Why could Jesus forgive sins before his death?

Meena_Ameen

This has been confusing me for sometime, the entire idea of the sacrifice of christ was that there was NO forgiveness of sins before he died on the cross, yet in many examples in the gospels, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross we hear him say "your sins are FORGIVEN, go and sin no more".

minatasgeel

[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=10910.msg132135#msg132135 date=1299366105]
This has been confusing me for sometime, the entire idea of the sacrifice of christ was that there was NO forgiveness of sins before he died on the cross, yet in many examples in the gospels, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross we hear him say "your sins are FORGIVEN, go and sin no more".

i don't think you understand it right. Forgiveness of sins is a different. The death on hte Cross was to abolish death (and to fulfill Divine Justice...but lets stay away from that for now). abolish the death that was the end of every human, righteous or sinner, after the original sin. consider how the sacrifices were done in the old testament; the sacrifice was to fulfill the sentence of death among the sinner.

Meena_Ameen

Your right I probably dont get it, but we die in our sins, meaning, our sins lead to our death. Im getting a bit more confused now though lol. What do you mean original sin? We dont inherit sin. Adams sin was his own, what was passed on to us was the corrupt nature which made it impossible for humans NOT to sin, meaning we would all die in our sins.

Amoussa01

Since the sacrifice involves God Himself, the EFFECT transcends time itself. Think of it like a check that is good and acceptable but has not been cashed in yet.

Meena_Ameen

But than wouldnt that imply that the souls of the prophets before Jesus never went to hades but went straight to paradise? And we know that isnt true, because it wasnt untill Jesus died that he descended into hades to take with him all the souls of the righteous

peterfarrington

We do not inherit a corrupt nature, we inherit a mortal and corruptible nature.

abrahamf

[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=10910.msg132147#msg132147 date=1299394556]
Since the sacrifice involves God Himself, the EFFECT transcends time itself. Think of it like a check that is good and acceptable but has not been cashed in yet.


This is true. Consider the passover meal in which the institution of the Eucharist occurred. Jesus said, "Take, eat; this is My body...Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" Mark 26: 26-28 

Jesus didn't say, 'for this will be My blood' or 'which will be shed'. But how can this be if Jesus was not crucified yet? How can Jesus institute the eucharist if did not die and resurrect?
As Amoussa01 said, 'Since the sacrifice involves God Himself, the EFFECT transcends time itself'. The realm of time is completely different with God.

PPFM

Amoussa01

[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=10910.msg132150#msg132150 date=1299397823]
But than wouldnt that imply that the souls of the prophets before Jesus never went to hades but went straight to paradise? And we know that isnt true, because it wasnt untill Jesus died that he descended into hades to take with him all the souls of the righteous


No, it would not imply that. Think of it like a check that is given to you. The cashier accepts it despite the fact that it is not cashed out yet.

Hezekiel

I look at it this way: Only God can forgive sins.In the old testament,God has forgiven sins.Therefore, the fact that Jesus could forgive sins tells us that that He is truley God. So there is really nothing out of the ordinary there.However, as I undestand,the forgivenes of those sins is temporary only.When the righteous of the OT died, they went to hades. I believe hades to have two different divisons,one for the righteous where ,for example,the poor man Lazarus enjoyed at the bossom of Abraham and another one for the wicked.To go to the next stage (permanent salvation,renewal,eternal life,heaven),the scarifice of our Lord was, however, necessary. The perfect incorruptible nature that we lost in the garden could only be regained by offering a perfect nature as a sacrifice(to fulfil the devine justice)

joshuacaleb

.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=10910.msg132153#msg132153 date=1299402869]
We do not inherit a corrupt nature, we inherit a mortal and corruptible nature.


[quote author=Bishop Youssef link=http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=718&catid=427]

Are we born with Adam’s sin or the fallen nature? What is the difference between the two?

We are born with Adam’s sin, also known as the original sin, and with its consequences. God told Adam “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). The inescapable, inevitable law of death, which resulted from Adam’s  transgression, prevailed upon us.  Being born of a dead person we are automatically born dead.


(Emphasis is mine)

You seem to disagree with Bishop Youssef on this.

Amoussa01

I do not think there is a contradiction. His Grace was not implying that we have a corrupt nature but a corruptible one--that is what he means by the consequences of the fall of Adam. The use of the term original sin is loosely thrown out there and some people have their own definitions for it (other than the catholic one).

mark.naguib7

[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=10910.msg152803#msg152803 date=1331002041]
I do not think there is a contradiction. His Grace was not implying that we have a corrupt nature but a corruptible one--that is what he means by the consequences of the fall of Adam. The use of the term original sin is loosely thrown out there and some people have their own definitions for it (other than the catholic one).


I really do not know, but growing up I was taught by my "sunday school teachers". That we are born with Adam's sin and his corrupt nature and baptism is what cleanse us from this sin. Obviously this is not true, right? Can someone please explain and clarify what Father Peter is trying to say, what our liturgy says, and what Bishop Youssef is trying to say?

mabsoota

we are born with mortality and the tendency to sin.
but we are never considered to be guilty for the sin our father or grandfather or adam committed.
some people call the tendency to sin 'original sin', but this is not the best way to say it because people get confused. when the catholics (and most protestants) use the term 'original sin', they mean that (they think) we inherit actual sin from adam and we are guilty for something we did not do. this theory was started by saint augustine many hundreds of years ago, and it is something that none of the orthodox churches accepted.

so some of the things saint augustine said were good, but not all of them.
in the liturgy http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/2039
we say that we disobeyed, we were exiled etc. because we share in adam's sin when we commit our own sins. so this part of the liturgy is a part where we should be thinking of our sin and repenting before God.

we say http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/331
'not according to our sins' because we are each repenting from his / her own sins. we don't repent from adam's sin.

i think this is what amoussa01 is saying as well.

CopticSoldier

[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=10910.msg132135#msg132135 date=1299366105]
This has been confusing me for sometime, the entire idea of the sacrifice of christ was that there was NO forgiveness of sins before he died on the cross, yet in many examples in the gospels, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross we hear him say "your sins are FORGIVEN, go and sin no more".


This is one of the tough questions to answer, not because people don't understand but because we don't know where emphasis should be applied.

In this case the premise is not strictly true, sins could be forgiven before the cross, the issue was that this action was for naught because there was no washing, sanctification and reconciliation with God to go with it:

[quote=St Athanasius]Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=10910.msg152816#msg152816 date=1331033790]
we are born with mortality and the tendency to sin.
but we are never considered to be guilty for the sin our father or grandfather or adam committed.
some people call the tendency to sin 'original sin', but this is not the best way to say it because people get confused. when the catholics (and most protestants) use the term 'original sin', they mean that (they think) we inherit actual sin from adam and we are guilty for something we did not do. this theory was started by saint augustine many hundreds of years ago, and it is something that none of the orthodox churches accepted.

so some of the things saint augustine said were good, but not all of them.
in the liturgy http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/2039
we say that we disobeyed, we were exiled etc. because we share in adam's sin when we commit our own sins. so this part of the liturgy is a part where we should be thinking of our sin and repenting before God.

we say http://tasbeha.org/hymn_library/view/331
'not according to our sins' because we are each repenting from his / her own sins. we don't repent from adam's sin.

i think this is what amoussa01 is saying as well.


So you are saying that H.G is either wrong or used the wrong wording?

mabsoota

i am saying that if u look at a short extract from something he has said, it may look like he is advocating the catholic 'original sin' idea, but i expect this is not what he is trying to say.

i consider bishop youssef to be very blessed by God and very wise, so i would not say anything more than this.

mark.naguib7

[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=10910.msg152839#msg152839 date=1331072937]
i am saying that if u look at a short extract from something he has said, it may look like he is advocating the catholic 'original sin' idea, but i expect this is not what he is trying to say.

i consider bishop youssef to be very blessed by God and very wise, so i would not say anything more than this.


I apologize, if you were insulted by my attitude, but that was not intended whatsoever.

mabsoota

i was not insulted at all.
i love yr posts.
i just wanted to say i was not trying to contradict him
:)

childoforthodoxy

[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=10910.msg132136#msg132136 date=1299367111]
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=10910.msg132135#msg132135 date=1299366105]
This has been confusing me for sometime, the entire idea of the sacrifice of christ was that there was NO forgiveness of sins before he died on the cross, yet in many examples in the gospels, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross we hear him say "your sins are FORGIVEN, go and sin no more".

i don't think you understand it right. Forgiveness of sins is a different. The death on hte Cross was to abolish death (and to fulfill Divine Justice...but lets stay away from that for now). abolish the death that was the end of every human, righteous or sinner, after the original sin. consider how the sacrifices were done in the old testament; the sacrifice was to fulfill the sentence of death among the sinner.


I have seen the term "Divine Justice" appear several times on these forums and I wish to understand what your viewpoint on the issue is, minatasgeel. I think it may be beneficial for all of us, from an Orthodox viewpoint, to be able to discuss what the term means and how it applies to us. I will leave my remarks at that for now, but eagerly await your response, as well as anyone else who would like to contribute a word on their understanding of "Divine Justice."

childoforthodoxy

TITL

[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=10910.msg152860#msg152860 date=1331144933]
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=10910.msg132136#msg132136 date=1299367111]
[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=10910.msg132135#msg132135 date=1299366105]
This has been confusing me for sometime, the entire idea of the sacrifice of christ was that there was NO forgiveness of sins before he died on the cross, yet in many examples in the gospels, BEFORE Jesus died on the cross we hear him say "your sins are FORGIVEN, go and sin no more".

i don't think you understand it right. Forgiveness of sins is a different. The death on hte Cross was to abolish death (and to fulfill Divine Justice...but lets stay away from that for now). abolish the death that was the end of every human, righteous or sinner, after the original sin. consider how the sacrifices were done in the old testament; the sacrifice was to fulfill the sentence of death among the sinner.


I have seen the term "Divine Justice" appear several times on these forums and I wish to understand what your viewpoint on the issue is, minatasgeel. I think it may be beneficial for all of us, from an Orthodox viewpoint, to be able to discuss what the term means and how it applies to us. I will leave my remarks at that for now, but eagerly await your response, as well as anyone else who would like to contribute a word on their understanding of "Divine Justice."

childoforthodoxy


Hell to the sinners and Heaven to the Righteous? 

TITL

By God's standards, not ours.

Joshuaa

I think we forget Satan in all this. It was Adam and Eves will that started their sin. After the deception it was Satan's will that brought forth the imperfect state that we fight against. We are just the same making our own choise or will but having the connection with the will of Satan when we sin.

minatasgeel

[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=10910.msg152860#msg152860 date=1331144933]
I have seen the term "Divine Justice" appear several times on these forums and I wish to understand what your viewpoint on the issue is, minatasgeel. I think it may be beneficial for all of us, from an Orthodox viewpoint, to be able to discuss what the term means and how it applies to us. I will leave my remarks at that for now, but eagerly await your response, as well as anyone else who would like to contribute a word on their understanding of "Divine Justice."

it been a while since I have spoken about this. I actually don't know about the exact and official belief of the Church on Diving Justice. Ask Fr Peter.......sorry, I am just too busy in school to do any research right now.

In general, the idea of Divine Justice is that Jesus' Death was partially to fulfill the God's justice, being fully-merciful and fully-just. He was merciful by incarnating to save us and just to accept unto Himself our punishment. This way,  mercy was performed and justice was served.

childoforthodoxy

I will post on this topic soon, God willing, but the idea of serving justice as stated is one that was introduced into the Church by Western theology and is incongruent, to a degree, with the Orthodox Theology. Unfortunately, the effects of this introduction are pervasive and lead to several dogmatic and theological inadequacies, which I hope I will be able to find time to elucidate.

minatasgeel

This is what cause the arguemnt back then:
http://copticorthodox-divinejustice.com/

mark.naguib7

[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=10910.msg152856#msg152856 date=1331118208]
i was not insulted at all.
i love yr posts.
i just wanted to say i was not trying to contradict him
:)


:)

CopticSoldier

As you get older, you understand that sometimes the safest and best answer is 'I don't know'.

peterfarrington

Most problems are caused by only one or two of the analogies and concepts associated with salvation being taken in isolation. What is required is that all the analogies and concepts be given a proper consideration and balance.

mabsoota

that's right.
i eagerly await childoforthodoxy's full post before commenting further.
:)

childoforthodoxy

As time is quite limited at the moment, I will post an excerpt from the writing of a current Metropolitan in the Greek Orthodox Church, which was intended to discuss the Unconditionality of the Divine Incarnation, that is to say, that Christ would have become Incarnate regardless of the Fall of Adam.

St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite arrives at two conclusions.

The first:

It was indispensable that the mystery of the Incarnation should come to pass, the first, principal, and intrinsic reason
being that this mystery was the antecedent will of God, as we said, along with St. Gregory of Thessalonica, having
as its motive cause the infinite, essential, and supremely
good goodness of God; or rather, it was the very inmost depth of the Father’s goodness, as the God-bearing Maximos
said. The second reason is that it was necessary for all creatures, noetic and sensible, as their beginning, middle, and end, as demonstrated.

The second:

Our Lady, the Theotokos, as the most proximate and direct means and the necessary joint cause of such a mystery
(for the flesh of Christ is the flesh of Mary, according to the Divine Augustine), was foreknown and foreordained by God before the other creatures, while the other creatures were foreordained and came into existence for her sake; for, this is the foreordained purpose of God, to wit, the end for which the other creatures came into existence, as the Divine
Andrew stated above.

It might appear at first sight that what we have set forth here, basing ourselves on the teaching of the Holy Fathers, pertains to theoretical issues which do not have any connection with spiritual life. This, however, is erroneous, because dogma has a profound and close connection with the spiritual life of man. Such a truth is demonstrated
in this theological teaching.

From all that we have seen, it is evident that the Word of God became incarnate, not in order to propitiate Divine justice, as Western theologians say, but in order to deify human nature, out of charity and love for mankind. The propitiation of Divine justice adds a legalistic dimension to the spiritual life, since it shows that all of the asceticism that we practice is aimed [supposedly] at propitiating God.

However, God is not in need of healing; rather, it is we who need healing. That is why the Incarnation of Christ was the antecedent will of God, the ultimate purpose of the creation of man. Man could not attain to communion with God, were it not for the hypostatic union of Divine and human nature in Christ. For there is a great difference between the created and the Uncreated. The created could not be united with the Uncreated, were it not for this hypostatic union of the created and the Uncreated in the Person of Christ.

What was added to this purpose through the Fall of man were the Suffering, the Cross, and the death of Christ. And these, of course, are to be explained by the fact that Christ, through His Incarnation, assumed absolutely pure, but nonetheless mortal and passible, human nature.

What, I believe, is most often thought of in terms of Divine Justice (though not explicitly stated in this post, so I do not refer this to any one specific person), is that God the Father was eternally wounded and in need of sacrifice, to which God the Word took flesh in order to quell His "anger" and "thirst for blood." I, of course, am exaggerating the terms to prove my point, and so it is unlikely that one would find things stated as clearly as that when speaking about Divine Justice, but the entire concept of the Incarnation is often misunderstood to be a sacrifice directed towards God the Father to bring mankind back into good standing with Him as He was upset with mankind, and not in terms of the Patristically supported "God became man so that man might become god." It is quite necessary that we understand this properly as this has tremendous personal implications for each and every one of us as members of the Body of Christ.

I will leave it at that for now as I do not wish to open up too many side discussions and carry this topic further away from its intended purpose. If a longer exposition is needed, I have no reservation in writing one, provided that Fr. Peter keeps me in his continual fervent prayers and clears any of the deficiencies that I may provide.

Pray for my weakness,
childoforthodoxy