Protestants, how are you certain your sins are forgiven?

[Zooey]

Hello,

Don’t they live like the Amish, with horse and buggy and no electricity? If that is so, how does he have a computer with internet?

No, in fact most Quakers don’t even dress “plain” anymore…(The traditional garb of the Amish (& also Conservative Mennonites) in this country was modelled on the plain dress of the earlier Quakers. A few Quakers ( Friends) still keep to, or return to, the plain dress witness of their ancestors in faith. Most dress like the rest of us.
The one plain-dressing Quaker of whom I have knowledge, is a computer programmer.

[SIGN]
We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion…
[/SIGN]

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Christ died as an atoning sacrifice for all my sins, this sacrifice is completely efficient; i.e. it has really accomplished all that it was meant for.

When the church, in the persons of her teachers, preachers and evangelists, proclaims the truth of this grace, it effectively looses the sinful believer from his sins and binds the sinful unbeliever in the same.

The church does have the right and duty to pronounce the forgiveness of sins to people and to forgive them but it does so only in the context of this Gospel proclamation.

This then, is what Lutherans believe.If I were Lutheran I would believe it too. As it is, it is an excellent answer.

So, does that mean that you have a license to sin. I mean, seeing how Christ died for all your sins (past, present, and future) and nothing can take that forgiveness away, why not rack up the sins and have a carnally good time here one earth?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

P.S. I will say this, the idea that the church can or does forgive sins in a way disconnected from the proclamation of the Gospel is, or should be anathema to any Catholic.

On the other hand, the idea that this ability to forgive or retain sins is tied exclusively to a sacerdotal charism is, or should be, just as problematic, if only because it changes the whole basis of the discussion with Protestants, unfairly forcing them into a context having nothing to do with their perspective.

What do you mean by this?

 

[chutton]

Reading this thread I think the two main things that seem to hinder our understanding of each other’s faith perspective are:

• The actual act of confession. What does it look like? What does the Bible say about how to actually confess sin (in particular the new testamet)? We all know that God forgives our sin when we confess and repent (because He says it over and over again in the Bible)…but what process do we need to go through I guess is where we seem to be hitting the wall with each other.
• I think we are all coming from differing perspectives of what forgiveness means–does it mean for the sin we’re confessing at this moment or does it mean past/present/future sins…

I believe that God makes it clear in the Bible that we can confess directly to God Himself and that He forgives our sins completely when we confess them (as shown in numerous verses in this thread)…that is the amazing beauty of the new covenant. I believe that confessing our sins to each other is useful in humbling ourselves, in being accountable, in finding support and help from each other…but do not believe there is a very strong argument that the Bible requires us to go to a priest to confess these sins. I’m still curious about biblical support for the format of catholic confession…the few verses I’ve read don’t seem to be a very strong argument for this format…in fact the arguments for the need for a priest to retain/forgive sin seems to actually weaken when taking into account the whole new testament and the purpose of the new covenant. I hope catholics don’t read this as being judgemental, but rather I’m just letting you inside my mind for a moment

I haven’t looked into the forgiveness of past/present/future sins theology too much. What I DO know is that Jesus death on the cross was all that is needed to pay for the past/present/future sins of each of us (and every other human being in history and in the future…catholics believe this part right?) if we believe in Him, confess, turn from our sinful ways and surrender our lives to Him. We don’t need to sacrafice lambs, He doesn’t have to keep dying on the cross to cover a few more of our sins etc. Whether or not that is a minute by minute of the day confession, a daily confession, a weekly confession, a yearly confession or a once in a lifetime confession is another matter of discussion of course. I think that would be the OSAS theology discussion…which has many threads in and of itself on this forum I’m sure!!!

In Christ,
Christina

 

[Steadfast]

Hello,

What do you mean by this?

What, in particular, are you interested in hearing more about because as it stands it’s pretty straight forward.

 

[Steadfast]

Hello,

So, does that mean that you have a license to sin. I mean, seeing how Christ died for all your sins (past, present, and future) and nothing can take that forgiveness away, why not rack up the sins and have a carnally good time here one earth?

No, because (the good Lutheran would say) the command to do good works and to avoid sin remains though any penalties have been removed.

In addition the regenerate, the believer has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them and the faith wherewith he has been justified is not the kind of faith that sits in an envelope waiting to be cashed in but works and is working and can’t help but work because it’s what it does like birds fly and dogs bark.

We love with that love wherewith we have been loved.

This is what the Apostle means when he references walking in the Spirit.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

What, in particular, are you interested in hearing more about because as it stands it’s pretty straight forward.

1. What do you mean by “can or does forgive sins in a way disconnected from the proclamation of the Gospel”?
2. And given that you said that “the idea that this ability to forgive or retain sins is tied exclusively to a sacerdotal charism is, or should be, just as problematic, if only because it changes the whole basis of the discussion with Protestants, unfairly forcing them into a context having nothing to do with their perspective.” - do you think that Catholicism should change its immutable teachings to accommodate Protestants?

 

[Steadfast]

Hello,

1. What do you mean by “can or does forgive sins in a way disconnected from the proclamation of the Gospel”?

I mean that the power of the keys subsist primarily in the Gospel ministry and not in any a priori official charism ritually limited to a sacerdotal class.

1. And given that you said that “the idea that this ability to forgive or retain sins is tied exclusively to a sacerdotal charism is, or should be, just as problematic, if only because it changes the whole basis of the discussion with Protestants, unfairly forcing them into a context having nothing to do with their perspective.” - do you think that Catholicism should change its immutable teachings to accommodate Protestants?

No, I just mean that it’s asinine to ask people who don’t speak a certain language to bear fault for not doing so.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I mean that the power of the keys subsist primarily in the Gospel ministry and not in any a priori official charism ritually limited to a sacerdotal class.

But part of that message of the Gospel is that there is a sacerdotal class, a Ministerial Priesthood. And part of the authority and power given to and only to the Ministerial Priesthood is the ability to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Confession.

No, I just mean that it’s asinine to ask people who don’t speak a certain language to bear fault for not doing so.

The Catholic Church doesn’t fault the Protestants for not having the fullness of Truth. Most Protestants were born into their denominations and never heard the proper teachings of the Catholic Church and are ignorant of the fact that their church is in error. But, we can’t change our teachings to come in line with their errors.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
I get these on my e-mail every day and I thought I would post it here. Just a little side note: God’s Daily Promises
**This week’s promise: The gift of salvation **
Have you confessed your sins?

They took turns confessing their sins and worshipping the Lord their God.

Nehemiah 9:3 NLT

The recognition of sin is the beginning of salvation.

Martin Luther

Recognizing sin

The year 1983 summoned forth two splendid examples of moral imperfection: Rep. Daniel Crane (R-Ill) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass). Both were censured by the House for sexual misconduct with 17-year-old pages.

The nation got a glimmer of their philosophical differences when Crane admitted tearfully that he “broke the laws of God and man.” He cast a vote for his own censure and faced the House as the Speaker announced the tally.

Studds, in contrast, defended the relationship with his page as “mutual and voluntary” and said the relationship didn’t warrant the “attention and action” of the House. Studds listened to the verdict from the Speaker with his back to the House.

Do they both deserve equal censure? Of course. But there’s one consolation for Crane. His philosophy (of an objective moral order promulgated by God in man’s nature) teaches that there is one thing worse than sin. That is denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.
Thomas F. Roeser in the Chicago Sun-Times
The Bible wants nothing to do with moral relativism, and that is why some critics have singled out faithful Christians and Jews for particular scorn. These critics know that the objective moral standards defended by millions of faithful believers stand in the way of uprooting God from our nation. Just as the people of Nehemiah’s time confessed their sins and were restored, so we must ask the Lord to forgive us and heal our land.

 

[Steadfast]

Hello,

But part of that message of the Gospel is that there is a sacerdotal class, a Ministerial Priesthood. And part of the authority and power given to and only to the Ministerial Priesthood is the ability to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Confession.

Thus my italicization of the word “primarily”.

The Catholic Church doesn’t fault the Protestants for not having the fullness of Truth. Most Protestants were born into their denominations and never heard the proper teachings of the Catholic Church and are ignorant of the fact that their church is in error. But, we can’t change our teachings to come in line with their errors.

Quite right but that’s not really what I’m talking about. I am talking more about the tendency for Catholics to ask the theological equivalent of “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” which is what I think they do when they seem to assume the precedence of the office of priest to the function of Gospel administration as it is found in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and then expect Protestants to follow them in their assumption since, for them, the function exists apart from office entirely.

The difference between how Catholics understand the way God normally forgives the sins of baptized people and how Protestants understand it is more similar than it is different since both begin with the understanding that it is done by the application of grace to the effected member.

Catholics often do themselves and the people they’re talking to a disservice in dialogue when they seem to say that this ministry subsists solely in the sacerdotal office by exclusive means of a particular charism granted in ordination.

It seems often to be a case of assuming division for division’s sake.

 

[Publisher]

Hello,

O.K. I understand what you mean now. No, the Church doesn’t view this as the ordinary means of Baptism and entrance into the Church.

For valid baptism, one must be baptized with water by either pouring or immersion, and must be baptized with these words: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Out of true necessity, like your on your way to be eaten by lions in front of a crowd of Romans and you don’t have a chance to be baptized, then baptism by desire can suffice, in the mercy of God. But to willingly forgo proper Baptism for a baptism of desire is to play Russian Roulette with your soul, from a Catholic viewpoint.

Well, while I’m not a “russian roulette” player…I’ll trust in the Baptizer…I’ll never find better Hands to place myself in.

 

[Publisher]

No, in fact most Quakers don’t even dress “plain” anymore…(The traditional garb of the Amish (& also Conservative Mennonites) in this country was modelled on the plain dress of the earlier Quakers. A few Quakers ( Friends) still keep to, or return to, the plain dress witness of their ancestors in faith. Most dress like the rest of us.
The one plain-dressing Quaker of whom I have knowledge, is a computer programmer.

[SIGN]
We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion…
[/SIGN]

When I was in college, some thirty years ago…George Fox College, now George Fox University…a young woman told of when she was on vacation. She had gone to play tennis one afternoon and was in the crowded elevator of the hotel she was staying in…an Amish couple was riding down to their floor…when they got off at their floor, one woman remarked…“Did you see the Quakers…they’re so cute in their old clothes…” Everyone laughed and made similar comments…a small quiet voice from the back said…“They weren’t Quakers…but I am.”…The elevator stopped about this time and the young woman got off, dressed in her tennis skirt with her racquet and hair pulled back…when she got off she turned and smiled to the passengers left in the car…they all stood with mouths open…she smiled, waved and spun on her heel with her ponytail flying…

Most Friends…very few in the Mid-west may dress “Plain” any longer…“plain language” is only used in Meeting or among close friends and family.

 

[Publisher]

Part of the New Covenant is that we no longer have to rely on a priest to function for us…we have a High Priest who has done the work already…if I must rely on someone else to have access to God instead of Jesus of Nazareth, we really haven’t moved too far away from Judaism and rituals and washings…it is following the New Covenant to it’s “logical” conclusion…all barriers have been removed…all people now have access to God through Christ…all rituals and outward signs and manifestations are now fulfilled in Him…“priesthood of all believers”…equal access to God…true freedom from the ‘oppression’ of another not allowing that access…through Christ all may come into God’s Presence…the work of Someone on my behalf has been done for me…and accepted by God the Father…I need no other one to work on my behalf through any “sacrament” or priestly funtion…I have the work of the Great High Priest.

 

[ncgolf]

Part of the New Covenant is that we no longer have to rely on a priest to function for us…we have a High Priest who has done the work already…if I must rely on someone else to have access to God instead of Jesus of Nazareth, we really haven’t moved too far away from Judaism and rituals and washings…it is following the New Covenant to it’s “logical” conclusion…all barriers have been removed…all people now have access to God through Christ…all rituals and outward signs and manifestations are now fulfilled in Him…“priesthood of all believers”…equal access to God…true freedom from the ‘oppression’ of another not allowing that access…through Christ all may come into God’s Presence…the work of Someone on my behalf has been done for me…and accepted by God the Father…I need no other one to work on my behalf through any “sacrament” or priestly funtion…I have the work of the Great High Priest.

How do you reconcile what you just wrote with Scirpture particularly John 20:23? Christ specifically says whose sins you retain are retained and whose you forgive are forgiven. Only Christ can forgive but he gave that power to the Apostles. You need to further clarify or support your statements.

 

[Publisher]

How do you reconcile what you just wrote with Scirpture particularly John 20:23? Christ specifically says whose sins you retain are retained and whose you forgive are forgiven. Only Christ can forgive but he gave that power to the Apostles. You need to further clarify or support your statements.

As I said…the “logical conlusion” to this holy Mystery of God in Christ as my great High Priest compels me to believe I am indebted to no man to impart a saving act on my behalf…it has been done already through Christ…he is my Great High Priest…he has made the way for me to come before the Father in perfect confidence that his work is sufficient to free me from the bondage of ritual washings and feasts and holy days…to do works of rightousness because of his work…I do not isolate a singe proof text verse and extrapolate a whole doctrine which to me negates the work perfectly done already, while I cannot offer you exposition on single verses, I can offer you the “gist” of what I understand is the message of the New Testament…I have one Priest who works in my behalf…I need no other priest to 'offer" sacrifce or impart a saving blessing…I have the One Advocate who stands before the Father in as my Advocate.

 

[ncgolf]

As I said…the “logical conlusion” to this holy Mystery of God in Christ as my great High Priest compels me to believe I am indebted to no man to impart a saving act on my behalf…it has been done already through Christ…he is my Great High Priest…he has made the way for me to come before the Father in perfect confidence that his work is sufficient to free me from the bondage of ritual washings and feasts and holy days…to do works of rightousness because of his work…I do not isolate a singe proof text verse and extrapolate a whole doctrine which to me negates the work perfectly done already, while I cannot offer you exposition on single verses, I can offer you the “gist” of what I understand is the message of the New Testament…I have one Priest who works in my behalf…I need no other priest to 'offer" sacrifce or impart a saving blessing…I have the One Advocate who stands before the Father in as my Advocate.

You did not answer the question … either Christ’s words have meaning or they do not. You must have some sort of interpretation of that verse. Based on what you think that verse does not support your position, what could Christ have meant then by uttering those words? That single line has quite a bit to do with the thread’s subject line. I would think that “logically” what Christ says in Scripture makes a huge difference. It is the barometer of what we think or feel versus what the truth is. Whatever you believe you should be able to support through Scripture … use Christ’s own words to support your beliefs.

 

[chutton]

How do you reconcile what you just wrote with Scirpture particularly John 20:23? Christ specifically says whose sins you retain are retained and whose you forgive are forgiven. Only Christ can forgive but he gave that power to the Apostles. You need to further clarify or support your statements.

I found this response to the verse in question at angelfire.com/nt/theology/jn20-19.html.

BECAUSE JESUS HAS RISEN, WE HAVE AUTHORITY FROM ON HIGH

Jesus therefore said to them again, “Peace be with you, as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.”

And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20:21-23).

Jesus gave a heavenly authority to His disciples. It was the authority to declare the forgiveness of sins. Notice the careful distinction that is made in the use of the tenses. As obvious as this is in our English translation, it is even more obvious in the Greek text. There are three different tenses that are used in this verse. The first is the aorist tense. It refers to puntiliar action; action that is viewed as a single point in time. The second is the perfect tense, viewing action that took place in a point in time, but stressing the fact of continuing results. The third is the present tense which focuses upon the continuing nature of that action.

“If you forgive (aorist) the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them in the past with the result that they are forgiven (perfect); if you are retaining (present) the sins of any, they have been retained in the past with the result that they are still retained (perfect).”

Thus, it is not the disciples who initiate the forgiveness of sins, but rather, their announcement of that forgiveness is preceded by the actual fact of forgiveness.

These men will not have the power to actually initiate the forgiveness of sins. Only God can do that. If that is the case, then what is the point of the words of Jesus? It is that there is now to be a harmony between the announcement by the disciples concerning men’s sins and the actual forgiveness of those sins in heaven.

The authority that they are granted is to give men assurance that their sins have been forgiven by announcing the terms of that forgiveness.

When they make an announcement that a man’s sins have been forgiven because he has come in faith to Jesus Christ, it will already have taken place in heaven.

This is the ministry of binding and loosing that Jesus describes in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18. Peter and the other disciples were given the keys to the kingdom - the message which gives entrance into the Kingdom of God.

I have often been challenged by unbelievers who asked, “What gives you the right to say that someone who doesn’t believe the way you do is not going to heaven? That is pretty closed-minded, isn’t it?”

The truth is that Jesus has given us the authority to make such judgments. We can look at a man who has come to Christ in faith and who has repented of his sins and we can say to that man that he is forgiven.

On the other hand, we can look at a man who has turned away from the message of the gospel and we can say that he is still in his sins.

 

[Publisher]

You did not answer the question … either Christ’s words have meaning or they do not. You must have some sort of interpretation of that verse. Based on what you think that verse does not support your position, what could Christ have meant then by uttering those words? That single line has quite a bit to do with the thread’s subject line. I would think that “logically” what Christ says in Scripture makes a huge difference. It is the barometer of what we think or feel versus what the truth is. Whatever you believe you should be able to support through Scripture … use Christ’s own words to support your beliefs.

I answered it to my own satisfaction…you just didn’t like the conclusion. I do not embrace a Roman Catholic understanding of scripture…debating the meaning of proof text verses has little reward for me…and most likely would have little meaning for you…we both trust our traditions…my tradition tells me to examine scripture in the light of what we have come to understand of the nature of God and the work of Christ…yours is a very “church centric” understanding and you rely on the magisterium to provide final…authority to the meaning of scripture, your understanding of a sacrifical priesthood demands that you rely on them to offer absolution…I accept the priesthood of Christ as my final and True High Priest who has done away with all need for sacrifice or ritual to approach God…we are approaching Him from two basic understandings…I’m fine with that…I need not convince you of my view…what I have experienced in Christ is sufficient…I rejoice that you have found a faith that give you peace with God…the same as I have.

 

[chutton]

Hi,
I get these on my e-mail every day and I thought I would post it here. Just a little side note: God’s Daily Promises
**This week’s promise: The gift of salvation **
Have you confessed your sins?

They took turns confessing their sins and worshipping the Lord their God.

Nehemiah 9:3 NLT

The recognition of sin is the beginning of salvation.

Martin Luther

Recognizing sin

The year 1983 summoned forth two splendid examples of moral imperfection: Rep. Daniel Crane (R-Ill) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass). Both were censured by the House for sexual misconduct with 17-year-old pages.

The nation got a glimmer of their philosophical differences when Crane admitted tearfully that he “broke the laws of God and man.” He cast a vote for his own censure and faced the House as the Speaker announced the tally.

Studds, in contrast, defended the relationship with his page as “mutual and voluntary” and said the relationship didn’t warrant the “attention and action” of the House. Studds listened to the verdict from the Speaker with his back to the House.

Do they both deserve equal censure? Of course. But there’s one consolation for Crane. His philosophy (of an objective moral order promulgated by God in man’s nature) teaches that there is one thing worse than sin. That is denial of sin, which makes forgiveness impossible.
Thomas F. Roeser in the Chicago Sun-Times
The Bible wants nothing to do with moral relativism, and that is why some critics have singled out faithful Christians and Jews for particular scorn. These critics know that the objective moral standards defended by millions of faithful believers stand in the way of uprooting God from our nation. Just as the people of Nehemiah’s time confessed their sins and were restored, so we must ask the Lord to forgive us and heal our land.

Amen to that! As I’ve read this thread it keeps hitting me that the most important thing is that we need to humble ourselves and confess our sins to God. And the amazing beautiful thing about God’s gracious merciful nature is that He promises in His word to forgive us as we confess our sins! How awesome!