Confession of Sins Not Necessary

[guanophore]

You added "*repent and ask for forgiveness*."  But God justifies no one through the asking of forgiveness of sins. He justifies solely on the basis of personal* faith* in Christ (as stated in the Romans ten passage you quoted above - see vs. 6 as well).

We must be careful not to add our own conditions to salvation. Certainly a true believer is made sorrowfully aware of the sins he’d committed in his unsaved estate, and of course now in his saved estate, but salvation is never gained or maintained through confession of sins.

Now I can already see fingers hitting the keyboards and typing: 1 Jn. 1:9. But John is writing in the context of Gnosticism that had infiltrated the assemblies of some believers. A heretical belief that did not at all acknowledge even the Judeo/Christian idea of “sin.”

The word often translated “confess” in 1 Jn. 1:9 (Gr. homologean) means to “acknowledge.” John is essentially saying that if one “acknowledges” his sins, or his sinful estate (thereby believing), He (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness." His forgiving and cleansing based entirely on the efficaciousness of the sacrificial work of His Son on the cross.AMEN! "For with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness (Rom. 10:10), and with the mouth he confesses Jesus as lord (Rom. 10:9): “resulting in salvation.”

I am curious Apophasis. What do you think is the meaning of :

“Therefore confess your sins to one another…” James 5:16

Why does the apostle command them to confess their sins one to another? What do you think is to be gained by it, since it is not related to salvation?

 

[Michael_Howard]

I am curious Apophasis. What do you think is the meaning of :

“Therefore confess your sins to one another…” James 5:16

Why does the apostle command them to confess their sins one to another? What do you think is to be gained by it, since it is not related to salvation?

In the early church first and second centuries sins were confessed in a group with a bishop present, it was not simply a group of belivers, the anointed bishop was present.

 

[Sabda]

I am curious Apophasis. What do you think is the meaning of :

“Therefore confess your sins to one another…” James 5:16

Why does the apostle command them to confess their sins one to another? What do you think is to be gained by it, since it is not related to salvation?

Not to mention these two verses:

Matthew 9
[2] And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
[3] And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
[4] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[5] For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

John 20
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I am curious Apophasis. What do you think is the meaning of :

“Therefore confess your sins to one another…” James 5:16

Why does the apostle command them to confess their sins one to another? What do you think is to be gained by it, since it is not related to salvation?

During the plague there weren’t enough priests to attend the dying, so one of the English bishops told people to confess their sins to one another, even to a woman.
The Church has the authority to forgive sins and a priest isn’t strictly necessary - he is merely the person delegated by the bishop because of the practicalities. He cannot give absolution in the absence of authority from the bishop, unlike consecration, and the bishop could in theory delegate a non-priest as a confessor, though the custom is that he almost never does so.

 

[Atemi]

I am curious Apophasis. What do you think is the meaning of :

“Therefore confess your sins to one another…” James 5:16

Why does the apostle command them to confess their sins one to another? What do you think is to be gained by it, since it is not related to salvation?

Acknowledgment and confession of our shortcomings is a healthy spiritual practice as it brings to light the truth of who we are. Even Catholics recognize this benefit of the confessional.

As the recipient of these truths and confessions, we ourselves can serve to encourage and exhort others in the Body.

James is surely not saying that by confessing our sins to one another, we will then receive absolution from them and God forgives us.

Not at all.

…

 

[guanophore]

In the early church first and second centuries sins were confessed in a group with a bishop present, it was not simply a group of belivers, the anointed bishop was present.

It could be said that this is not in the Bible.

Not to mention these two verses:

Matthew 9
[2] And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
[3] And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
[4] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[5] For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

It could be said that the authority here is to heal. Also, there is nothing in this passage that says that the paralytic expressed any confession.

John 20
22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit.
23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

This does not say anything about confession being required for salvation, either.

During the plague there weren’t enough priests to attend the dying, so one of the English bishops told people to confess their sins to one another, even to a woman.
The Church has the authority to forgive sins and a priest isn’t strictly necessary - he is merely the person delegated by the bishop because of the practicalities. He cannot give absolution in the absence of authority from the bishop, unlike consecration, and the bishop could in theory delegate a non-priest as a confessor, though the custom is that he almost never does so.

The question was not about whether people can forgive each other of sins. The question was about whether confession of sin had anything to do with salvation. But thanks for this interesting info.

Acknowledgment and confession of our shortcomings is a healthy spiritual practice as it brings to light the truth of who we are. Even Catholics recognize this benefit of the confessional.

As the recipient of these truths and confessions, we ourselves can serve to encourage and exhort others in the Body.

James is surely not saying that by confessing our sins to one another, we will then receive absolution from them and God forgives us. Not at all. …

Ok, then what IS he saying ? It seems that he is implying that sickness and suffering is related to sin, and that coming to the elders of the church, confessing sin, and getting prayer will restore them. He gives the example of Elijah praying for the land, to restore it to it’s fruitful state.

13 Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. 17 Eli’jah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit." James 5:13-18

How does that passage fit together with this one?

John 20:23
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

How can the apostles forgive or retain sins if people are not confessing them?

 

[mark_a]

All this confession discussion begs the question-

Is there anything wrong with confessing to a priest?

Many pose this question as if confession to a priest is in and of itself, wrong.

 

[Gamera]

All this confession discussion begs the question-

Is there anything wrong with confessing to a priest?

Many pose this question as if confession to a priest is in and of itself, wrong.

I prefer to think of it as confessing my sins TO God THROUGH a priest.

 

[guanophore]

All this confession discussion begs the question-

Is there anything wrong with confessing to a priest?

Many pose this question as if confession to a priest is in and of itself, wrong.

No, Apophasis thinks that is fine, he just denies that it has any relevance to salvation. According to the Apophatic plan of salvation, on believes with the heart, confesses with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and is thus saved. No need for baptism, no need for confession. These, like the other “ritual” sacraments re not necessary, and are man made.

 

[Sabda]

It could be said that the authority here is to heal. Also, there is nothing in this passage that says that the paralytic expressed any confession.

Did you really read the passage? Why did the scribes get so upset with Jesus? Why did the people glorify God? Look at the passage again.

Matthew 9
[2] And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; **your sins are forgiven.” **
[3] And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
[4] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[5] For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

It’s pretty clear that the scribes were upset because Jesus said the man’s sins were forgiven. The passage also clearly states that God has given this aurthority to men. That’s plural, it’s not man but men. We find in the later passages of John that Jesus then really did give this aurthority to men, the apostles in John 20.

 

[Sabda]

All this confession discussion begs the question-

Is there anything wrong with confessing to a priest?

Many pose this question as if confession to a priest is in and of itself, wrong.

I would say for some it comes down to a case of pride. It’s a lot easier to simply not say anything to anyone than it is to actually come out and admit it to someone. After all look what happened in the garden. What did Adam and Eve do when they sinned? Do they go and tell God? No, they ran! If we are to be truly honest with ourselves we will admit that is the first reaction we have, run away from the problem. It takes real courage to admit to someone else that you have a problem. Also we don’t always see the problem. At times it can take someone else to see it and point it out to us. That’s why drug addicts and others have such difficulties with their problems.

None of us are sinless but the by the same token we are told to be holy, perfect. You can be neither unless you really try to break those bad sinful habits. At times it will take the help of someone else in order for you to do that. A lot of people simply don’t want to ask for that help.

 

[guanophore]

Did you really read the passage? Why did the scribes get so upset with Jesus? Why did the people glorify God? Look at the passage again.

Matthew 9
[2] And behold, they brought to him a paralytic, lying on his bed; and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; **your sins are forgiven.” **
[3] And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
[4] But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
[5] For which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, Rise and walk’?
[6] But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” – he then said to the paralytic – “Rise, take up your bed and go home.”
[7] And he rose and went home.
[8] When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

It’s pretty clear that the scribes were upset because Jesus said the man’s sins were forgiven. The passage also clearly states that God has given this aurthority to men. That’s plural, it’s not man but men. We find in the later passages of John that Jesus then really did give this aurthority to men, the apostles in John 20.

Yes, I read the passage. I don’t see anything in here that indicates that the individual being healed made a confession. The issue that was stated is that “confession has nothing to do with salvation”. I am not disputing that Jesus forgave the man his sins. It could be argued that the authority to heal was what was givnn to men, or that the crowd thought Jesus was a man.

 

[mark_a]

It could be argued that the authority to heal was what was givnn to men

Confession is healing.

Plus, any priest will tell you that it is required to reconcile with whoever you sin against. If one confesses straight to God and presumes he is forgiven, reconciling with whoever else you sinned against is a very tempting step to skip.

 

[Bishopite]

Acknowledgment and confession of our shortcomings is a healthy spiritual practice as it brings to light the truth of who we are. Even Catholics recognize this benefit of the confessional.

As the recipient of these truths and confessions, we ourselves can serve to encourage and exhort others in the Body.

James is surely not saying that by confessing our sins to one another, we will then receive absolution from them and God forgives us.

Not at all.

…

I disagree.

James 5:14-16 “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”

In James 5 we see the summoning of the presbyteros which is a synonym of the word priest who anoints the sick person (anointing of the sick/a Catholic sacrament). If the person has committed sins he will be forgiven for the next verse says confess your trespasses (sins) to one another.

And coupled with John 20:21-23
"So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Retaining sins is giving absolution John 20:21-23 by which Jesus gave to the Apostles and their successors when He breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit; their ability to forgive or retain sins isn’t through their power but the power of the Holy Spirit working through them part of the ordained priesthood. Confession and absolution of those sins is shown in James 5:14-16.

 

[guanophore]

nope, no commandment to confess sins in order to become free of their guilt and condemnation. In fact Paul states that there is therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1).

I found this quote over on the “works salvation” thread, where 'Apophasis is purporting that confession is another contrivance of man, and is a “work” by which Catholics beleive they can merit salvation.

I disagree.

James 5:14-16 “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.”

In James 5 we see the summoning of the presbyteros which is a synonym of the word priest who anoints the sick person (anointing of the sick/a Catholic sacrament). If the person has committed sins he will be forgiven for the next verse says confess your trespasses (sins) to one another.

And coupled with John 20:21-23
"So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Retaining sins is giving absolution John 20:21-23 by which Jesus gave to the Apostles and their successors when He breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit; their ability to forgive or retain sins isn’t through their power but the power of the Holy Spirit working through them part of the ordained priesthood. Confession and absolution of those sins is shown in James 5:14-16.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Yes, I read the passage. I don’t see anything in here that indicates that the individual being healed made a confession. The issue that was stated is that “confession has nothing to do with salvation”. I am not disputing that Jesus forgave the man his sins. It could be argued that the authority to heal was what was givnn to men, or that the crowd thought Jesus was a man.

What is salvation?

Salvation is a process, a lifelong process. It doesn’t happen because we say a prayer. It may start when we say a prayer. We are justified at baptism, washed clean and reborn as little children before God.

Along the way, as per our human nature we may sin and this sin will cut us off from the Graces of God. Confessing our sins to one authorized to hear confessions is part of the healing process to reconnect us spiritually with God. We search our conscious and try to find the errors we have committed which afront God, and attempt to correct those. It’s not like monopoly where you collect $200 automatically, you must truly be repentant and wish to try and fix your ways with His help. Grace is bestowed on the sinner because he admitted his errors to God and his fellow man. When we confess we try to do the opposite of what Adam did, the opposite of our human nature which is to hide our sins before our fellow man and Maker.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

I think what is needed to be shown is that we need confession more than that we have confession.
I find it odd that this gentleman doesn’t find that sense God has always been repulsed by sin (look throughout the bible) and that “Nothing unclean will enter Heaven” (Revelation, and I am sure ya’ll could find countless other refrences on that point) would imply some form of absolution from our sins, which seems to be held by in the bible (the interpretation of how I will leave to better apologists and men than I).

 

[joshua_b]

I found this quote over on the “works salvation” thread, where 'Apophasis is purporting that confession is another contrivance of man, and is a “work” by which Catholics beleive they can merit salvation.

This sort of reasoning always gets me. The “Jesus, me and my bible” version of Christianity seem to look at any sort of ritual as unneccessary and “man-made”, which completely ignores some very important lessons to be found in the Old Testament.

Like it or not, God has shown Himself to be very legalistic at times. I could not fathom turning a woman into a pillar of salt for merely turning her head the wrong way, and the Passover just baffles me to no end.

It’s a good thing some of these Sola-Fide folks weren’t among the population of the ancient Israelites, because they probably would have decided “that whole business about sacrificing a lamb and having to eat it dressed that way and take the blood and smear it on the door…those are just inventions…traditions of men is what they are…God knows we are Israelites without us having to go through all of that ritual, so we don’t have to do any of that…”

Why is it that whenever someone in the Old Testament disregards the formalities of ritual, or a directive that seems logically irrelevant to the situation (think Lot’s wife here) something BAD always happens to that person ? More importantly, why do some people thousands of years later think that they will be any better off when they take the liberty of deciding which of God’s directives are mandatory, and which ones have no bearing.

Personally, I like to err on the side of caution. The bible clearly tells me to confess my sins, and the bible clearly tells me that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles. Even if we were to go on Scripture alone, who in the world would the people in first century Rome confessed to, if not the Apostles (leaders of the Church), who were the only ones who are specifically given the power to forgive sin in the New Testament.

 

[guanophore]

I think what is needed to be shown is that we need confession more than that we have confession.
I find it odd that this gentleman doesn’t find that sense God has always been repulsed by sin (look throughout the bible) and that “Nothing unclean will enter Heaven” (Revelation, and I am sure ya’ll could find countless other refrences on that point) would imply some form of absolution from our sins, which seems to be held by in the bible (the interpretation of how I will leave to better apologists and men than I).

Apophasis would agree with you that God hates sin, it is just that he is OSAS. He believes that we are totally, fully, and finally forgiven when we are “saved by repentance and calling upon the name of the Lord”. Believe, forgiven, saved, I think is how it goes. No confession involved.

 

[Atemi]

This sort of reasoning always gets me. The “Jesus, me and my bible” version of Christianity seem to look at any sort of ritual as unneccessary and “man-made”

This is purely hyperbole as not all ritual is rejected as man-made. And even those recognized as man-made, many are wonderful practices.

Only rituals developed by men over time we must recognize as not instituted by God for all men to observe and practice.

which completely ignores some very important lessons to be found in the Old Testament.

A new Covenant has been cut with us. We are not to observe the Covenant cut with Israel.

Like it or not, God has shown Himself to be very legalistic at times. I could not fathom turning a woman into a pillar of salt for merely turning her head the wrong way, and the Passover just baffles me to no end.

It’s a good thing some of these Sola-Fide folks weren’t among the population of the ancient Israelites, because they probably would have decided “that whole business about sacrificing a lamb and having to eat it dressed that way and take the blood and smear it on the door…those are just inventions…traditions of men is what they are…God knows we are Israelites without us having to go through all of that ritual, so we don’t have to do any of that…”

This is also more hyperbole that has no place in reality.

If one is of faith, then one is, by definition, of obedience.

We all recognize those commands as given by God to observe.

Why is it that whenever someone in the Old Testament disregards the formalities of ritual, or a directive that seems logically irrelevant to the situation (think Lot’s wife here) something BAD always happens to that person ?

Like when the Apostles did not observe the Sacred Tradition of the Jews by not ritualistically washing?

What bad happened to them for this?

Mixing GOD’s directives with MEN’s directives is never a good practice.

More importantly, why do some people thousands of years later think that they will be any better off when they take the liberty of deciding which of God’s directives are mandatory, and which ones have no bearing.

Because we all can see God’s directives.

Everything that came centuries later by the words of men are not God’s directives.

Personally, I like to err on the side of caution. The bible clearly tells me to confess my sins, and the bible clearly tells me that Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles.

Even if we were to go on Scripture alone, who in the world would the people in first century Rome confessed to, if not the Apostles (leaders of the Church), who were the only ones who are specifically given the power to forgive sin in the New Testament.

The Scriptures say to confess our sins to one another.

That means those you are confessing your sins to also confess their sins to you in the same manner.

One another.

…