Protestants and the forgiveness of sins

[christcnection1]

Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23)

We all believe that only God can forgive sins. But Jesus clearly gave his apostles* the authority* to forgive and retain sins, in His name. In light of most Protestant’s understanding of how God forgives, why did Jesus do it this at the time? After all, this followed Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection; in fact, it was one of the first things He did after meeting the disciples after He rose from the dead.

Why don’t most Protestants believe that Jesus gave his people the authority to forgive and retain sins today?

 

[reteeks21]

Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:22-23)

We all believe that only God can forgive sins. But Jesus clearly gave his apostles* the authority* to forgive and retain sins, in His name. In light of most Protestant’s understanding of how God forgives, why did Jesus do it this at the time? After all, this followed Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection; in fact, it was one of the first things He did after meeting the disciples after He rose from the dead.

Why don’t most Protestants believe that Jesus gave his people the authority to forgive and retain sins today?

What if a man chooses to not forgive our sins? What is they refuse to “un-bind” our sins? Why can’t a man appeal to God for forgiveness, which He promises to do, rather than appeal to a man who may choose to withold forgiveness? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

 

[cath2lic4ever]

What if a man chooses to not forgive our sins? What is they refuse to “un-bind” our sins? Why can’t a man appeal to God for forgiveness, which He promises to do, rather than appeal to a man who may choose to withold forgiveness? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

typical protestant. ask them a question and you’ll receive questions for an answer.

 

[christcnection1]

What if a man chooses to not forgive our sins? What is they refuse to “un-bind” our sins? Why can’t a man appeal to God for forgiveness, which He promises to do, rather than appeal to a man who may choose to withold forgiveness? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

Man was not the one who started this practice. It was the Lord’s idea. Furthermore, I don’t know of any case where a priest refused to “forgive” the sincere confession of a penitent. And even if there was such a case, this would not prevent God from acting according to His mercy and love.

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

What if a man chooses to not forgive our sins? What is they refuse to “un-bind” our sins? Why can’t a man appeal to God for forgiveness, which He promises to do, rather than appeal to a man who may choose to withold forgiveness? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

Why can’t a man trust God’s work through another man? Why can’t a man appeal to God for forgiveness, yet also receive the seal of forgiveness through one of God’s anointed? What if the sign and clarity of forgiveness came through a man and not just a feeling?

Surely, Christ could have achieved our forgiveness without ever becoming incarnate. Yet, He did so there could be no question to it. We receive forgiveness from God through His servants so there could be no question that He conveys His forgiveness. Every man must appeal to God. No one receives forgiveness without that. However, God chooses to convey His clear response through a priest.

And trust me, there is no un-binding. You know that as well as I do.

 

[kalt]

typical protestant. ask them a question and you’ll receive questions for an answer.

I have a question, too.

When someone makes a sincere confession, the sins are forgiven. The priest, though, doesn’t forgive, sacramentally, sins that aren’t confessed. OK so far.

The question – If a person confesses that he is cheating on his wife, and fully expects to keep seeing the other woman, is the priest obligated to forgive (in God’s name) that particular sin? (The priest sometimes asks questions in the confessional and might learn that the man has no plans to stop seeing the woman.) .

People think that Catholics use the Confessional to unload sins and then go back and commit the same sin again (and some probably incorrectly do). If you confess a sin, but aren’t really sorry for it, or if you plan to commit the same sin again (cheating on your wife for example), it’s not a good confession. So I wonder if the priest is required to, or is prohibited from, giving absolution.

 

[churchcamefirst]

I have a question, too.

When someone makes a sincere confession, the sins are forgiven. The priest, though, doesn’t forgive, sacramentally, sins that aren’t confessed. OK so far.

The question – If a person confesses that he is cheating on his wife, and fully expects to keep seeing the other woman, is the priest obligated to forgive (in God’s name) that particular sin? (The priest sometimes asks questions in the confessional and might learn that the man has no plans to stop seeing the woman.) .

People think that Catholics use the Confessional to unload sins and then go back and commit the same sin again (and some probably incorrectly do). If you confess a sin, but aren’t really sorry for it, or if you plan to commit the same sin again (cheating on your wife for example), it’s not a good confession. So I wonder if the priest is required to, or is prohibited from, giving absolution.

There was a homily read at Mass the other day that went like this:
A man was going to confession in France, his sins were so bad that the priest told him do not come back with these sins again as they are terrible. The following week the man came back again and said the same sins he had committed. The priest gave absolution again and said please don’t come back with the same sins as they are just horrible. The following week the man came back again and said the same sins. Now the priest refuses to give him absolution for the third time and tells the man " I refuse to give you absolution this time". There was a loud bang in the confessional. Jesus told the priest “It was not you that has shed the blood for these sinners but I”, “Forgive him”. He then granted the man absolution. (True story).

 

[kalt]

It’s not quite the same, since the man didn’t say that he would continue to commit the same sin. The priest refused to forgive the sin because the man had confessed it twice before, not because he said he planned to commit it again.

Does anyone know for sure?

There was a homily read at Mass the other day that went like this:
A man was going to confession in France, his sins were so bad that the priest told him do not come back with these sins again as they are terrible. The following week the man came back again and said the same sins he had committed. The priest gave absolution again and said please don’t come back with the same sins as they are just horrible. The following week the man came back again and said the same sins. Now the priest refuses to give him absolution for the third time and tells the man " I refuse to give you absolution this time". There was a loud bang in the confessional. Jesus told the priest “It was not you that has shed the blood for these sinners but I”, “Forgive him”. He then granted the man absolution. (True story).

 

[JMJ_coder]

I have a question, too.

When someone makes a sincere confession, the sins are forgiven. The priest, though, doesn’t forgive, sacramentally, sins that aren’t confessed. OK so far.

The question – If a person confesses that he is cheating on his wife, and fully expects to keep seeing the other woman, is the priest obligated to forgive (in God’s name) that particular sin? (The priest sometimes asks questions in the confessional and might learn that the man has no plans to stop seeing the woman.) .

People think that Catholics use the Confessional to unload sins and then go back and commit the same sin again (and some probably incorrectly do). If you confess a sin, but aren’t really sorry for it, or if you plan to commit the same sin again (cheating on your wife for example), it’s not a good confession. So I wonder if the priest is required to, or is prohibited from, giving absolution.

If the man told the Priest that he would not stop the sinful practice, then the Priest would be morally obligated to refuse Absolution because the penitent is lacking in contrition - which is required for the validity of the Sacrament.

Even if the penitent didn’t tell the Priest, but was not contrite and was determined to remain in the sinful situation, the Sacrament would be invalid and the sin of sacrilege would be upon the penitent’s conscience.

 

[Jacob_Fenton]

It’s not quite the same, since the man didn’t say that he would continue to commit the same sin. The priest refused to forgive the sin because the man had confessed it twice before, not because he said he planned to commit it again.

Does anyone know for sure?

If a man is secretly not sorry for his sins, God knows, even if the priest will never-ever know. In other words, one can confess in the presence of a priest and not really mean it and they will receive no forgiveness from God even if the priest absolves them in the name of Jesus Christ. In Catholic terminology, the confession would be considered “null” or “void”.

 

[kalt]

Thank-you, everyone.

 

[christcnection1]

I would like to hear from some more Protestants/Non-Catholic Christians on this. We all agree that forgiveness of sins is of utmost important. However, I have yet to hear one reasonable explanation from a Non-Catholic Christian concerning this very important event in God’s word.

Was this event the first recorded moment when the Holy Spirit came upon His people after the resurrection? If so, this seems very significant to me: it was the first major outpouring of the Spirit after the most significant event in history - the death and resurrection of our Lord. It’s the first power Jesus wanted to give to His disciples after He conquered the grave.

Next to Pentecost, this may be the most important Holy Spirit outpouring in all the New Testament, if not the entire Bible. What do others think?

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

If a man is secretly not sorry for his sins, God knows, even if the priest will never-ever know. In other words, one can confess in the presence of a priest and not really mean it and they will receive no forgiveness from God even if the priest absolves them in the name of Jesus Christ. In Catholic terminology, the confession would be considered “null” or “void”.

In which case, what benefit is there is confessing one’s sins to a priest instead of directly to God?

 

[churchcamefirst]

In which case, what benefit is there is confessing one’s sins to a priest instead of directly to God?

When you are confessing to a priest, you are confessing to God.
**“What sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sins you retain are retained”. **Jesus gave the priests the authority to forgive sin. Jesus said it won’t be easy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

When you are confessing to a priest, you are confessing to God.
**“What sins you forgive are forgiven them, what sins you retain are retained”. **Jesus gave the priests the authority to forgive sin. Jesus said it won’t be easy to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

That doesn’t really answer my question though. Even if confessing to a priest is the same as confessing to God, what benefit is there to participating in this form of confession as opposed to private confession to God without an intermediary presence? If I’ve gotten my terminology wrong please pardon my error, but I’m most interested in the heart of the question: why have a priest present at confession?

 

[churchcamefirst]

That doesn’t really answer my question though. Even if confessing to a priest is the same as confessing to God, what benefit is there to participating in this form of confession as opposed to private confession to God without an intermediary presence? If I’ve gotten my terminology wrong please pardon my error, but I’m most interested in the heart of the question: why have a priest present at confession?

Because it says so in the bile Scripture I just quoted you. Jesus gave them the authority.

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Because it says so in the bile Scripture I just quoted you. Jesus gave them the authority.

Yes, I understand your response, but it didn’t answer the question I asked. I wasn’t asking about the authority on which priests conduct confession, but rather the benefit of partaking in such a confession to a priest rather than in a personal confession to God without a priest present.

 

[churchcamefirst]

Yes, I understand your response, but it didn’t answer the question I asked. I wasn’t asking about the authority on which priests conduct confession, but rather the benefit of partaking in such a confession to a priest rather than in a personal confession to God without a priest present.

Because the priest must first grant us Absolution, a forgiveness of sins. Without this, we are not forgiven. Maybe someone else can explain it better…

 

[a_mirror_dimly]

Because the priest must first grant us Absolution, a forgiveness of sins. Without this, we are not forgiven. Maybe someone else can explain it better…

Are you saying that is God unwilling to grant us forgiveness for our sins if we petition Him directly without going through a priest, or have I misunderstood you?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

typical protestant. ask them a question and you’ll receive questions for an answer.

It sounded like a fair question to me, like the person may well have been seeking information. YOUR response, however, was hardly helpful in pointing the way for the questioner to the Truth of Christ and Holy Mother Church.