Man granting forgiveness to others

[TN Jeni]

I'm watching a movie called "The Order" with Heath Ledger in it and it always just amazes me that there really are people who believe that men can give or take away forgiveness from a person. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that ONLY Christ can grant forgiveness?

[tennismenace]

I'm watching a movie called "The Order" with Heath Ledger in it and it always just amazes me that there really are people who believe that men can give or take away forgiveness from a person. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that ONLY Christ can grant forgiveness?

I'm a bit confused by your post.

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those..."

Is this different from what you are talking about? Please explain.

[FaithnJesus]

I saw the movie and thought the same thing. Tennismenace, the movie is about a sin eater. This person eats the sins of another person so they can go to heaven. Do people really believe in this stuff! :freaked

[TN Jeni]

I am talking about the confession to a Priest and shouting a hail mary or two and then having your sin forgiven - and yes, this "sineater" nonsense as well. Christ is the only one who can forgive. Why is that such a difficult concept for people?

[Rodney]

It depends what you mean by forgive sins. Only Jesus Christ can forgive trespasses against himself. No one can avoid going to hell because I forgive him for his sins. That being said when someone trespasses against me I can forgive him and for that matter I am required by God to forgive him.

For example lets say someone steals my car. I can and should forgive the thief for stealing my car. However even though I have forgiven him unless Jesus forgives him he is still going to hell for stealing my car (among all his others sins). My forgiveness of him for stealing my car doesn't stop him from being punished in hell for it, he will only avoid punishment for stealing my car if Jesus forgives him (which will occur if he places his faith in Jesus who died on the cross in his place so that he could be forgiven for his sins).

[TN Jeni]

they are trying to say that a man can forgive SINS.... not just forgive for the sake of one's own self - forgive his sins so he can go to heaven

[Hootmon]

We can and should forgive others for what they do to US personally. That concept is contained in the Lord's Prayer with the implication that we cant expect God to forgive us our sins if we are unwilling to forgive others who have offended us.

[AnyDayNow]

When someone sins against another person, they also sin against God. I can forgive that person (which I should), but they must also seek forgiveness from God. I could forgive them and they can still go to hell if they don't repent and are Saved so they learn confession and forgiveness.

The RCC believes that the Priest has power to forgive sins. In the Lutheran church (LCMS) where I was raised, the pastor has the authority to "announce" the forgiveness of sins to you, but not the power (in their minds) to actually forgive sins.

I now know that there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus. We must confess our sins to Him and ask the Father to forgive us for the sake of His Son. All the RCC Priests and Lutheran pastors in the world can't help you with your sin, and neither can any other person on this earth. After all, they need just as much help as you do, now don't they? :nod

[Dennis J. Reidy]

I'm watching a movie called "The Order" with Heath Ledger in it and it always just amazes me that there really are people who believe that men can give or take away forgiveness from a person. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that ONLY Christ can grant forgiveness?Being one of those persons who believes men have the power to forgive sins, I'll merely say that the reason I believe it is because the Bible teaches it.

See John 20:21-23:

"21": Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

"22": And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

"23": Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

The apostles were given by Christ the power to remit and retain sins, and this power was passed on to those who were not present in the above scenario. See my next post.

Further, nowhere does the Bible state that "only Christ" can forgive sins. God the Father and God the Holy Ghost have the power to forgive sins.

[Dennis J. Reidy]

We can and should forgive others for what they do to US personally. That concept is contained in the Lord's Prayer with the implication that we cant expect God to forgive us our sins if we are unwilling to forgive others who have offended us.Saint Paul forgave the sin of the incestuous Corinthian man whom Saint Paul had excommunicated via the so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians. The sin was incest, and it was not committed against Saint Paul personally.

See II Corinthians 2:4-10:

4: For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.

5: But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.

6: Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.

7: So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.

8: Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.

9: For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

10: To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.

Saint Paul says he forgave the sin of incest "in the person of Christ," which is the exact same thing Catholic priests and bishops continue doing to this day. The forgiveness of sins by men is perfectly Biblical, and Saint Paul demonstrates it in his epistle.

[Hootmon]

Saint Paul forgave the sin of the incestuous Corinthian man whom Saint Paul had excommunicated via the so-called First Epistle to the Corinthians. The sin was incest, and it was not committed against Saint Paul personally. Interesting. I never really saw that before.


Saint Paul says he forgave the sin of incest "in the person of Christ," which is the exact same thing Catholic priests and bishops continue doing to this day. The forgiveness of sins by men is perfectly Biblical, and Saint Paul demonstrates it in his epistle.In the case of Apostles, I agree. Seeing how they were directly delegated by Christ.

Otherwise...

[blitzkreig]

...I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ.[/B] Could mean in the presence or sight of Christ ...

I don't actually question whether such authority was granted to the 12. Even yes the Keys to Peter.

I would need more information with regards to Paul actually "forgiving" sin in his roll as Apostle. I don't think Paul claimed any authority over sin or heaven...

[Dennis J. Reidy]

Interesting. I never really saw that before.See how Catholic doctrine is contained in the Bible?
In the case of Apostles, I agree. Seeing how they were directly delegated by Christ.

Otherwise...The apostles handed down the ability to forgive sins to others. Saint Paul was not present when Christ gave the eleven apostles the power to forgive sins, neither was Saint Paul an apostle until after the laying on of hands. Until that time, he was classified only as a prophet and teacher.

See Acts 13:1-3

1: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2: As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3: And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Next see Acts 14:14: Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out."

It was not until "the laying on of hands," that is, ordination, that Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas became "apostles." There is nothing in Sacred Scripture that says Christ commissioned Saint Barnabas. It says the Holy Ghost did.

And Saint Paul clearly claimed the ability to forgive sins, just like the other apostles did, even though there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that tells us Christ gave him this power directly.

See again II Corinthians 2:10. Saint Paul says no less than four times "I forgive" or "I forgave it." The sin Saint Paul forgave is incest, and it certainly wasn't directed against him.

"To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ."

[blitzkreig]

Saint Paul was not present when Christ gave the eleven apostles the power to forgive sins, neither was Saint Paul an apostle until after the laying on of hands. Until that time, he was classified only as a prophet and teacher.
Excuse me ... who's hands? Surly not Ananias? Paul received the power to forgive sins from the laying of hands by Ananias prior to his revelations which occurred over several years (four) :confused

Where does Scripture state he was a prophet or even a teacher prior to his Damascus visit?

Paul actually took a certain pains to explain that He didn't even meet with the 12 but received his doctrine from the Glorified Lord Jesus. Period.

[Dennis J. Reidy]

Excuse me ... who's hands? Surly not Ananias? Paul received the power to forgive sins from the laying of hands by Ananias prior to his revelations which occurred over several years (four) :confused

Where does Scripture state he was a prophet or even a teacher prior to his Damascus visit?

Paul actually took a certain pains to explain that He didn't even meet with the 12 but received his doctrine from the Glorified Lord Jesus. Period.Saint Paul received his doctrine from Christ, yes, but he went to Jerusalem years later to consult Peter to make sure he was teaching correctly. He also had to consult the apostles concerning circumcision.

Read the prior post again. I'm not talking about Ananias. What I'm talking about is several chapters later. The Bible does not tell us who laid hands on Saint Paul during Acts 13. It just says "they."

See Acts 13:1-3

1: Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2: As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3: And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Saint Paul was never referred to by the title "apostle" until after the laying on of hands at Acts 13. He is then referred to as an apostle in Acts 14, along with Barnabas. Until Acts 13, he was merely considered a "prophet and teacher."

Of course, that's beside the point as to whether he claimed to forgive sins. He did claim to forgive sins in his second (really it's at least his third) epistle to the Corinthians.

[blitzkreig]

Saint Paul received his doctrine from Christ, yes, but he went to Jerusalem years later to consult Peter to make sure he was teaching correctly. He also had to consult the apostles concerning circumcision. Paul was warned by God to get out of the Jerusalem area ... and that they would not even receive him. It seems to me he visited Jerusalem on that first visit for a couple days. Some meeting.

The second visit (years and years later) he was not an "authorized" visit either... as authorized visits go that is ... some consultation by the way ... by that time James had usurped authority in the "Little Flock" (the "counsel") and Peter had been relegated to kind of nodding in agreement. The verdict of the counsel was rendered by James...

Later Paul even ripped up Peter due to his hypocrisy in schmoozing up to James boyz. Upon Peter's visit to Antioch.

His third and most disastrous visit to Jerusalem the Lord had warned and warned and warned Paul to not go to Jerusalem. It is even questionable that Paul was in the Lord's will at all in going. Now of course we are all blessed by Paul's arrest as Gentiles... but it was interesting to say the least... And what does James greet him with... the fact that the "Jerusalem bunch" are all zealous for the Law :doh Quite a bunch of doctrinal geniuses hey what?

Saint Paul was never referred to by the title "apostle" until after the laying on of hands at Acts 13. He is then referred to as an apostle in Acts 14, along with Barnabas. Until Acts 13, he was merely considered a "prophet and teacher." :rolleyes sure ... Are you saying that the Lord gave him probation to see if he might work out? I think the Lord knew what he was doing. Whether or not anyone else called him Apostle or not is not particularly relevant.

Of course, that's beside the point as to whether he claimed to forgive sins. He did claim to forgive sins in his second (really it's at least his third) epistle to the orinthians.
He claimed no such thing. He forgave wrongs against him as a person :tsk Christ had forgiven all sins in those who Believed on the cross and so why in the whole wide world do you think it needs to happen again? :rolleyes That is just too much... :tsk :doh

[Hootmon]

See how Catholic doctrine is contained in the Bible? Some. Maybe even most. Certainly not all.

[Hootmon]

Christ had forgiven all sins in those who Believed on the cross and so why in the whole wide world do you think it needs to happen again? :nod

[Dennis J. Reidy]

Paul was warned by God to get out of the Jerusalem area ... and that they would not even receive him. It seems to me he visited Jerusalem on that first visit for a couple days. Some meeting.

The second visit (years and years later) he was not an "authorized" visit either... as authorized visits go that is ... some consultation by the way ... by that time James had usurped authority in the "Little Flock" (the "counsel") and Peter had been relegated to kind of nodding in agreement. The verdict of the counsel was rendered by James...

Later Paul even ripped up Peter due to his hypocrisy in schmoozing up to James boyz. Upon Peter's visit to Antioch.

His third and most disastrous visit to Jerusalem the Lord had warned and warned and warned Paul to not go to Jerusalem. It is even questionable that Paul was in the Lord's will at all in going. Now of course we are all blessed by Paul's arrest as Gentiles... but it was interesting to say the least... And what does James greet him with... the fact that the "Jerusalem bunch" are all zealous for the Law :doh Quite a bunch of doctrinal geniuses hey what?

:rolleyes sure ... Are you saying that the Lord gave him probation to see if he might work out? I think the Lord knew what he was doing. Whether or not anyone else called him Apostle or not is not particularly relevant.


He claimed no such thing. He forgave wrongs against him as a person :tsk Christ had forgiven all sins in those who Believed on the cross and so why in the whole wide world do you think it needs to happen again? :rolleyes That is just too much... :tsk :dohSaint Paul is speaking about forgiving the sin of the Corinthian man who had committed incest and who, in his prior epistle, Saint Paul had ordered excommunicated. That is the context of the second chapter of II Corinthians. He said "I forgive" or "I forgave" four times, and the person he is forgiving is the one he wrote about in the prior epistle. The man's sin was not committed against Saint Paul.

8: Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
9: For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

The "him" found in those verses, taken from II Corinthians 2, is the same man mentioned in the prior epistle.

Nowhere does the Bible tell us that "Christ forgave all sins in those who believed on the cross." Christ redeemed us by His cross, but we must repent and confess our sins for them to be forgiven. Otherwise, they will not be forgiven. The idea that all our future sins are forgiven is a heresy of Calvin.

Our Lord stated that, unless we forgive others, our sins will not be forgiven.

See Mark 11:25-26: And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

"26": But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Those are the words of Christ Himself, and they are diametrically opposed to your position. If all our sins have already been forgiven, Christ would never have made the above statement. He never said all our future sins will be forgiven with no effort on our part to repent.

Further, see Acts 8:12-24. Simon was a believer. Simon committed a grave sin. Saint Peter told Simon to pray to God for the forgiveness of his sin. If Christ had already forgiven it, then why would Saint Peter tell Simon to pray for forgiveness?


"12": But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

"13": Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

"14": Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

"15": Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

"16": (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

"17": Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

"18": And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

"19": Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

"20": But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

"21": Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

"22": Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, IF PERHAPS the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

"23": For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.

"24": Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.

In any event, confession to men is Biblical. The apostles were given the power not only to forgive sins but to retain them for those who refuse to repent. "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. Whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." Saint Paul exercised that power when he forgave the sin of the incestuous Corinthian. It's in the Bible.

[blitzkreig]

Nowhere does the Bible tell us that "Christ forgave all sins in those who believed on the cross." Christ redeemed us by His cross, but we must repent and confess our sins for them to be forgiven. Otherwise, they will not be forgiven. The idea that all our future sins are forgiven is a heresy of Calvin.Calvin? No. Paul. But you mix up the dispensations so much I hardly know where to begin.


Rom 6:1-14
(1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
(2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
(3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
(4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(12) Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
(13) Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
(14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.By the way... all my sins were future sins when Jesus paid for them on the cross.


.

[Hootmon]

Calvin? No. Paul. But you mix up the dispensations so much I hardly know where to begin. Good luck with that particular task, Blitz. I am beginning to understand just how different Covenant theology is from Dispensational.


By the way... all my sins were future sins when Jesus paid for them on the cross.:nod

Tetelestai!