Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
John 20:21-23
July 15, 2010 at 7:53 pm
According to Protestantism, preaching is the means by which sins are forgiven (since preaching leads to repentance and faith). Therefore, preaching the word (or the word itself) is a sacrament, on Protestant terms. Apparently, then, refusal to preach would be the act of retaining sins. Or perhaps preaching does both: forgive those who repent and not forgive those who do not repent.
July 15, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Nathan,
Thank you for responding to this post.
I agree with you that preaching leads to repentance and faith. No disagreement there. But repentance and faith do not ipso facto lead to an internal reality of forgiveness of sins. That reality needs to first be externalized; it needs to be “incarnated” so-to-speak.
You say,
According to where in Protestantism? Can you provide a quote in Protestant magisterial tradition and a subsequent denomination that formally agrees with said quote? Unfortunately, in my experience, I’ve seen no such thing. I am not saying it does not exist, you obviously learned it from somewhere. But what I will say is, that kind of structure for forgiveness of sins does not exist in scriptures whatsoever.
What does exist in scriptures, is the act of absolution, that is, an actual affirmation of forgiveness which is preceded by a repentant act of confession. Take for instance the scripture I cited above in Mark chapter 2. The context here, is that Christ is in Capernaum preaching the Gospel, that is, “preaching the word” as you put it. Notice that He did not preach then leave and somehow the paralytic, after he had been lowered through the roof in an act of “repentance” acknowledging his need for healing, experienced some event of mental assertion that he had been forgiven of his sins. Nope, this is the opposite of what happens in the Gospel account. Christ is not only physically there preaching the word (as the Word Incarnate), but physically seeing the man’s faith by an act repentance (i.e. having his friends lower him into the house from the roof), Christ opens His mouth and breathes out the words, “son, your sins are forgiven.”
I would therefore disagree with what you said by basis of it being not only foreign to this Gospel account, but foreign to what scripture says about forgiveness of sins altogether.
Also, a sacrament by definition is a physical signifier of God’s grace conferred through a physical mystery instituted by Christ. Preaching the word doesn’t signify God’s grace conferred, it makes us aware of the existence of God’s grace. And therefore, makes us aware of our falling short of God’s grace (our sins). These sins need to be lowered through the roof of the house in which our Lord teaches, and placed at His feet and at the feet of His Apostles. Only then, for us to hear the words “your sins are forgiven.”
In the peace of Christ,
Sh’muel
July 16, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Well, since you asked, I decided to read up on Calvin, who jumps through some hoops to make basically the point I was relating to you. In his Commentary on John, he says that the power of teaching and the forgiveness of sins must never be separated (no mention of the Lord’s Prayer here, which I think is at the least problematic for thesis). He says that Jesus was sent to preach the Gospel, and that in this passage he is sending the Apostles to do the same.
I’m guessing that Luther would give a similar answer on this point, but I’m no expert and haven’t the time to do more research. At any rate, I’m not trying to defend the magisterial protestants on this point. In fact, I imagine that protestants would disagree with my assertion that preaching (or “the word”) is a sacrament, but under the given interpretation of this passage, I don’t see how it can be avoided. Seeing how some fundamentalists will pound on their bibles or wave them in the air, I think I have at least anecdotal evidence that there is some reality to the implication.
July 16, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Nathan,
Thanks again for engaging this post and for following up with Calvin’s commentary on John.
In your first paragraph, you say,
In part, a Catholic would agree with your key point here (i.e. “the power of teaching and the forgiveness of sins must never be seperated”). The two have an intimate relationship. Ultimately, one cannot have knowledge of one’s sin and the possibility of forgiveness without the “power of teaching” making that reality apparent. Also, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession), once the penitent confesses his or her sins, the priest has the opportunity to teach by prescribing penance and advising the penitent on how to safeguard against falling into that same sin again in the future.
You summarize what Calvin says by inferring,
I agree. To forgive sins is indispensable to the Gospel. But the Gospel that Jesus commissions the Apostles with in John 20 doesn’t seem to line up with Calvin’s commentary.
Here is the challenge I make to you: Christ says to His Apostles, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Did the Father send Christ to just vocalize the Kingdom of God and “preach the Gospel”? No. The Father sent Christ to embody the Kingdom of God, hence my continuous alluding to the Incarnation.
The power of the Holy Spirit is what made the Incarnation a reality (Luke 1:35). And it is that same Holy Spirit that unites the Son’s authority on Earth to forgive sins with the gift He gives to the 12 after His resurrection. What do you think?
In the peace of Christ,
Sh’muel
July 16, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Also, I encourage you to read and engage the first part of this series of posts as it sets up the framework for this one.
July 17, 2010 at 3:07 am
A glaring problem with Calvin is his failure to really deal with the statement, “whose sins you retain, they are retained.” In my first comment I touched up on the idea, but really, Calvin’s answer is essentially hand-waving. These are active verbs, and yet he makes the apostles passive instruments. Passive to the point that I think it can be said that not baptizing someone who refuses to be baptized is to cause their sins to be retained. This is a sort of causality that I confess makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Regarding Christ’s commissioning, the first response that comes to mind is this: “the Father sent the Son to be the savior of the world.” So did Jesus send the apostles to be the saviors of the world? I doubt a Protestant would easily affirm that wording, but given the way saints and apostles are invoked in prayer in the catholic faith, I think the case can be made. Consider:
I agree that preaching and forgiveness are closely related, yet the forgiveness in baptism is not restricted to those who can comprehend preaching (such as infants). Likewise, as we are taught in the Lord’s Prayer, we are forgiven as we forgive others, though of course some sort of preaching is necessary in order for us to learn such truth.
I also think you are right to point to the incarnation. You see this in Paul, in his participationistic, synergistic language. Ignatius says much the same thing when he says to think of the bishop as being in the place of Christ. All who have the Spirit are to work synergistically with Christ, but that does not mean that all are apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers. The limiting of Christ’s commission to preaching is far too reductionistic in light of the scriptural and patristic evidence. Indeed, I think it limits the Gospel itself, which is about ever so much more than Justification.
Given such power, how does one go about retaining sins anyway? Acts 8:20 comes to mind at least. Can a priest withhold absolution until penance is completed?
July 17, 2010 at 6:28 am
Whoops, didn’t reply to you directly…see below.
July 17, 2010 at 6:27 am
Nathan,
I agree with you that Calvin’s neglected treatment of retaining sins makes his interpretation “essentially hand-waving.” IMHO, it makes Jesus’ commissioning of the Apostolic function to forgive and retain sins something said tongue-in-cheek; and you captured that in saying that in lieu of Christ’s active verbs, the Apostles turn into “passive instruments.” This makes no sense to me either.
I agree, Christ’s commissioning can best be described: “the Father sent the Son to be the savior of the world.” And, as a Catholic, I would say yes, Christ did send His Apostles into the world as “saviors” in their own right. The prayer you cited is a good reference of that appearing in Catholic spirituality. From scripture, Catholicism draws on the epistles of St. Paul specifically to complete the picture of the Apostolic mission to save. Consider for instance Romans 11:14 and 1 Corinthians 9:22. In both instances, St. Paul says that he saves people. Of course, St. Paul can only save by extension of Christ’s saving work being mediated through the Apostle (this of course aligns with St. Paul’s language of participation and synergism). The Apostle “puts on Christ,” by virtue of his baptism and office, and is able to forgive and retain in the name of Christ. He does so relatively to Christ’s power, not absolutely to supersede Christ’s power.
In the case of infants, the reason that baptism is available to them is on behalf of the faith of the Church. Like you said, the forgiveness of baptism is not restricted to those who can comprehend preaching. However, it is precisely because others that do comprehend and believe stand alongside those who cannot comprehend (infants) that baptism is available to “you and your children” (Acts 2:38-39). But this is moot to the substance of our discussion.
You say,
In Canon Law 980 it says, “If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of a penitent who asks for absolution, absolution is not to be refused or delayed.” That being said, if the confessor (priest) does have a doubt about how true a penitent’s disposition is towards repentance, he can withhold absolution, that is, he can retain their sin. Also, penance and absolution are not mutually exclusive. One can be absolved, but if their is no act of repentance (i.e. penance) to follow, one falls into sin once more. Basically, you cannot have one without the other insofar as a true penitent consents to performing penance as reaction to the gift of absolution.
In the peace of Christ,
Sh’muel
July 19, 2010 at 7:30 pm
This may be jumping the gun on a new post, but even if Calvin attributes preaching to the retaining and forgiving of sins in the passage quoted above, that is clearly not the context in James 5. Here it is clear that church leaders are praying for forgiveness on the part of those who are ill.
Quoting the NIV:
“13Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective. ”
Blessings,
Jonathan
July 20, 2010 at 1:09 am
YES
July 20, 2010 at 2:15 am
And of course Calvin has an “answer” to this one as well, but he seems to wind up with a very odd hamartiology at the end of it.
Continuing:
So presumably there are sins that can actively harm the body, yet have no effect on the soul. At least, that seems to be what Calvin is implying here, given that he makes no connection between forgiveness of these sins and either justification or final judgment. How can sins be both forgiven (in terms of imputation) and unforgiven at the same time? It seems there must be two different notions of forgiveness at work, a concept I cannot imagine trying to defend from scripture.
His cessationist argument is essentially circular, and of course completely lacking in scriptural support. The appeal to experience over scripture I found to be shocking. Would he advocate the cessation of baptism because so many who are baptized fail to show fruits of repentance?
July 21, 2010 at 4:24 am
There is a sense in which Calvin argues for cessationism with regard to prayers for the deceased. I wrote about that here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/did-calvin-advocate-praying-to-or-for-the-dead/
All of this is just a justification for breaking Tradition, for viewing the Church as destroyed needing a fresh formation–a REformation.
The Traditional vision rejects the idea of a Church that would so largely cease to maintain its character of grace-filled living.