Foundational verses and their Protestant misunderstanding

[zeland]

There are many “foundational type” scriptural verses. Such verses give a general outline of our Lord’s plan of salvation, but which do not always give specific details about all that is required for our salvation. In other words, there are other verses that build upon these foundational ones, so as to give a complete view of what our lord requires for our salvation

Let me give an example of what I mean. If a man says that he owns a house, then we can assume that his house has a foundation. However if someone says he has a foundation, can we assume there is a house sitting on it? No. Perhaps the house is under construction, and only the foundation is completed, or perhaps, sadly, the house burnt down, and all that is left is the foundation.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Sometimes, people will take a foundational type scriptural verse and try to make a whole system of theology out of that one verse, while ignoring other scriptures that build upon the foundational one. Let’s look at a very common misused foundational scripture passage - 1 John 1:9 – “ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.

All this verse says is that if we confess our sins, God will forgive us and cleanse our soul – and nothing more. It says nothing as to how, when, to whom we should confess our sins. Many people presume they can go direct to God, and look no further in the scriptures. Show me the scripture passage that says "Confess your sins directly to God"

So what do we do? We look at other scriptures that will add clarity to the foundation. Below you will see an example of our completed scripture “house” for 1 John 1:9.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[MT1926]

Nicely done. I especially liked the addition of the OT verses representing the solid footer that the NT foundation is built on.

The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed .”

God Bless

 

[Hodos]

Reading above, there are a couple of issues. First, you are making a false argument about what Protestants believe about confession that isn’t reflected in their doctrine. Second, reading your statement about the “foundational” verses, I see that you ignore several things that actually show you don’t understand the 1 John 1:9.

So starting at the foundation with Leviticus, you must confess your sins to the priest who makes atonement for you. Protestants agree with this. The issue is not that we don’t believe in confession. The issue is that we believe that Christ is the high priest who is making the atonement for us. In that sense, we see no issue with relying on confessing our sins through prayer to Christ. That being said, the reformers believed in private confession to a priest; however, this is for a different reason than Roman Catholic doctrine allows (check the Augsburg Confession, Article XI, or Small Catechism Article V for example). The priest doesn’t need to make atonement for me. Its done. The priest proclaims forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ to create in me faith that Christ has fulfilled his promise. In other words, it is a proclamation of the gospel for my benefit, and for increasing faith, not for expiation of my sin, which Jesus already accomplished. I would agree that there is error in those who would assume that private confession no longer has benefit, but it isn’t the benefit that Roman Catholic doctrine avows.

Second, your use of James 5, Matthew 18, etc., was in the context of obtaining reconciliation between two believers who have wronged one another. In other words, confession in those instances was not to a Church authority for the purpose of atoning for that person’s sin. It was done for the purpose of reconciling two parties that have been wronged. I don’t believe that a Protestant would deny that one should confess his sins to someone who was wronged by his action and ask for their forgiveness.

Third, in this statement you are appealing to the uneducated who don’t fully understand their doctrine. In that sense, your argument doesn’t address Protestant doctrine, but departures from Protestant doctrine. The same could be said about cradle Catholics who have misconceptions about your own doctrine. I could make an argument to address a misconception of a cradle Catholic about your own doctrine, but that would not address your doctrine, would it?

I hope this clarifies.

 

[MT1926]

I hope this clarifies.

Just out of curiosity I was wondering what do you do with John 20? You didn’t say anything about that verse in your response.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[Hodos]

I apologize, the print is small and my intention was not to provide an exhaustive explanation, only to show a few of the key issues. This is a parallel passage to Matthew 18. When you read Matthew 18:15-20 it is clear that the ability to retain and forgive sins applies to the Church as a whole, not just to the priesthood. In the case cited, if a person sins against you, speak to him personally. If that doesn’t work, bring a few witnesses to appeal to him for repentance. If not, bring it to the Church as a whole. This is a corporate gift to the whole Church. In fact, I would argue, that if a person confesses to me, I could declare forgiveness of sin to them, which is precisely the context of James (who says to confess sins to one another, speaking to the brethren of the Church) and 1 John.

 

[MT1926]

This is a parallel passage to Matthew 18. When you read Matthew 18:15-20 it is clear that the ability to retain and forgive sins applies to the Church as a whole, not just to the priesthood.

How do you get to this conclusion. In both instances Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles not to the crowds. How do you get to the conclusion when Jesus says tell it to the Church He means you and I and not the Church hierarchy?

Also, how are you getting to the conclusion that these are parallel passages? John 20 shows us Jesus directly telling the Apostles who’s sins you forgive are forgiven who’s sin you retain are retained. I see forgiving and retaining sins being applied here. However Matthew 18 is talking about what to do about someone who sins and who fails to listen to them. I see nothing in here that directly speaks of forgiveness of sins. I’m sorry but could you explain how you come to the conclusion that these two passages are giving us the same teaching?

In fact, I would argue, that if a person confesses to me, I could declare forgiveness of sin to them

Sure if they sinned against you, but not if they sinned against someone else or against the Church.

Also, if the ability to retain or forgive sins is given to the Church as a whole how do you deal with this…

The issue is that we believe that Christ is the high priest who is making the atonement for us. In that sense, we see no issue with relying on confessing our sins through prayer to Christ. … The priest doesn’t need to make atonement for me. Its done.

What good is having the ability to retain your sin if you can bypass me and go directly to the high priest for atonement?

I’m not sure if I explained that well but the explanation that this gift was given to the Church as a whole makes no sense if you can bypass the Church in the first place.

God Bless

 

[Hodos]

How do you get to this conclusion. In both instances Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles not to the crowds.

Because of the context of the quote addressing the corporate role of the Church, not the disciples as future apostles (also note they had not yet been commissioned as apostles in Matthew 18). In 2 Corinthians Paul does the same thing, exhorting the Church in Ephesus to forgive, not giving a specific command to a priest or apostle to forgive. Again, this is a corporate gift to the Church, not restricted to the roles of the apostles. Additionally 1 John is addressing the Church, not an apostle or group of apostles. But just assuming you are correct, Jesus is only addressing the apostles and Matthew isn’t extending this teaching to the entire Church, does this mean only the disciples are urged to cut off their hands rather than be condemned to hell, or forgive 70 x 7 times? Same conversation. Your hermaneutic means it doesn’t apply to you. Mine says it does.

Sure if they sinned against you, but not if they sinned against someone else or against the Church.

Here you are conflating something. Of course, if I sin against someone I want to confess to them in order to be reconciled to them in our relationship. However, say a woman comes to me and confesses she had an abortion, and that she repents of this past act to a victim she can no longer make reconciliation to. Are you arguing that only a priest can proclaim God’s forgiveness to her? Demonstrate this scripturally. Again, James seems to say otherwise in James 5 making no distinction between the brethren and the priests.

What good is having the ability to retain your sin if you can bypass me and go directly to the high priest for atonement?

There is a difference in forgiving sin and retaining sin is there not? Forgiveness occurs because Christ died for their sin, and the person is repentant making Christ’s death and resurrection subjectively applicable to HIM. Retaining sin doesn’t need our declaration. It is already retained (as the Greek verb tenses in the passages that speak about retaining and forgiving sins shows). However, in order to bring the person to repentance (similar to 1 Corinthians 5) the Church declares to the unrepentant sinner that they are not forgiven. And if the sinner remains unrepentant Church discipline may be exercised in order to bring the person to repentance. Ultimately though, the atonement is not made by the priest, it is declared by the priest for the benefit (easing one’s conscience for the repentant, or convicting the conscience of the unrepentant) of the person who committed the sin. The atonement was and always will be made by Christ himself (the entire point of Hebrews).

 

[RealisticCatholic]

I like the illustration.

I also like the point that plenty of errors have occurred by taking out one verse and exalting it as your primary reference.

I’m not so sure that 1 John is necessarily talking about the sacrament of confession. The house is a very nice illustration of the sacrament of confession, but it seems this should be part of a much larger framework — maybe a neighborhood? Haha.

The issue isn’t which scripture verse do we take as the foundation, but which authority? Scripture alone will lend itself to this very problem. But alas, Christ established a Church to bear the fullness of his teaching along with the authority to delineate what that teaching is.

Such is the case with Scripture itself, which could only be determined in the context of the Church, in the first place.

 

[zeland]

There are only two cases in regards to James 5. You can confess your sins to a friend who cannot give you absolution, or you can confess your sins to a priest who can give you absolution.

zeland

 

[zeland]

Hodos
December 3 |

MT1926:How do you get to this conclusion. In both instances Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles not to the crowds.WHAT CONCLUSION ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Because of the context of the quote addressing the corporate role of the Church, not the disciples as future apostles (also note they had not yet been commissioned as apostles in Matthew 18). In 2 Corinthians Paul does the same thing, exhorting the Church in Ephesus to forgive, not giving a specific command to a priest or apostle to forgive. Again, this is a corporate gift to the Church, not restricted to the roles of the apostles. Additionally 1 John is addressing the Church, not an apostle or group of apostles. THE AVERAGE PROTESTANT THINKS THAT 1 JOHN 1:9 IS ADDRESSED TO HIM PERSONALLY.

MT1926:Sure if they sinned against you, but not if they sinned against someone else or against the Church.
Here you are conflating something. Of course, if I sin against someone I want to confess to them in order to be reconciled to them in our relationship. However, say a woman comes to me and confesses she had an abortion, and that she repents of this past act to a victim she can no longer make reconciliation to. Are you arguing that only a priest can proclaim God’s forgiveness to her? Demonstrate this scriptural. Again, James seems to say otherwise in James 5 making no distinction between the brethren and the priests. ONLY A PRIEST CAN FORGIVE MORTAL SINS. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS IF THE PERSON MAKES A PERFECT ACT OF CONTRITION. BUT EVEN IN THAT CASE SHE MUST STILL GO TO CONFESSION AND RECEIVE SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION BEFORE GOING TO COMMUNION - COUNCIL OF TRENT.

MT1926:What good is having the ability to retain your sin if you can bypass me and go directly to the high priest for atonement? NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. YOU SOUND LIKE A PROTESTANT OR POORLY EDUCATED CATHOLIC.

There is a difference in forgiving sin and retaining sin is there not? Forgiveness occurs because Christ died for their sin, and the person is repentant making Christ’s death and resurrection subjectively applicable to HIM. Retaining sin doesn’t need our declaration. It is already retained (as the Greek verb tenses in the passages that speak about retaining and forgiving sins shows). However, in order to bring the person to repentance (similar to 1 Corinthians 5) the Church declares to the unrepentant sinner that they are not forgiven. And if the sinner remains unrepentant Church discipline may be exercised in order to bring the person to repentance. Ultimately though, the atonement is not made by the priest, it is declared by the priest for the benefit (easing one’s conscience for the repentant, or convicting the conscience of the unrepentant) of the person who committed the sin. The atonement was and always will be made by Christ himself (the entire point of Hebrews). BY RETAINING A SIN, IS MEANT THAT IF A PERSON GOES TO CONFESSION, AND THE PRIEST FEELS THAT IS NOT TRULY REPENTANT, HE IS OBLIGED NOT TO GIVE THE PERSON ABSOLUTION.

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond. To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

 

[MT1926]

Because of the context of the quote addressing the corporate role of the Church, not the disciples as future apostles (also note they had not yet been commissioned as apostles in Matthew 18).

Sorry not following you. How can you use the terminology of corporate role of the Church in Matthew and apply this to John 20? I’m not seeing how you can claim that Matthew 18 and John 20 are parallel passages and dismiss Jesus words in John 20 based on what you interpret from Matthew 18? Also, what does the Apostles not yet being commissioned have to do with anything? By this same thought process your explaination makes no sense because there wasn’t a church yet.

In 2 Corinthians Paul does the same thing, exhorting the Church in Ephesus to forgive, not giving a specific command to a priest or apostle to forgive. Again, this is a corporate gift to the Church, not restricted to the roles of the apostles.

I’m not coming to the same conclusion here. It seems to me that the local church was miss using their “corporate gift” and the CHURCH (St. Paul) had to step in and set them straight. Sure seems to me that St. Paul was the CHURCH Jesus speaks of in Matthew 18 and he did have some restricted authority, given to him by Jesus, over this local Church in Corinth.

Additionally 1 John is addressing the Church,

I never mentioned 1 John I was asking about John 20, which you claim is a parallel to Matthew 18

Are you arguing that only a priest can proclaim God’s forgiveness to her? Demonstrate this scripturally.

No I’m arguing Jesus gave us the sacrament of confession so when the priest says the words “ I absolve you of your sins” we can have an assurance that our sins our forgiven. Now she can be forgiven with a perfect act of contrition, however without the gift given only to the Apostles she can only presume she is totally contrite and forgiven. Other than her own assumption she has no assurance.

John 20 says. 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.”

Jesus didn’t breath on you or me He breathed on the Apostles and they laid hands on their successors to pass on this gift. Other than your claim that this parallels Matthew 18 I see no evidence to back up this claim.

Ultimately though, the atonement is not made by the priest

Why did God use priests in the OT to make atonement then decide to no longer use them?

The atonement was and always will be made by Christ himself (the entire point of Hebrews).

So is it not possible that Christ can use the priest to make atonement?

 

[MT1926]

MT1926:What good is having the ability to retain your sin if you can bypass me and go directly to the high priest for atonement? NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. YOU SOUND LIKE A PROTESTANT OR POORLY EDUCATED CATHOLIC.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The point I was trying to make was in John 20 when Jesus says who’s sins you retain it is defined as Jesus saying…what you say here…

BY RETAINING A SIN, IS MEANT THAT IF A PERSON GOES TO CONFESSION, AND THE PRIEST FEELS THAT IS NOT TRULY REPENTANT, HE IS OBLIGED NOT TO GIVE THE PERSON ABSOLUTION.

So my point was why would Jesus give the power to retain a sin to the Apostles, if the sinner can say well if you ain’t gonna give me absolution then I’ll just go straight to Jesus. Basically for me if Jesus never intended for us to have to go to the priest in the first place then Jesus telling this to the Apostles makes no sense.

God Bless

 

[Hodos]

Please demonstrate from the scripture that you cannot receive absolution from a fellow Christian.

 

[Hodos]

Sorry not following you. How can you use the terminology of corporate role of the Church in Matthew and apply this to John 20?

Okay, follow me Tiger. John and Matthew had an audience to whom they were writing. Was that audience the apostles, or was it preaching to the Church? It was to the Church. They selected the material included in their gospels to benefit the Church. In Matthew 18, the context is that the disciples are with Jesus, with others with them. We know because the disciples asked Jesus who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and he demonstrated his answer by calling a small child to him as an example. So you claim that this was only spoken for the benefit of the disciples, but clearly the crowd was more than just the disciples. Jesus then begins to proclaim about accepting the kingdom of God as a child, not putting stumbling blocks before others, the serious nature of sin, that the shepherd will leave the 99 to seek the one lost sheep. Note that at this point, Jesus refers to “these little ones” again indicating the audience was more than just the disciples. Then he speaks of using the church as a means of convicting a sinful person to repent. As you can see, in the passage the context is between peers (“If you brother sins”), privately rebuke him. If he doesn’t listen, bring two or three witnesses (again, this is among peers). If he still doesn’t repent, THEN take it before the Church (a corporate action). At this point Jesus discusses loosing and binding. Then it speaks of if two of you agree on anything on earth it will be granted to them (again corporate). Taking your assumption, that this passage is only meant for the disciples, then to be consistent, all of the other portions of the discussion would not apply to the Church corporate, but merely the disciples. So, Jesus isn’t telling the Church that sin is serious (it is better to cut off your hand than to go into hell with two hands…), or not to put stumbling blocks before others, or that Jesus doesn’t go to rescue them as the one sheep, or that Jesus doesn’t answer the prayers of two or three gather in unity in prayer. According to you this is only directed to the disciples. The next passage also, dealing with a slave forgiving a fellow slave doesn’t apply either as it is a continuation of this discussion. So again, your hermeneutic is not consistent because your hermeneutic doesn’t rely on the scripture, but on other sources which contradict scripture.

Moving to John, the passage uses very similar language regarding the forgiving and retaining of sins as is seen in Matthew 18 which we already established is addressing the Church corporate. When you continue down to verse 30, who does John say the intended audience is of his gospel? It isn’t the disciples, but YOU (plural). It is written, according to John, for YOUR (plural) benefit.

 

[Hodos]

I’m not coming to the same conclusion here. It seems to me that the local church was miss using their “corporate gift” and the CHURCH (St. Paul) had to step in and set them straight. Sure seems to me that St. Paul was the CHURCH Jesus speaks of in Matthew 18 and he did have some restricted authority, given to him by Jesus, over this local Church in Corinth.

Exactly. It was the Church (corporate). It was the lay and clergy of the Church in Ephesus together. Paul makes no distinction whatsoever between the two. Your issue is that your definition of the Church seems to preclude the laity.

I never mentioned 1 John I was asking about John 20, which you claim is a parallel to Matthew 18

No, but I did because it is relevant. John, who is the author of the gospel of John and 1 John again extends the power to forgive to ALL believers.

No I’m arguing Jesus gave us the sacrament of confession so when the priest says the words “ I absolve you of your sins” we can have an assurance that our sins our forgiven.

Ah, show me the red letters where Jesus establishes the sacrament of confession and that he requires perfect contrition in order for his death and resurrection to be efficacious.

Jesus didn’t breath on you or me He breathed on the Apostles and they laid hands on their successors to pass on this gift. Other than your claim that this parallels Matthew 18 I see no evidence to back up this claim.

Surely, you believe in baptism do you not? What are we promised in Baptism (read Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 1:13). Clearly, you have a low opinion of baptism or are uneducated on the promises made to us in baptism.

Why did God use priests in the OT to make atonement then decide to no longer use them?

Because Christ is the high priest that offers the perfect sacrifice, once for all time. Read Hebrews.

So is it not possible that Christ can use the priest to make atonement?

According to Hebrews the priesthood has never made atonement. It is Christ who makes atonement. The priests job is to announce what Christ has done for your benefit.

“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but he having offered one sacrifice for the sins of all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”

Note that the sacrifices offered by priests in the past were the pre-figuring, the shadow of things to come. Jesus sacrifice was made once (singular) for all time (past, present, and future).

My friend, your sins are forgiven in Christ. I am glad to pronounce that to you today. That is the apostolic faith. God bless.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So you claim that this was only spoken for the benefit of the disciples, but clearly the crowd was more than just the disciples.

I don’t think there is evidence for that. But there is evidence that Jesus was talking to the disciples/apostles, not a crowd.

At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said,

The disciples, not a crowd.

He called a child over, placed it in their midst.

Why would Jesus need to place the child in their midst if the child was already with them?

See that you do not despise one of these little ones

Does Jesus need more children to point to as examples of what a child is, or is the one that He already placed in their midst sufficient?

Then Peter approaching asked him,

A further development of the “disciples approached” syntax. Confirming that this was a session with disciples, not a crowd.

Everything in that chapter concerns the the Apostles, but everything in that chapter is not exclusive to the Apostles. Most of it would still be relevant to any Christian.

 

[MT1926]

So again, your hermeneutic is not consistent because your hermeneutic doesn’t rely on the scripture, but on other sources which contradict scripture.

Well all I can say is don’t we all interpret scripture based on our traditions?

For instance you say…

John and Matthew had an audience to whom they were writing. Was that audience the apostles, or was it preaching to the Church? It was to the Church.

Where do you get this from? I would say your tradition because from my understanding they were specifically writing to a Jewish audience, not you and I. I would even argue when the Apostles heard Matthew 18 being preached from the mouth of Jesus us Gentiles were the furthest thing from their mind at the time of this teaching.

You also seem to be implying that is not possible for Jesus to be teaching something just for the Apostles and teaching something for the Apostles and everyone else during the same encounter. No offense but it seems to me your not relying on common sense here. Does the owner of a business sit down with his managers and only teach them what they need to know, then make a totally separate meeting with everyone to go over what they need to know? Or does he teach the managers everything and let them hand on what is necessary?

In Matthew 18, the context is that the disciples are with Jesus, with others with them.

Where does it say others are there? Matthew 18 verse one says… At that time the disciples came to Jesus. No one else is there except the disciples. In verse 2 Jesus puts a child “In the midst of them”. To me it sounds like Jesus is standing in a circle with His disciples when He teaches Matthew 18. The only other person in the circle is the child are you saying the child represents everyone else in the church? Please point out where this crowd is at in Matthew 18? Where is your source for this crowd that doesn’t contradict scripture?

continued…

 

[MT1926]

Moving to John, the passage uses very similar language regarding the forgiving and retaining of sins as is seen in Matthew 18 which we already established is addressing the Church corporate.

Sorry still not seeing how you are making this parallel.

What I am seeing you doing is you are taking Matthew 18 saying it is to the Church because of some crowd that isn’t there then automatically applying it to John 20, which is Jesus speaking to the disciples in a locked room. Where is the parallel here? There isn’t a crowd. The only ones mentioned here are the disciples.

When you continue down to verse 30, who does John say the intended audience is of his gospel? It isn’t the disciples, but YOU (plural). It is written, according to John, for YOUR (plural) benefit.

You can’t be serious here? So what you are saying here is there is no possible way that Jesus could be giving a teaching ONLY for the disciples and those whom they intend to hand on this authority to their successors to forgive sins in John 20:23. And in John 30 John could simply be telling us exactly what he wrote that He wrote about what Jesus did in John 20:23 for OUR benefit.

Hodos you are reading that into the text. You can’t just take a verse of scripture and say see John says YOU in verse 30 and is writing to me therefore by applying this hermeneutic the only possible explanation is Jesus must have been talking to me in verse 23 as well even though it says only the disciples where there.

Sorry but you are all over the place on this.

 

[MT1926]

Your issue is that your definition of the Church seems to preclude the laity.

And your issue seems to be that you define Christs Church as a democracy. I see no where in the Bible that Jesus or His disciples put anything up for vote. “Majority Rules” Which is exactly what you are implying when you claim the lay and clergy together make the decision.

Ah, show me the red letters where Jesus establishes the sacrament of confession

Already did, it’s in John 20 just because you personally believe Jesus was talking to you here as well doesn’t prove me wrong.

Better yet if you are claiming this can only be true if I can show you from the Bible, then you need to first show me the red letters where Jesus establishes that we need to take our doctrine from the red letters in the Bible.

Surely, you believe in baptism do you not? What are we promised in Baptism (read Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 1:13). Clearly, you have a low opinion of baptism or are uneducated on the promises made to us in baptism.

What does our Baptism have to do with Jesus breathing on the Apostles?

God only breathed on mankind two times in the Bible. The first the beginning of creation when He breathed on Adam the second time was in John 20 when He breathed on the Apostles.

Surely you believe something important must be happening when the Bible tells us God Breathed.

Clearly you have a low opinion that God’s breath signifies something import and that His very breath creates something new.

Jesus sacrifice was made once (singular) for all time (past, present, and future).

My friend, your sins are forgiven in Christ. I am glad to pronounce that to you today. That is the apostolic faith. God bless.

Hebrews teaches the atoning death of Christ was effective for the remission of sins and hence needed to be offer only once. But this speaks of what theologians call the “objective redemption.” It doesn’t mean that, since Jesus died for everyone, everyone will get to heaven. (That’s universalism.) The merits or the fruits of Christ’s death need to be applied to the individual.

This isn’t a one time application. You can’t pronounce my past, present and future sins forgiven you were given no authority to do so by Christ. You can twist the scriptures any way you want but in the end you have no authority from Christ.

God Bless

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Ah, show me the red letters where Jesus establishes the sacrament of confession and that he requires perfect contrition in order for his death and resurrection to be efficacious.

This is the real issue.

Why does Jesus have to directly state something in the 27-book New Testament for it to be a part of the Christian Faith?

Where does Jesus “in red letters” state the 27-book New Testament as the norm for the Christian Faith?

Of course, Confession is biblical, and Jesus did establish it. That Jesus does so even in the New Testament is not only professed by Catholics but all other ancient Christian traditions, like the various Orthodox and other Eastern groups. It’s the ancient Christian Faith vs. novel Western interpretations on this issue, my friend.