this one sin, but I'm not sorry about it" then he isn't going to speak absolution, he is going to tell me that I need to actually repent of my sin. Otherwise it would be, as Pastor Bonhoeffer puts it in Cost of Discipleship, "cheap grace" which isn't really grace at all.

"Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." - Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship

The proper exercising of the Keys is in pronouncing forgiveness and withholding it when necessary--it is withheld when absolution is treated not as real grace, but a a cheap knockoff. We come before God in repentance, and He is faithful to forgive, for His forgiveness is free for us, but cost the life of His dear and beloved Son. Without repentance we are not even seeking forgiveness, but merely some outward function of religion without meaning, without grace, without Christ, without the Spirit, without the power of the Gospel. Such would be dead and meaningless religion; therefore God calls us to repentance by the preaching of the Law. Even as He gives us true and real forgiveness through the preaching of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Darren Court]

What does God's word say? "If we confess our sins, then He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)

If in proclaiming the sins of the penitent forgiven is based not on the authority of the pastor, but on the authority of God who promises forgiveness--for Christ died once and for the sins of all--then that declaration of forgiveness is true because God Himself says it. His word is true, His word cannot lie.

What does God's word say? "If we confess our sins, then He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
.
I don't see how this applies or even speaks to this matter. This does not speak of confessing to others, Priest or otherwise and the clear implication is that if we confess to God, then we will be forgiven. Unless, of course, you are saying that confession to a Priest is not confessing to God at the time?
.
If in proclaiming the sins of the penitent forgiven is based not on the authority of the pastor, but on the authority of God who promises forgiveness... I think you missed my point, maybe I wasn't clear. You are claiming that when the Priest/Pastor declares forgiveness then it is on the authority of God. In this matter they are representing and speaking for God. If they are doing so then they can NEVER make a mistake and, for example, pronounce forgiveness when the person isn't really penitent, because anyone speaking nobody acting on God's instruction can make such mistakes.... If I'm wrong in this, please direct me to the scriptures that show anyone acting under God's instruction making a mistake.

If I make an appointment with my pastor and I tell him, "I did this one sin, but I'm not sorry about it" then he isn't going to speak absolution, he is going to tell me that I need to actually repent of my sin.

You missed the point, again maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not speaking about someone who blatantly says they are not sorry but rather someone who is either lying to the Priest else lying to themselves that they are sorry. Clearly the bible does not make exceptions or excuses for people who say they are sorry and they're not, no matter what the reason.
.
You didn't deal with the fact that Priest's don't pronounce unforgiveness which is completely tied up in the same scriptures for pronouncing forgiveness, except when someone blatantly admits they are not sorry.
.
The problem is simple... if someone is not sorry then they are not forgiven, yet there are from my experience and the admission of many people I have asked, lots of occasion they received absolution from the Priest despite not being sorry.

 

[Darren Court]

Hi Darren,

I am saying that in Matt 18 the context is a corporate setting where the entire church either forgives or not - dealing with public sin.

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.


IN the second case - as we see in the Matt 6 and Peter's question for more details in Matt 18 -- it is always a personal interaction where someone has "sinned against you" -- which again is a case where the sin is known to at least one other person besides the person that sinned.

No example in all of the NT is one where only the sinner knows about the sin and goes and reveals it to someone else (assuming it is not a sin against others -- like theft or ...).

So that is the book's context for the phrase we find in Matt 18 - vs18 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.

It is more than a little "odd" that each time the Bible spells out the context in detail - we can get someone to respond "well then not that context".

 

[Darren Court]

Hi Bob
.
I think I get what you're saying and agree in terms of the context of sins against the personage.
.
However, there are lots of verses in connection to sin and forgiveness that clearly not just sins about us that we can forgive....

1) Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

2) "And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

The first verse implies sharing of sins in terms of confession to each other of sins not related to the parties themselves
.
The second verse implies the pronouncement of sins not related to the parties themselves. Furthermore this second verse talks of not forgiving someone of their sins, which seems entirely contrary to biblical instruction to forgive anyone for anything they have done to us directly, if this verse only applies to sins between two parties.
.
Does that make sense?

 

[Paidiske]

I'm not sure from what denomination you are coming from here, but suspect Anglican.

Yes, I am an Anglican.

1) If the Priest is acting on behalf of God in declaring sins, are they acting with divine guidance/authority or just human fallibility. It's important to know which because I cannot see any case to make for God's authority being given to someone with human fallibility whilst they're making a mistake. If it's with divine guidance, there will never be a mistake, though.

Look, I'm fallible, for sure. While I believe I experience God's guidance in my ministry, I'm not going to claim I never get anything wrong.

That said, I think this is one area where we can stand on God's promises with reasonable confidence. We don't have to doubt or second-guess that God forgives us when we repent.

2) "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” There are two clear parts to this. Forgiving and not forgiving, but as far as I'm aware there is no part of "not forgiving" in the confession or Priest's withholding absolution.

You are mistaken. Withholding absolution is always a possibility. It would be rare; I myself have never needed to do it, but it is a real aspect of the ministry of reconciliation.

Unless there are clear grounds upon which sins are forgiven or not forgiven, and we are implementing those grounds then we are not following scripture in the process. Thus it seems to me that if we're going to use scripture to defend our process of Priest's declaring forgiveness then they must also include the process of declaring not forgiven!

The grounds are repentance. I saw, above, that you raised with @ViaCrucis the possibility that someone might lie to the priest about repentance, and I suppose that's a possibility. But in reality, why? No one is forcing the penitent to confession in the first place, so if they want to avoid repenting, they need not come and lie about it. In my experience, people take confession very seriously, and I have had no reason to doubt the sincerity of any person whose confession I have heard.

The possibility of lying to ourselves is trickier, and I can see how that might happen. I would hope that a good confessor would probe beneath the layers of denial and avoidance that might indicate that. But in the end, if someone has deceived themselves into believing they repent when they do not, and they hear that God forgives them, perhaps that is not a disaster; when they do recognise their own self-deception, they will know that God's forgiveness is still available to them.

 

[Darren Court]

The grounds are repentance. I saw, above, that you raised with @ViaCrucis the possibility that someone might lie to the priest about repentance, and I suppose that's a possibility. But in reality, why? No one is forcing the penitent to confession in the first place, so if they want to avoid repenting, they need not come and lie about it. In my experience, people take confession very seriously, and I have had no reason to doubt the sincerity of any person whose confession I have heard.

I can tell you why someone would confess without being sincerely repentant... superstition in the process! I can't say I have witness any Anglican's in this matter, not least because I've not actually seen or known any Anglican's confess to their Priest anyway, but I have had many such conversations with Catholics... who in their sober moments have admitted going to confession asking for forgiveness whilst knowing they were going to go out and do the same thing very soon thereafter. So many times have I heard this that I would say it is common.
.
I think the problem is that it happens at all, if the Priest is actually acted on behalf of God, even if they are acting in good faith. The only parallel I can see in scripture is that what a person who claimed to act on behalf of God was called.... a Prophet along with the standards and consequences of what happens if they are proved wrong.
.
Now I wouldn't see a problem if the Priest wasn't pronouncing God's forgiveness but rather stating that if they were sincere, something only God knows, then they can be assured that they are forgiven but that would be a totally different position for the clergy involved.

The possibility of lying to ourselves is trickier, and I can see how that might happen. I would hope that a good confessor would probe beneath the layers of denial and avoidance that might indicate that. But in the end, if someone has deceived themselves into believing they repent when they do not, and they hear that God forgives them, perhaps that is not a disaster; when they do recognise their own self-deception, they will know that God's forgiveness is still available to them.

It depends on what you mean by "perhaps that is not a disaster".
.
Let me put if this way.... If someone claiming to represent God does so to declare something that is not true, I think it's pretty serious.... which is exactly what's happening if the person confessing isn't actually being forgiven by God. Not only does such a pronouncement not bring glory to God but it could and almost certainly will give people a false sense of security.
.
Again, my problem in this is the alleged claim that the Priest is declaring God's forgiveness, not that God will forgive if they're repentant but that they are forgiven. Personally, I think the scripture upon which this practice is based is misunderstood to assume Priests have authority to represent God that they don't actually have in this matter and my dialogue, or rather the answers given by those involved, has only served to confirm such.
.
"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” The problem here is this wording does not actually allow for the claim that a Priest only declares God's forgiveness. The wording is precise and gives authority to forgive and not forgive.... but if we look at the Greek, it is entirely plausible to translate this like this... "If their sins have been forgiven, they are forgiven and if their sins have not been forgiven they are not forgiven". Of course, this doesn't seem to make much sense, which is perhaps why bible translators have not thought this correct, but I think it does when you think the words "they are forgiven" and "they are not forgiven" are statements of fact and if we are privy to which of these facts is true, we are free to declare! The point being IF we are privy. If we are not then we know not and cannot declare whether are Priests or laymen.
.
Shalom aleichem

 

[Paidiske]

I can tell you why someone would confess without being sincerely repentant... superstition in the process! I can't say I have witness any Anglican's in this matter,

Yes, I would say that is not an Anglican problem, in general.

but I have had many such conversations with Catholics... who in their sober moments have admitted going to confession asking for forgiveness whilst knowing they were going to go out and do the same thing very soon thereafter. So many times have I heard this that I would say it is common.

I would say that the situation is a little different for Catholics because private confession is obligatory for them. I do not think that that is a healthy thing.

I think the problem is that it happens at all, if the Priest is actually acted on behalf of God, even if they are acting in good faith. The only parallel I can see in scripture is that what a person who claimed to act on behalf of God was called.... a Prophet along with the standards and consequences of what happens if they are proved wrong.

I think the difference is that the priest here is acting on behalf of the church. We are exercising a ministry of the church, and - perhaps no differently than preaching, or presiding at the Eucharist, or whatever else we might do - there is a degree of trust that despite our human ability to get things wrong, God is at work in and through the trusted means God has given us.

.Now I wouldn't see a problem if the Priest wasn't pronouncing God's forgiveness but rather stating that if they were sincere, something only God knows, then they can be assured that they are forgiven but that would be a totally different position for the clergy involved.

I think this is implied, actually. Why would you think the forgiveness pronounced is reliable if you have lied to obtain those words?

Let me put if this way.... If someone claiming to represent God does so to declare something that is not true, I think it's pretty serious.... which is exactly what's happening if the person confessing isn't actually being forgiven by God.

I see it slightly differently. In the case where a person comes, not sincerely repenting but deceiving even themselves about that, they hear that God forgives in the instance of sincere repentance. That's not actually untrue. As they grow in self-understanding and recognise their self-deception, they will know that sincere repentance will allow them assurance of forgiveness.

"If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” The problem here is this wording does not actually allow for the claim that a Priest only declares God's forgiveness. The wording is precise and gives authority to forgive and not forgive.... but if we look at the Greek, it is entirely plausible to translate this like this... "If their sins have been forgiven, they are forgiven and if their sins have not been forgiven they are not forgiven". Of course, this doesn't seem to make much sense, which is perhaps why bible translators have not thought this correct, but I think it does when you think the words "they are forgiven" and "they are not forgiven" are statements of fact and if we are privy to which of these facts is true, we are free to declare!

Yes, this was the point I was making up thread. The words of absolution do not make the forgiveness happen; they declare the forgiveness that has already happened.

The point being IF we are privy. If we are not then we know not and cannot declare whether are Priests or laymen.

When I think back over the actual confessions I have heard, I have no doubt about the contrition of the people concerned. I do not think this is a large issue in practice, at least as I have experienced it.

 

[Darren Court]

I think the difference is that the priest here is acting on behalf of the church. We are exercising a ministry of the church, and - perhaps no differently than preaching, or presiding at the Eucharist, or whatever else we might do - there is a degree of trust that despite our human ability to get things wrong, God is at work in and through the trusted means God has given us.

Whilst I get what you're saying here there is a HUGE difference. You see when you preach do you say "This is what God is telling us"? Or do you say "I think this is what God is saying here?" I sincerely hope it's the latter because the latter is operating in ministry, the former is acting as a Prophet (noting that Prophets don't always predict the future, they always speak what God tells them).

 

[Darren Court]

I think this is implied, actually. Why would you think the forgiveness pronounced is reliable if you have lied to obtain those words?

It cannot be implicitly understood that the Priest does not have the power to pronounce forgiveness if the Priest assuming the authority to declare God's forgiveness, then declares God's forgiveness. Otherwise the Priest hasn't been given any authority at all!

 

[Darren Court]

I see it slightly differently. In the case where a person comes, not sincerely repenting but deceiving even themselves about that, they hear that God forgives in the instance of sincere repentance. That's not actually untrue. As they grow in self-understanding and recognise their self-deception, they will know that sincere repentance will allow them assurance of forgiveness.

Sorry but that's trying to use semantics. If someone claiming to represent God does so to declare something that is not true, then it's pretty simple and straightforward, they are wrong! You can't right this wrong by claiming that it's the fault of the other guy, that's called Adam's Defense and it didn't work for Adam.
.
You are only responsible for the actions of one person... yourself. You cannot blame your errors, your mistakes or sins on someone else. If it's wrong to declare someone forgiven who isn't forgiven, then you should not declare them forgiven.. and you can't blame them.

 

[Darren Court]

Yes, this was the point I was making up thread. The words of absolution do not make the forgiveness happen; they declare the forgiveness that has already happened.

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.

 

[Paidiske]

Whilst I get what you're saying here there is a HUGE difference. You see when you preach do you say "This is what God is telling us"? Or do you say "I think this is what God is saying here?" I sincerely hope it's the latter because the latter is operating in ministry, the former is acting as a Prophet (noting that Prophets don't always predict the future, they always speak what God tells them).

Yes, I take your point.

But I think you are also missing the point. In your concern that no one ever hear "you are forgiven," when that is not true, you are overlooking the need for the person who is truly forgiven to hear that, unambiguously. You are also overlooking what is called general confession, when the whole congregation confesses together and forgiveness is declared to us all, as part of the worship service.

The point is that God's forgiveness is proclaimed in ways which allow people to take it to heart and be encouraged in living out their baptismal commitment.

It cannot be implicitly understood that the Priest does not have the power to pronounce forgiveness if the Priest assuming the authority to declare God's forgiveness, then declares God's forgiveness. Otherwise the Priest hasn't been given any authority at all!

It's not about power. It's about recognising that the declaration of forgiveness rests on sincere repentance. We have the authority to declare God's forgiveness as the truth in the instance of sincere repentance.

Sorry but that's trying to use semantics. If someone claiming to represent God does so to declare something that is not true, then it's pretty simple and straightforward, they are wrong! You can't right this wrong by claiming that it's the fault of the other guy, that's called Adam's Defense and it didn't work for Adam.

Is God's forgiveness to those who repent untrue? No! That is what we declare. I think you are expecting this to be something that it is not, and that the people who participate in it generally understand that it is not.

 

[Darren Court]

When I think back over the actual confessions I have heard, I have no doubt about the contrition of the people concerned. I do not think this is a large issue in practice, at least as I have experienced it.

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 that those confessions were sincere and they were forgiven, at best you were applying best endeavours.... but every single one of those people who heard they were forgiven will have believed they were.
.
I think we should stop it here and for two reasons....
1) We have strayed into the personal and I don't think that's healthy
2) It doesn't matter if I'm 100% if the Holy Spirit isn't speaking to you on this, it will make no difference.

Shalom aleichem
Something you might like to explain the reason I always wish people Shalom aleichem ... it is the greatest thing I can wish or pray for someone else

 

[Paidiske]

I think we should stop it here and for two reasons....
1) We have strayed into the personal and I don't think that's healthy

For those of us for whom this is part of our life, the whole thread is pretty personal.

2) It doesn't matter if I'm 100% if the Holy Spirit isn't speaking to you on this, it will make no difference.

At the end of the day, I know the pastoral value of people being assured of forgiveness. It's a powerful, liberating, life-giving thing. Nothing you say is likely to make me want to deny that to people.

 

[Darren Court]

But I think you are also missing the point. In your concern that no one ever hear "you are forgiven," when that is not true, you are overlooking the need for the person who is truly forgiven to hear that, unambiguously.

Sorry but that's not a point I missed at all.
.
1) I was at pains to point out that there is nothing wrong with telling someone that they are forgiven if they are truly repentant. They can confess directly to God, to a friend who is in the faith or to a Priest... they're forgiveness is the same and the surety of that forgiveness is not based on the office of Priest but on the word of God.
.
2) ... "you are overlooking their need" Such statements fill me with horror. They're need? The bible tells us that our needs are FULLY met by God, do I need to quote dozens of scripture to demonstrate the same. In fact our needs can ONLY be met by God... and if someone cannot accept the word of God telling them they are forgiven, then it's astounding that any Christian would claim they need to hear it from a Priest. Note, I am not saying that we can gain comfort from reminding each other of God's word that we are forgiven when we sincerely confess and repent, but comfort and need are very different.

 

[Darren Court]

At the end of the day, I know the pastoral value of people being assured of forgiveness. It's a powerful, liberating, life-giving thing. Nothing you say is likely to make me want to deny that to people.

I would hope not, but I hope it would be based on the surety of truth that ONLY they know if their confession is sincere, complete and full, and, therefore, that they are forgiven.

 

[Darren Court]

For those of us for whom this is part of our life, the whole thread is pretty personal.

You mean like every Christian walking and living in their faith?

 

[Paidiske]

the surety of that forgiveness is not based on the office of Priest but on the word of God.

Indeed. And that is why we can declare it with confidence.

.
2) ... "you are overlooking their need" Such statements fill me with horror. They're need? The bible tells us that our needs are FULLY met by God, do I need to quote dozens of scripture to demonstrate the same. In fact our needs can ONLY be met by God... and if someone cannot accept the word of God telling them they are forgiven, then it's astounding that any Christian would claim they need to hear it from a Priest. Note, I am not saying that we can gain comfort from reminding each other of God's word that we are forgiven when we sincerely confess and repent, but comfort and need are very different.

God meets some of our needs through the community of the church. For some people, yes, that personal connection, of knowing that someone else has heard their sin, and can still look them in the eye and assure them of forgiveness, goes beyond reading words on a page and meets a deep pastoral need. I don't have a problem with that.

You mean like every Christian walking and living in their faith?

No, I don't.

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.

 

[Guojing]

You believe we are to follow Paul's example? Paul is dead, Christ is alive. Paul followed Christ by the Holy Spirit, which is exactly what we're to do now, today. Show me the scriptures that dispute that fact?

I did, but you removed it when you replied to my post (2 Corinthians 5:16)

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.

Paul is telling all of us, know the ascended Christ, the Christ that is instructing us thru his epistles, Romans to Philemon.

Follow Paul as he follows Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1)