Are all of our sins—past, present, and future—forgiven once and for all when we become Christians? Not according to the Bible or the early Church Fathers. Scripture nowhere states that our future sins are forgiven; instead, it teaches us to pray, "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors" (Matt. 6:12).
The means by which God forgives sins after baptism is confession: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.
This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).
Since it is not possible to confess all of our many daily faults, we know that sacramental reconciliation is required only for grave or mortal sins—but it is required, or Christ would not have commanded it.
Over time, the forms in which the sacrament has been administered have changed. In the early Church, publicly known sins (such as apostasy) were often confessed openly in church, though private confession to a priest was always an option for privately committed sins. Still, confession was not just something done in silence to God alone, but something done "in church," as theDidache (A.D. 70) indicates.
Penances also tended to be performed before rather than after absolution, and they were much more strict than those of today (ten years’ penance for abortion, for example, was common in the early Church).
But the basics of the sacrament have always been there, as the following quotations reveal. Of special significance is their recognition that confession and absolution must be received by a sinner before receiving Holy Communion, for "[w]hoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).
Ping!
Going to Confession is like going to Mass used to be for me. I used to go to both because I had to. Now I go because I want to and to experience the grace. My RCIA sponsorette knows the rote rule, once a year to Confession to meet your Easter obligation. She seems rather dubious when I and the other team members tell her that we go from once a week to once a month. She’s getting Baptized so not doing Confession until after Easter but I did tell her that in our parish she will go into the confessional and have a nice chat with Father. She got a look of panic on her face. LOL
There was no such animal as confession to a priest until the 1200’s
5:15 The construction of this clause in the Greek text (a third class condition) assumes for the sake of the argument that the sickness has resulted from sin. James was speaking of sin-induced illness in this entire passage. Not all sickness is the result of sin, as the conditional clause “if he has sinned” makes clear (cf. John 9:1–3). “James’s point is simply that both must be dealt with when they are linked.”2095:16 In view of the possibility of physical sickness following sin, believers should confess their sins (against one another) to one another (normally privately). Furthermore they should pray for one another so God may heal them (spiritually and physically). I have added the conditions in parenthesis above to clarify the meaning of James’ words.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Jas 5:15).
2. Priest is not a NT office of the Church. Elder is.
This does not support confessing personal sins to a priest (not a NT church office). It deals with the Great Commission and salvation. The structure of the Greek sentence does not allow the interpretation described in the article above.
The second part of each conditional clause in this verse is in the passive voice and the perfect tense in the Greek text. The passive voice indicates that someone has already done the forgiving or retaining. That person must be God since He alone has the authority to do that (Matt. 9:2–3; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). The perfect tense indicates that the action has continuing effects; the sins stand forgiven or retained at least temporarily if not permanently.Jesus appears to have been saying that when His disciples went to others with the message of salvation, as He had done, some people would believe and others would not. Reaction to their ministry would be the same as reaction to His had been. He viewed their forgiving and retaining the sins of their hearers as the actions of God’s agents. If people (“any” or “anyone,” plural Gr. tinon) believed the gospel, the disciples could tell the believers that God had forgiven their sins. If they disbelieved, they could tell them that God had not forgiven but retained their sins. Jesus had done this (cf. 9:39–41), and now His disciples would continue to do it. Thus their ministry would be a continuation of His ministry relative to the forgiveness of sins, as it would be in relation to the Spirit’s enablement. This, too, applies to all succeeding generations of Jesus’ disciples since Jesus was still talking about the disciples’ mission.
“. . . all who proclaim the gospel are in effect forgiving or not forgiving sins, depending on whether the hearer accepts or rejects the Lord Jesus as the Sin-Bearer.”653
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 20:23).
That's very weird. There are many examples were Jesus forgives sins and never asks for a laundry list. The apostles learned from Jesus, so they would follow his example.
I can hear the rationalization that Jesus knew the sins because he is God, so he didn't need to be told, but if a laundry list was so important to forgive sins, then why isn't there a clear statement of this prerequisite?
Additionally, if the apostles can only forgive sins that have been enumerated, then they would leave some of the sins unforgiven? Just weird.
Every week, we practice public confession and absolution. Private confession and absolution is available, but not a prerequisite for forgiveness.
Upon starting to read this article, I went to find out more about Deal Hudson’s other views and came across this:
Deal Hudson resigns from Crisis magazine, stays with publishing house
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405221.htm
Deal Hudson’s Fall
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-sands_celebrity.htm
From the second article:
“
But all that has changed. Just as the final installment of my series was going to press, Deal Hudson suddenly and spectacularly fell from his high pedestal. The thrice-married Baptist minister convert¾the beneficiary of two Novus Ordo “annulments” since his entry into the Church in 1982¾was toppled by his own remarkably sordid past. It seems we didn’t know the half of it.
“On August 19th the National Catholic Reporter broke the story of Hudson’s sexual relations with Cara Poppas, an 18-year old freshman student of his at Fordham University, where he was a professor from 1989-1994. Hudson, then age 44, was already married to his current wife when he took advantage of Poppas in his car and office on “Fat Tuesday” in 1994. According to the written account Poppas supplied to Fordham’s legal counsel (none of which Hudson has disputed), Hudson knew beforehand that Poppas was emotionally disturbed and that her unfit parents had left her a ward of the state. The details of Hudson’s conduct as recounted by Poppas are not fit for publication, although NCR published them all.”
I also see he published a piece in the fall of 2013 in support of Pope Francis against charges he was allowing himself to be misinterpreted, but despite him blogging regularly, he seems quiet on Francis and the Family Synod.
If I confessed my sins to a priest who is sin are my sins still forgiven? After all the priest is in sin and needs to see a priest to confess his sins or do priests get an exemption having to confess.
Did God give all those priests who were molesting young boys a pass? If sinners, such as these priests, can forgive sin can all sinners forgive sins or just sinners ordained by the catholic church?
Does anyone really believe that God would set up such a ridiculous chain of command? Hard to believe God would set up a system that throws common sense to the wind to show his mercy
The RC has added or used a translation that adds "Therefore" to v. 16, but which is not there, but it used here to support confession to non-existent RC priesthood. .
Instead, NT presbuteros (elders) were never titled “hiereus” (= priest, from "preost"), which is only used for Jewish and pagan priests which have a unique sacerdotal function as their primary role, unlike NT presbuteros.
And while the binding and loosing aspect that pertains to forgiveness (which can be related to healing) - that of God removing chastisement due to intercession of others, as Christ showed, (Mk. 2:5-11; Jn. 5:8ff) - does apply primarily to the elders, yet what Jn. 5:16-18 exhorts is believers also confessing faults to other believers and praying for such that they may be healed.
For as in Mt. 18, power of binding and loosing can be had by any righteous laity of fervent prayer:
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5:16-18)
James is teaching that any righteous man can be like Elias who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years, and then loosed them again. And which has application in other areas (not "name is claim it.")
In Dt. 17, if there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within their gates, then it was brought before the Levitical magisterial authority, whose judgment was binding to one, and loosing to the other.
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. (Deuteronomy 17:11) The Lord also enjoined conditional obedience to the Scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) and who claimed the power of dissolving vows, etc. But not as being the supreme infallible standard, thus the Lord reproved their unScriptural judgments by Scripture. (Mk. 7:2-16)
Mt. 18:15-20 has application to all, but first specifically deals with judgments in personal matters. Which binding and loosing Dt. 17:8-13 corresponds to, in which an unresolved personal matter is brought to the church, whose judgment binds and looses, (cf. Matthew 18:17) with one being in sin and the other vindicated.
Paul with the church also exercised this binding power in 1Cor. 5 "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (1 Corinthians 5:4-5)" (1 Corinthians 5:5)
And fathers and husbands are given some binding and loosing power in regards to daughters and wives respectively. (Num 30:3-7)
Even valid civil authorities have a power to bind and loose, physically. (Rm. 13::1-7) .