Protestants, how are you certain your sins are forgiven?

[O.S.Luke]

Manny:

I believe your answer may be found in the Catechism:

While sacramental confession of all sins is recommended (cf. Code of Canon Law, 988.2), venial sins may be confessed directly to God. Moreover, the Catechism notes, “[Scripture and the Fathers] cite as means of obtaining forgiveness of sins: efforts at reconciliation with one’s neighbor, tears of repentance, concern for the salvation of one’s neighbor, the intercession of the saints, and the practice of charity which covers a multitude of sins” (CCC 1434)…

Perfect contrition also obtains forgiveness. “When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called “perfect” (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible” (CCC 1452).

O+

 

[Protestant101]

A Protestant likewise when he repent. “God forgive me for I have sinned against you.”

There is a silence in that. Is your sin forgiven or not? How do you know that your sins has been cleanse from your soul?

No. This is not true. There is the opposite to silence when we confess thus. A true Protestant KNOWS their sins are forgiven, because God personally tells us in His Word. I am thankful for God’s Word on this subject for there are many situations where there is no Priest or Pastor around for miles. Only God’s Holy Word provides the solution:

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The text is clear:** IF WE CONFESS; then Jesus forgives**.

If Catholics really believe this text; then they will also need to explain just how a human Priest can do the other part that says “to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” How can any human do this to another? Can a mere mortal “cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” Where does the Bible say this kind of thing?

Forgiveness means, even by a Priest, nothing, if the “cleanse” part does not also take place.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No. This is not true. There is the opposite to silence when we confess thus. A true Protestant KNOWS their sins are forgiven, because God personally tells us in His Word. I am thankful for God’s Word on this subject for there are many situations where there is no Priest or Pastor around for miles. Only God’s Holy Word provides the solution:

The text is clear:** IF WE CONFESS; then Jesus forgives**.

If Catholics really believe this text; then they will also need to explain just how a human Priest can do the other part that says “to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” How can any human do this to another? Can a mere mortal “cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” Where does the Bible say this kind of thing?

Forgiveness means, even by a Priest, nothing, if the “cleanse” part does not also take place.

Seen clear enough

 

[chutton]

No. This is not true. There is the opposite to silence when we confess thus. A true Protestant KNOWS their sins are forgiven, because God personally tells us in His Word. I am thankful for God’s Word on this subject for there are many situations where there is no Priest or Pastor around for miles. Only God’s Holy Word provides the solution:

The text is clear:** IF WE CONFESS; then Jesus forgives**.

If Catholics really believe this text; then they will also need to explain just how a human Priest can do the other part that says “to cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” How can any human do this to another? Can a mere mortal “cleanse us from all unrighteousness?” Where does the Bible say this kind of thing?

Forgiveness means, even by a Priest, nothing, if the “cleanse” part does not also take place.

Well said.

(Now if only I could be more short winded in my posts and get to the point like you just did! )

 

[Protestant101]

A good Bible example of the process for forgiveness, and knowing you are forgiven that God approves of can be seen, even in the OT.

Says the apostle: “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” This scripture has been interpreted to sustain the practice of going to the priest for absolution; but it has no such application.

Confess your sins to God, who only can forgive them, and your faults to one another. If you have given offense to your friend or neighbor you are to acknowledge your wrong, and it is his duty freely to forgive you. Then you are to seek the forgiveness of God because the brother whom you wounded is the property of God, and in injuring him you sinned against his Creator and Redeemer. The case is not brought before the priest at all, but before the only true mediator, our great High Priest, who “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” and who is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” and is able to cleanse from every stain of iniquity.

When David sinned against Uriah and his wife, he pleaded before God for forgiveness. He declares: “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight.” All wrong done to others reaches back from the injured one to God. Therefore David seeks for pardon, not from a priest, but from the Creator of man. He prays: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to Thy loving-kindness: according unto the multitude of Thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.”

 

[ncgolf]

The text is clear:** IF WE CONFESS; then Jesus forgives**.

Let me ask then … is there any case where a person could confess a sin directly to God where the person would not be forgiven. Your comments imply that no matter what the sin is forgiven.

John 20:23 specifically mentions the retention of sin which implies that some sin may not be forgiven at that particular moment of time … not forever possibly but at that moment. Does the retention of sin mentioned in that passage change your understanding at all?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Let me ask then … is there any case where a person could confess a sin directly to God where the person would not be forgiven. Your comments imply that no matter what the sin is forgiven.

John 20:23 specifically mentions the retention of sin which implies that some sin may not be forgiven at that particular moment of time … not forever possibly but at that moment. Does the retention of sin mentioned in that passage change your understanding at all?

Hi,
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that verse is specifically speaking of the sin of unbelief. (Please correct me if Im wrong my protestant friends)(I already know my catholic friends will say Im wrong )

If a person hears the Gospel message and accepts it(belief)he is forgiven of all sins. If that person hears the gospels and does not believe well then he is not forgiven.

I really believe it is that simple.

I also believe Jesus gave only that power to the Apostles to authenticate the gospel message. Just as Jesus performed miracles to authenticate the message.

I also think you guys need to stop getting yourself stuck on one passage-- because that will get you nowhere fast, as far as learning what the bible is teaching. Is that what people mean when they are talking about a strawman?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I also have a question that has been bothering me.

I have a catholic friend who told me she went to confession where she use to live to confess a sin that had something to do with divorce and the priest absolved her.

She moved up here(where I live)and went to the priest at her new parish with the same confession and he did not absolve her.

How confusing is that!!! Obviously she went again because she still felt some sort of guilt(I think it has to do with not wanting an anullment(SP?)) Now she has no idea whether her sins are forgiven.

Do you see how man can get in the way and not do the right thing.

 

[Lampo]

One isn’t supposed to confess the same sin twice. One you confess through a priest, that sin and all past sins are forgiven by God. Are you 100% sure she confessed the exact same sin?

On a side note: You have probably answered this question before, but here goes. You are fallible correct? If yes, then your theology might be wrong, correct? What if you are wrong about not having to confess through a priest? Why take the chance by not doing it? Catholics also do as you do and confess sins directly to God at every Mass. We also take it several steps further and do it the way God set it up.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

One isn’t supposed to confess the same sin twice. One you confess through a priest, that sin and all past sins are forgiven by God. Are you 100% sure she confessed the exact same sin?

On a side note: You have probably answered this question before, but here goes. You are fallible correct? If yes, then your theology might be wrong, correct? What if you are wrong about not having to confess through a priest? Why take the chance by not doing it? Catholics also do as you do and confess sins directly to God at every Mass. We also take it several steps further and do it the way God set it up.

Hi,
She said it was the same sin she confessed. I agree you do not need to confess twice but how do you explain the 2 different answers for the same sin. Neither priest knew about the other because she moved to a different state.

Your answer to the second paragraph----yes Im fallible and could be wrong–but the bible is never wrong and I just dont see where in the bible it says I have to confess through a priest in order to be forgiven. If it helps someone confess fine but I dont think the CC should make it mandatory when it is not.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

A question just popped into my head.:newidea:

If I walked into a confessional and confessed my sins to a priest and was truly repentent–would he absolve me or would he not because Im not catholic?

 

[Lampo]

Your answer to the second paragraph----yes Im fallible and could be wrong–but the bible is never wrong and I just dont see where in the bible it says I have to confess through a priest in order to be forgiven. If it helps someone confess fine but I dont think the CC should make it mandatory when it is not.

You don’t see it, but you could be wrong. The CC has seen it for 2,000 years and she claims to be infallible in faith and morals and can back that claim.

 

[Lampo]

Hi,
She said it was the same sin she confessed. I agree you do not need to confess twice but how do you explain the 2 different answers for the same sin. Neither priest knew about the other because she moved to a different state.

Hard for me to say. Now I would say she needs to bring this to the attention of her confessor. Maybe she added details to one priest and not the other, which would cause different outcomes. If it were me, I would tell my confessor the whole situation. She is still confessing the way God set it up. God knew this would happen occasionally. She still KNOWS her sin is forgiven. She’ll be fine I pray.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hard for me to say. Now I would say she needs to bring this to the attention of her confessor. Maybe she added details to one priest and not the other, which would cause different outcomes. If it were me, I would tell my confessor the whole situation. She is still confessing the way God set it up. God knew this would happen occasionally. She still KNOWS her sin is forgiven. She’ll be fine I pray.

Thanks.

 

[Lampo]

My pleasure.

 

[chutton]

Hi,
Im going to go out on a limb here and say that verse is specifically speaking of the sin of unbelief. (Please correct me if Im wrong my protestant friends)(I already know my catholic friends will say Im wrong )

If a person hears the Gospel message and accepts it(belief)he is forgiven of all sins. If that person hears the gospels and does not believe well then he is not forgiven.

I really believe it is that simple.

That is the understanding I have as well. Great way of putting it ALLFORHIM! Same as what I read at at angelfire.com/nt/theology/jn20-19.html and quoted previously:
"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."

 

[ALLFORHIM]

That is the understanding I have as well. Great way of putting it ALLFORHIM! Same as what I read at at angelfire.com/nt/theology/jn20-19.html and quoted previously:
"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."

Good article:thumbsup:

 

[ncgolf]

Im going to go out on a limb here and say that verse is specifically speaking of the sin of unbelief. (Please correct me if Im wrong my protestant friends)(I already know my catholic friends will say Im wrong )

What makes you say that … that is one sin … Jesus said whose sins who retain (retaining meaning one person at a time) … plural not singular. Jesus spoke of the Apostles mission of preaching but not here, his statement had to with sending them out with a specific authority How you get to a preaching interpretation? You really have to stretch His words to get to that.

If a person hears the Gospel message and accepts it(belief)he is forgiven of all sins. If that person hears the gospels and does not believe well then he is not forgiven.

Now your comment will lead to a OSAS debate. Past, present and all future sins is what you seem to imply.

I also believe Jesus gave only that power to the Apostles to authenticate the gospel message. Just as Jesus performed miracles to authenticate the message.

What you say does not mesh with his words … never in that passage is there a message to preach. What did Jesus do when he healed someone? Typically He said, “your sins are forgiven”. Remember Jesus is about to leave them and so the same things Jesus did these men could now do, including forgiving sin. Read my post 152 … healing of the paralytic. Forgiving of sins is an invisible event. Jesus made his power over sin present and real to the people there by healing the man. Mark’s 16:15 is the commissioning of the apostles but He does not breath on them here. I see this as the preaching of the Gospel command. Do not limit the significance of Jesus’s breathing on them in the John 20 verses.

I also think you guys need to stop getting yourself stuck on one passage-- because that will get you nowhere fast, as far as learning what the bible is teaching. Is that what people mean when they are talking about a strawman?:confused

Strawmen are made out of straw. I only want you to reconcile what you have said with what Christ says there. The only thing you responsd with is that Jesus meant preaching about forgiveness. If that is true then there would be no need for them to be given the ability to forgive or retain sin. The awesomeness of what they were given(God’s power to forgive sin) does not match with a message of only preaching. As I said before there is no command to preach (at least here) … The passage is short, it is not mixed with any other command. To me you gloss over the real meaning of that passage because it really does not fit your theology. Use Christ words as your guide there is no need to change them.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

What makes you say that … that is one sin … Jesus said whose sins who retain (retaining meaning one person at a time) … plural not singular. Jesus spoke of the Apostles mission of preaching but not here, his statement had to with sending them out with a specific authority How you get to a preaching interpretation? You really have to stretch His words to get to that. Now your comment will lead to a OSAS debate. Past, present and all future sins is what you seem to imply.
What you say does not mesh with his words … never in that passage is there a message to preach. What did Jesus do when he healed someone? Typically He said, “your sins are forgiven”. Remember Jesus is about to leave them and so the same things Jesus did these men could now do, including forgiving sin. Read my post 152 … healing of the paralytic. Forgiving of sins is an invisible event. Jesus made his power over sin present and real to the people there by healing the man. Mark’s 16:15 is the commissioning of the apostles but He does not breath on them here. I see this as the preaching of the Gospel command. Do not limit the significance of Jesus’s breathing on them in the John 20 verses. Strawmen are made out of straw. I only want you to reconcile what you have said with what Christ says there. The only thing you responsd with is that Jesus meant preaching about forgiveness. If that is true then there would be no need for them to be given the ability to forgive or retain sin. The awesomeness of what they were given(God’s power to forgive sin) does not match with a message of only preaching. As I said before there is no command to preach (at least here) … The passage is short, it is not mixed with any other command. To me you gloss over the real meaning of that passage because it really does not fit your theology. Use Christ words as your guide there is no need to change them.

I believe I already have, you just dont accept my explanation. Actually, I believe their has been several explanations regarding this thread. If you choose not to believe our explanation and vice versa then so be it. I guess then the conversation is over because we are at a standstill. How mant times do you need to hear the same answer before you believe it:shrug:

I, of course , mean no disrespect but one can only say the same thing so many times and then it becomes redundant. Im sure you agree.

 

[awantz]

A question just popped into my head.:newidea:

If I walked into a confessional and confessed my sins to a priest and was truly repentent–would he absolve me or would he not because Im not catholic?

No, he would not absolve you. I know from personal experience.