forgiveness of sins

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .There is a saying in the Episcopal Church “All may. Some should. None must.”. . . .

Wow. What does one do with this? It sounds more like placating the congregation than anything else; kind of like “it doesn’t matter what one believes about the Eucharist, all are still invited to share. See how tolerant and inclusive we are?” I would not want to live with such uncertainty. What that “saying” actually says is that it isn’t important enough to worry about. Not a big deal. I would disagree whole heartedly and ask who ever came up with the saying to grow a spine.

Why? If it really doesn’t matter; if it is “optional”, what is sad about not doing it?

Steve,

The quote is rather disturbing and goes back to the Anglican struggle between Reformation ideas and the Catholic Church. The Conciliar Anglican gives a brief overview of how this saying developed within Anglicanism: All May, None Must, Some Should.

For better or for worse, it is part of Anglican history.

Anna

 

[JonNC]

Thank you all.

I guess what I am getting at isn’t necessarily that there might be confession in protestant denominations, but that it isn’t necessary for salvation. A Catholic must go to confession to be saved. Lutherans, Anglicans, and others, asa far as I know, do not believe it is necessary to go to Confession but rather it is optional. It is my understanding also that it is not considered a sacrament. To have this teaching, the Biblical understanding of binding and loosing must be Substantially different. Im curious why this is.

Thanks!

From a Lutheran perspective, whether holy Absolution is a sacrament of itself or an extension of baptism forgiveness of sins is a basic part of salvation. If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive our sins…

Why would we assume that Absolution is not necessary?

Jon

 

[Anna_Scott]

Before typing anything new up, did you get a chance to read my other post? Here’s a bit of it. . .

Yes, I did read it. I think before launching into all the other theological issues, we need to start by dealing with what Jesus actually said to the Disciples.

**John 20:**19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

---

Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? It’s difficult to move forward with your other theological points without an answer to this question.

Anna

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, I did read it. I think before launching into all the other theological issues, we need to start by dealing with what Jesus actually said to the Disciples.

**John 20:**19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

---

Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? It’s difficult to move forward with your other theological points without an answer to this question.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9xtoqiuJe1ql5yr7o1_400.gif

Stew,

What can I say? If Simon Cowl approves. . . . (There are numerous possible endings to that sentence. lol)

 

[expectthebest]

I think it might help is I clarified a little further. There is a lot of discussion on if Confession is a good thing. My question is nit if Confession is a good thing, but rather if Confession to a Priest is necessary as it is the the Catholic church. If not, why not?

Tks

 

[GaryTaylor]

Guess it depends on how you feel about… “Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins?”

Myself, I’m under no such illusion that I have any authority to present myself before the Lord in this state, and since I do believe His elect have this authority I would be deceiving myself and my better judgment to rationalize here. As I was saying earlier, there’s a finality to that path which could very well leave you without option. Who, where and when the Lord saves outside of the sacraments is indeed a mystery. I see, who, when and where as chance. I believe in the real presence, for sure.

The Church teaching on mortal sin has not changed.

"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him forever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (CCC 1033)

“Without being strictly necessary, confession of everyday faults (venial sins) is nevertheless strongly recommended by the Church. Indeed the regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ and progress in the life of the Spirit.” (CCC 1458)

 

[Kliska]

Yes, I did read it. I think before launching into all the other theological issues, we need to start by dealing with what Jesus actually said to the Disciples.

I’m sorry if I’m confusing the issue, but I’ve already answered that.

Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? It’s difficult to move forward with your other theological points without an answer to this question.

"Kliska:

We do indeed tend to believe that with sin and forgiveness it is directly tied to the gospel. In Peter’s preaching at Pentecost to the Jewish people, then to the Samaritans, then to the Gentiles, Peter declared the good news as it is already settled in Heaven and gives access to others by opening the possibility for them to faithe on the message he shared, and hence on Jesus, and it is by faith that we tap into grace.

In short, we can boldly declare the certainty of forgiveness by God because of the work of the Son IF they believe the gospel, and faithe on Jesus. We can also boldly declare that those who have heard the gospel rightly preached that their sins are not forgiven. This is for sins against God. For sins against us or our fellow man, those sins are forgiven by us as individuals and if we don’t forgive other humans it shows we lack an understanding of God’s forgiveness of us and how lost we are without Him.

Protestants such as me also believe in the priesthood of all believers.

I think it might help is I clarified a little further. There is a lot of discussion on if Confession is a good thing. My question is nit if Confession is a good thing, but rather if Confession to a Priest is necessary as it is the the Catholic church. If not, why not?

Tks

According to what we see in scripture, according to my brand of protestantism, it’s not, since forgiveness is already gained by the total sufficient and necessary sacrifice of Jesus. We tap into grace by faith on Jesus and He has taken on and paid for all of our sins, past, present, and future. There is now a priesthood, a true priesthood, of all believers.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Quick question, Kilska, and forgive me if you have already answered this. Your reading of John corresponds more or less to the Calvinist one that forgiving sins is simply preaching the Gospel. You also said you identified the power to forgive and retain sins with the power of the keys from Matthew 16 and 18. You also said that the Apostles are merely declaring what has already been bound in heaving, not binding anything themselves. However, Maytthew uses the future tense: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Do you think this presents a problem for your reading or do you think that Christ is only speaking hyperbolically?

 

[Kliska]

Quick question, Kilska, and forgive me if you have already answered this. Your reading of John corresponds more or less to the Calvinist one that forgiving sins is simply preaching the Gospel. You also said you identified the power to forgive and retain sins with the power of the keys from Matthew 16 and 18. You also said that the Apostles are merely declaring what has already been bound in heaving, not binding anything themselves. However, Maytthew uses the future tense: “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Do you think this presents a problem for your reading or do you think that Christ is only speaking hyperbolically?

It gets into a very very tricky reading of the tenses that are used in the Greek. This can cause confusion (and disagreements!) because it is a Hebrew idea and phrase being put into Greek. I publicly announce that I’m no Greek scholar, but the way I understand it is that phrase is written, not in our ordinary future tense, but one that when looked at in Jewish terms means in the future when you bind/loose it is already bound in Heaven. So, it can be future and ongoing, so from my perspective, the gospel in the hands of believers will always be important in evangelizing (obviously), and always efficacious in both ways (forgiveness or retention of sin) AND in our ability to assure others of forgiveness, or retention.

I also want to make sure to note that I truly think that each position (how different believers interpret this, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc…) isn’t cherry picking, as we all believe the interpretations we see are connected to other scriptures, and how we interpret them impacts how we interpret this particular teaching.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I do not know Greek either so I looked up the verb (“you bind”) in this verse (Matthew 16:19), which it said was aorist, subjunctive, active. I consulted a Greek grammar on the use of the subjunctive aorist, which stated,

In the subjunctive and imperative, and also in the optative and infinitive when they are not use in indirect discourse, the tenses chiefly used are the present and aorist.

These tenses differ only in this, that the present expresses an action in its duration, that is, as going on or repeated, while the aorist expresses simply its occurrence, the time of both being otherwise precisely the same.
-Goodwin’s Greek Grammar, 1271-1272

This seems to justify the usual translation, and I would have to ask why there would be a uniform interpretation across all translations if its meaning was contrary to the original text. I would like to see the source you are referring to, which asserts that the clause must be read in a different Hebraic way. I have seen grammatically insupportable “interpretations” of certain verses given in fringe publications (e.g. How to Win Catholics to Christ) before, and I am interested to know whether it falls among the former or whether there really is something uniquely Hebraic about it.

 

[Kliska]

I do not know Greek either so I looked up the verb (“you bind”) in this verse (Matthew 16:19), which it said was aorist, subjunctive, active. I consulted a Greek grammar on the use of the subjunctive aorist, which stated,

In the subjunctive and imperative, and also in the optative and infinitive when they are not use in indirect discourse, the tenses chiefly used are the present and aorist.

These tenses differ only in this, that the present expresses an action in its duration, that is, as going on or repeated, while the aorist expresses simply its occurrence, the time of both being otherwise precisely the same.
-Goodwin’s Greek Grammar, 1271-1272

This seems to justify the usual translation, and I would have to ask why there would be a uniform interpretation across all translations if its meaning was contrary to the original text. I would like to see the source you are referring to, which asserts that the clause must be read in a different Hebraic way. I have seen grammatically insupportable “interpretations” of certain verses given in fringe publications (e.g. How to Win Catholics to Christ) before, and I am interested to know whether it falls among the former or whether there really is something uniquely Hebraic about it.

I don’t think it is the “you bind” that is at issue, as there would always be a present tense and perhaps a continuing/future tense as well. If that is the bit you are focused on then, yes, the present “you bind” would be at the time of presenting/hearing the gospel. Am I reading your question wrong?

As to the resources, I’ve seen several commentaries and studies that talk of the Hebrew origination of the idea and phrasing of binding and loosing. I don’t have any of them saved on my 'puter, but usually Googling “Hebrew binding and loosing” comes up with several takes on it, as well as doing a search of the commentaries. I can try to find some later if need be! So, in effect the main theories I’m seeing in line with that teaching are that what you bind “shall have been” bound in Heaven.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You said,

It gets into a very very tricky reading of the tenses that are used in the Greek. This can cause confusion (and disagreements!) because it is a Hebrew idea and phrase being put into Greek.

So I thought it must be the aorist verb you were referring to, since their is no aorist tense in English. If you are referring to the “shall be bound,” the “shall be” is future tense and the “bound” is a perfect participle. The way you propose to read it is that we have a sequence of future and a future perfect. However, from the grammar I quoted, it seems that “you bind” has a present sense so it is antecedent to the binding in heaven, as all translations render it. Again, if this were wrong, it is perplexing that all translations have the same mistaken rendering.

Please share whatever you can find.

 

[Kliska]

You said,

So I thought it must be the aorist verb you were referring to, since their is no aorist tense in English. If you are referring to the “shall be bound,” the “shall be” is future tense and the “bound” is a perfect participle. The way you propose to read it is that we have a sequence of future and a future perfect. However, from the grammar I quoted, it seems that “you bind” has a present sense so it is antecedent to the binding in heaven, as all translations render it. Again, if this were wrong, it is perplexing that all translations have the same mistaken rendering.

Please share whatever you can find.

NASB tends to be my “go to” when looking for a more literal meaning:

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

ETA: here’s a link to comparisons: biblehub.com/matthew/16-19.htm

Bind, loose, permit, allow, forbid, etc… it’s interesting to see all the different takes.

 

[Protestor]

Please share whatever you can find.

ISV"I will give you the keys to the kingdom from heaven. Whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven."

I also believe that the YLT (my third favorite translation) uses “having been”

 

[SteveVH]

You assume a lot from very little. Maybe asking a question and allowing me to answer it would probably serve us both better.

I didn’t mean anything personal, Dustin. I was just responding to the “saying”. It seemed to me to be saying that it doesn’t really matter if you confess or not. In fact, I disagree with every aspect of it: “All may. Some should. None must.”. . . .

It infers that some do not need to confess at all, but in the end it doesn’t matter because no one must.

General Confession before Eucharist is done every Sunday. Nothing is keeping individuals from going to private confession. Many priest actually encourage Episcopalians to go to private confession. Some take them up on it and others do not. The same can be said for Catholicism. Many Catholics I know have not been to confession in many years and many believe it to be something of the past. As you can see, sadly, it is on both sides of the Tiber.

The difference is that there is no equivocation in the Catholic Church. You are absolutely correct that there are Catholics who have not been to confession in years. And they are in serious violation of Church teaching. Those who have not been for years, or ever, within the Episcopalian communion are in violation of nothing. We are required to confess our sins at least once a year and to confess serious (mortal) sin as soon as possible after it has been committed. So its not the same on both sides of the Tiber.

As with the Eucharist, it does matter what you believe. We, as Episcopalians, believe the Body and Blood of Christ is the bread and wine.

Can I judge Catholicism because I know a few Catholics that do not believe in the RP?

I’m speaking of open communion in the Episcopal communion regardless of one’s belief. And I do not measure any faith tradition by the members who do not adhere to its doctrines and teachings. I’m talking about official Episcopalian positions, not the bad children.

I am sorry our two traditions believe differently on private confession. It is sad that many people to do take advantage of such a wonderful gift. It really helps the soul. What else do you wish for me to say?

Dustin, its just another aspect of the Apostolic faith that has been watered down in order to appeal to more to the masses. And this is not just the Anglican/Episcopal communion but all of those who find their origin in the “reformation” to one degree or another. Confession is nice, but not necessary. One can believe in the real presence or not, and still receive, regardless. The sacrament of Holy Orders has been turned on its head under the guise of being all-inclusive, tolerant and compassionate, while disregarding the teaching of the Church from which they divided. Even the sacrament of Baptism has lost its real meaning in many non-Catholic faith traditions and has become a personal proclamation of faith rather than a life-giving, regenerative, necessary source of God’s grace. It is a trend going in the direction of making it up as we go along and it is dangerous.

Do not get me wrong. Both the Lutheran and Anglican traditions have retained much of the original Church. In that we can rejoice together. But where they vary is important as well and shouldn’t be ignored.

Peace, brother.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,

The quote is rather disturbing and goes back to the Anglican struggle between Reformation ideas and the Catholic Church. The Conciliar Anglican gives a brief overview of how this saying developed within Anglicanism: All May, None Must, Some Should.

For better or for worse, it is part of Anglican history.

Anna

Thanks for the link, Anna. Seems like a gradual development and I would agree with your summation that it is a result of the struggle between Catholic and Reformation ideas. The question is, what does one do with this now? It seems that either it is a sacrament, instituted by Christ for our salvation or it is not. Either way, a question that should be answered. As a Catholic, it is a question upon which our salvation may very well depend.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes, I did read it. I think before launching into all the other theological issues, we need to start by dealing with what Jesus actually said to the Disciples.

**John 20:**19 When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? It’s difficult to move forward with your other theological points without an answer to this question.

Anna

I’m sorry if I’m confusing the issue, but I’ve already answered that.

Kliska,
Maybe it’s just me, but I do not see your answer. Please cite the post that directly answers the question: Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? I’m looking for a yes or no answer. Then feel free to elaborate.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[EvangelCatholic]

My opinion is that to require something may actually be the wrong approach. And this is where I have issues with Roman Catholics. Lutherans and Anglicans value and offer private confession but there is no rule than unless you are absolved by a priest at least once a year, that you are in mortal sin. Does the Orthodox Church have such requirements?

Lutherans see sacraments as a salvific gift from God. We can in no way ever deserve or earn the benefits of Baptism, Absolution and Eucharist. Lutherans are urged to partake of the life-giving redemption of Christ at least each week in holy Communion. Luther did suggest that to be Christian one should take holy Communion at least 3 times a year but Lutherans are not warned of damnation. Private confession is, of-course, a sacred encounter with God; the pastor is merely the instrument.

 

[Kliska]

Kliska,
Maybe it’s just me, but I do not see your answer. Please cite the post that directly answers the question: Did Jesus give the Disciples the authority to forgive sins? I’m looking for a yes or no answer. Then feel free to elaborate.

Thanks,
Anna

Here is the answer and the elaboration:

We do indeed tend to believe that with sin and forgiveness it is directly tied to the gospel. In Peter’s preaching at Pentecost to the Jewish people, then to the Samaritans, then to the Gentiles, Peter declared the good news as it is already settled in Heaven and gives access to others by opening the possibility for them to faithe on the message he shared, and hence on Jesus, and it is by faith that we tap into grace.

In short, we can boldly declare the certainty of forgiveness by God because of the work of the Son IF they believe the gospel, and faithe on Jesus. We can also boldly declare that those who have heard the gospel rightly preached that their sins are not forgiven. This is for sins against God. For sins against us or our fellow man, those sins are forgiven by us as individuals and if we don’t forgive other humans it shows we lack an understanding of God’s forgiveness of us and how lost we are without Him.

Protestants such as me also believe in the priesthood of all believers.

I don’t really know what else you are asking; Yes. That’s what I discuss above, further, from my perspective that I glean from scripture it isn’t limited to them at a fixed point in time and isn’t about a necessary sacrament of private confession to a separate ministerial priest that stands in for God.