So no need of churches, bible, apostles, pastors. Just belief in Christ? What constitutes believing in Christ? Also why didn't the apostles say just confess to God?
Thanks for the questions! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your comments with Greg. He'd love to hear from you. www.str.org/broadcast
Thank you for utilizing the Scriptures and taking them seriously. What about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5? What about 1 Corinthians 5? What about 1 Timothy 1:20? All of these are examples of "retaining sins". So, the Biblical record does speak to this. I would also add Matthew 16 and 18 as places where Jesus specifically is talking to the apostles in like manner.
Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
This would make sense if Jesus said "whoever's sins are forgiven are forgiven indeed, and whoever's sins are not forgiven will not be forgiven." But Jesus said "whoever's sins YOU forgive will be forgiven, and whoever's sins YOU do not forgive will not be forgiven." With God identifying the apostles specifically, this interpretation doesn't make sense. Anyone have thoughts on my understanding?
The apostles were able to tell the repentant that their sins were forgiven when they believed and were baptized. Anyone who refused could be told their sins are retained. I think this guy did a good job explaining this. Why would God give the authority to humans to be able to retain sins? What criteria would they be able to make that decision? What if a human makes a mistake and retains the sins of someone in error. God can't make that mistake. Do you think a priest on the opposite side of a dark screen, in a booth, would be able to make that call with someone he has never met?
He doesn’t say whoever you forgive “will be forgiven” and who’s ever sins you retain “will be retained.” It says whoever you forgive “have been forgiven” and who ever you retain “has been retained” The verbal form indicates that what they pronounce has already happened.
Yes, I was hoping my thinking was on with this. Thank you for your thoughts and clarifications, Greg. It's that overall salvation package to be forgiven of sins. One off's/piecemeal (sins and the forgiving of them) don't strike me as reasonable, anyhow, as there appears to be some strong support for Christ dying once for all sins (and while I may be the minority on this, I'm not basing this on 1 John 1 ... confessing to be cleansed once I have been born twice. I am cleansed ... period).
Perhaps the question we should ask here is: Who is greater, Jesus Christ or his disciples? The writers of the New Testament apart from the Gospels were NOT part of the initial followers of Jesus Christ as were the 12 Disciples (apart from John - Revelation). The message from Jesus Christ was to his own Apostles and not everyone else. As such, following Jesus Christ's proclamation that Peter was the rock on which HE would build his Church (the foundation of the Catholic or Universal Church), it should be easily understood that HIS own chosen had the power to forgive sins because HE gave them the right to do so. So how can people like Mr. Kouki and others deviate from the Truth which is in the GOSPELs? The sooner our preachers stick to the TRUTH of the Bible, the more sheep they will bring to the LORD, because that is their mission in life.
This man has said that the Apostles of Christ, of whom Christ himself appointed the powers of forgiveness and retainment of sins, *did not* understand what Christ told them?? This man also said that Christ *never* granted the power for any person to forgive sins?? Thus, this man denies scripture and interprets for himself how Christ commanded His chosen priests to go and forgive or retain sins… we call this heresy.
Only God can forgive sins. Priests are sinful men. They cannot forgive sins. This is heresy. Therefore Priests are committing heresy. Any person who goes to a Priest to confess their sins, their sins are retained. They have NOT been forgiven. To be forgiven, you must confess them to no-one else but God.
I don't think he ignored the question. He made reference to a number of passages that show that the means of salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, and that what this salvation entails is a once for all act where we stand forever just/righteous before God. We've been cleansed from all our sins. Now, he shows the contradiction which interpreting the verse as the Apostles being able to forgive ones sins unto salvation causes. If ones salvation (forgiveness of sins) is hinged on the Apostles still forgiving them after they've believed on Christ then the work of Christ is nullified
If you can’t read the scripture and believe the plain meaning, but have to interpret away from the plain meaning… the classic ‘what this says isn’t what it means’ method of exegesis.
There is no reason or sense in God forgiving sins of the unsaved who will end up in hell. There is no mention of Christians confessing their sins to any church leader or elder for absolution in any of the Christian communities either in Acts or epistles. Paul never mentioned such a practice or recommended or commanded it.
Perhaps another perspective is this: Jesus had told the disciples many times to forgive or their sins would not be forgiven. Making it clear that if you don't forgive those who have hurt you, then you don't fully understand the sins you've sinned against God. The disciples have experienced the trauma of losing their friend, not to mention their messiah. Even after having found out that their master had risen, they still would be in a place of trauma and unrest. They would have been angry at themselves, each other, and everyone who helped kill their friend. Jesus breathes on them to give life and healing to them and to give them a heart of forgiveness towards themselves, each other, and the roman soldiers. Then, he flips the script, knowing what he has placed into their hearts. If you forgive them, they'll be forgiven. If you don't, they won't.
Greg, you have provided the best interpretation. Thank you and May God Bless you.
So no need of churches, bible, apostles, pastors.
Just belief in Christ?
What constitutes believing in Christ?
Also why didn't the apostles say just confess to God?
Thanks for the questions! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your comments with Greg. He'd love to hear from you. www.str.org/broadcast
Spoke my mind
This was the best explanation I’ve come across. Thanks!!
Thank you for utilizing the Scriptures and taking them seriously. What about Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5? What about 1 Corinthians 5? What about 1 Timothy 1:20? All of these are examples of "retaining sins". So, the Biblical record does speak to this. I would also add Matthew 16 and 18 as places where Jesus specifically is talking to the apostles in like manner.
Thanks for the question! We invite you to call in to our weekly broadcast to discuss your thoughts with Greg Koukl. He'd love to hear from you. Or you can submit an #STRask or Open Mic question. Visit www.str.org/broadcast for details.
This would make sense if Jesus said "whoever's sins are forgiven are forgiven indeed, and whoever's sins are not forgiven will not be forgiven." But Jesus said "whoever's sins YOU forgive will be forgiven, and whoever's sins YOU do not forgive will not be forgiven." With God identifying the apostles specifically, this interpretation doesn't make sense.
Anyone have thoughts on my understanding?
The apostles were able to tell the repentant that their sins were forgiven when they believed and were baptized. Anyone who refused could be told their sins are retained. I think this guy did a good job explaining this. Why would God give the authority to humans to be able to retain sins? What criteria would they be able to make that decision? What if a human makes a mistake and retains the sins of someone in error. God can't make that mistake. Do you think a priest on the opposite side of a dark screen, in a booth, would be able to make that call with someone he has never met?
@MysT_Savage do what?
@MysT_Savage I have no idea what you are talking about.
Only that you’re right :)
He doesn’t say whoever you forgive “will be forgiven” and who’s ever sins you retain “will be retained.” It says whoever you forgive “have been forgiven” and who ever you retain “has been retained”
The verbal form indicates that what they pronounce has already happened.
Yes, I was hoping my thinking was on with this. Thank you for your thoughts and clarifications, Greg. It's that overall salvation package to be forgiven of sins.
One off's/piecemeal (sins and the forgiving of them) don't strike me as reasonable, anyhow, as there appears to be some strong support for Christ dying once for all sins (and while I may be the minority on this, I'm not basing this on 1 John 1 ... confessing to be cleansed once I have been born twice. I am cleansed ... period).
What verses are being referred to in the video?
The first passage Greg references is John 20:23.
Perhaps the question we should ask here is: Who is greater, Jesus Christ or his disciples? The writers of the New Testament apart from the Gospels were NOT part of the initial followers of Jesus Christ as were the 12 Disciples (apart from John - Revelation). The message from Jesus Christ was to his own Apostles and not everyone else. As such, following Jesus Christ's proclamation that Peter was the rock on which HE would build his Church (the foundation of the Catholic or Universal Church), it should be easily understood that HIS own chosen had the power to forgive sins because HE gave them the right to do so. So how can people like Mr. Kouki and others deviate from the Truth which is in the GOSPELs? The sooner our preachers stick to the TRUTH of the Bible, the more sheep they will bring to the LORD, because that is their mission in life.
This man has said that the Apostles of Christ, of whom Christ himself appointed the powers of forgiveness and retainment of sins, *did not* understand what Christ told them??
This man also said that Christ *never* granted the power for any person to forgive sins??
Thus, this man denies scripture and interprets for himself how Christ commanded His chosen priests to go and forgive or retain sins… we call this heresy.
Unfortunately, you did not address the question
Yes he did, he said that the apostles couldn’t “forgive” sins directly from them, meaning that of course nothing was passed down to the church
It's very clear what he said.
He just completely ignored the question, his fan boys are here to defend him.
Only God can forgive sins. Priests are sinful men. They cannot forgive sins.
This is heresy. Therefore Priests are committing heresy. Any person who goes to a Priest to confess their sins, their sins are retained. They have NOT been forgiven.
To be forgiven, you must confess them to no-one else but God.
I don't think he ignored the question. He made reference to a number of passages that show that the means of salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, and that what this salvation entails is a once for all act where we stand forever just/righteous before God. We've been cleansed from all our sins. Now, he shows the contradiction which interpreting the verse as the Apostles being able to forgive ones sins unto salvation causes. If ones salvation (forgiveness of sins) is hinged on the Apostles still forgiving them after they've believed on Christ then the work of Christ is nullified
Show me in scripture
where any of the disciples has forgiven
Sinners the only one I know of is JESUS CHRIST AMEN ✅😇
Paul literally talks about the ministry of reconciliation. He forgives sinners upon their repentance in sexual sin.
@@christopherlampman5579where please?
If you can’t read the scripture and believe the plain meaning, but have to interpret away from the plain meaning… the classic ‘what this says isn’t what it means’ method of exegesis.
There is no reason or sense in God forgiving sins of the unsaved who will end up in hell. There is no mention of Christians confessing their sins to any church leader or elder for absolution in any of the Christian communities either in Acts or epistles. Paul never mentioned such a practice or recommended or commanded it.
What about the early church fathers ?
See Acts 19:18 and II Corinthians 2:10.
I think I'm gonna go the scripture.........not a guy 2000 years later.
For post-baptismal sins only maybe?
You did not addres the question because you don’t know how yo answer……. Typical evangelical answers
Very clear what he said.
He didn’t say anything, he just said the verse is hard so he going to focus on the easy versus and ignore this one.
Perhaps another perspective is this:
Jesus had told the disciples many times to forgive or their sins would not be forgiven. Making it clear that if you don't forgive those who have hurt you, then you don't fully understand the sins you've sinned against God.
The disciples have experienced the trauma of losing their friend, not to mention their messiah. Even after having found out that their master had risen, they still would be in a place of trauma and unrest. They would have been angry at themselves, each other, and everyone who helped kill their friend.
Jesus breathes on them to give life and healing to them and to give them a heart of forgiveness towards themselves, each other, and the roman soldiers. Then, he flips the script, knowing what he has placed into their hearts.
If you forgive them, they'll be forgiven. If you don't, they won't.