Need help defending the sacrament of confession

[Gabster]

So I was trying to explain the Catholic tradition of Confession to a loved one with John 20:22-23
It sorta backfired on me when they sent my argument to their reverend which replied to my email.

Basically the argument as I understand it (read below for the actual reply) is that:

1. The verse is just Jesus preparing the Apostles for the day of Pentecost. (they actually didn’t receive the Holy Spirit in this verse).
2. Wherever in the New Testament where it seems the Apostles were forgiving people’s sins, they were actually just proclaiming that their sins have been forgiven by God Also wherever it seems they were retaining people’s sins, they were actually just proclaiming that their sins were not forgiven because they rejected the message (not because they had the ability to retain sins).

“John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Context is king when understanding this section.”

Proceeds to quote John 20:19-22

The context of John 20:23 is that Jesus was speaking to the disciples (v. 19) and is preparing them to receive the gift of holy spirit. He breathed on them to instruct them on how to receive the holy spirit when the time came (v. 22). We know this is preparatory and they did not receive here because nothing was manifested or shown that anything happened.

Note: This is a pentecostalist group (sorta) so they focus a lot on the day of Pentecost and receiving the Holy Spirit, He is kind of arguing that the Apostles didn’t receive the Holy Spirit “twice” I guess, and Jesus was just preparing them for Pentecost

Verse 23 is also preparatory.
He is preparing them for the work they will be doing, that being, going to all the world and proclaiming the good news of what God made available through the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. One of those great accomplishments is the forgiveness of sins.

In John 20:23 the words “they are remitted” is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect tense. The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., “I have been eating.”

The disciples were not doing the forgiving but pronouncing the sins that “have been” forgiven by God. This is the pattern in Acts. You don’t find the apostles forgiving sins but proclaiming the good news that they have been forgiven.

So, John 20:23 is not saying that Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins. It is saying that Christian disciples have the authority to pronounce that sins “have been forgiven” when someone believes that God raised up Jesus Christ from the dead ( ie. the new birth).

Regarding the phrase “and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” This would sound like the apostles had the freedom to keep men in their sins if they didn’t feel like it. That is not the case. While they preached the gospel and people rejected the message of deliverance and forgiveness the conclusion was that people’s sins were not forgiven. There are records where the apostles told people that they were still in their sins (Acts 8:21-22).

Can anyone help me reply?

 

[Todd_Easton]

Catholic Answers apologist Tim Staples’ article, Is Confession in Scripture? seems to address this topic.

 

[JimG]

Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you retain, they are retained; sounds pretty straightforward and obvious to me.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

Well, I’m not certain your age, but just some things to point out as to my life experiences and how I was raised.

From my understanding, we Catholics differ from other Protestant Denominations, especially those based on Calvinism, in that we believe in the process of salvation ie Salvation is a process. This process for us starts at Baptism and continues with us through the Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist. So, it’s a life long pursuit of perfection. Again, we are aware that we are sinners and can never reach perfection but nonetheless we are asked to strive for it.

It is important to understand what other denominations tend to believe. Many other denominations believe that by accepting Christ, through Conversion and Baptism, the Holy Spirit automatically changes a person and puts them in a State of Grace. Again, for us Catholics, the Holy Spirit is something to work with and aspire for but for other denominations the Holy Spirit is the reward for being Christian. Does that make sense?

So, for use, as fallen sinners, there is need for Reconciliation with the Father to receive the Eucharist and all the benefits of the Eucharist at Mass. As we fall short of our duties as Catholics, we consistently need to return to the Father and be vigilant, as is emphasized in many of the Parables by Jesus Christ.

So, again, if you have friends of other denominations it is important to realize they see things differently and, in my opinion, there is room in Heaven for all of us Christians. The best way to justify Faith, is not through argumentations, but by living it through experience. The Sacrament of Confession does not bother me because I have experienced the saving grace of repentance, remorse, and forgiveness. I wouldn’t get in an argument with someone about it because coming from another denomination they have a different wheel house of experience.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

1. The verse is just Jesus preparing the Apostles for the day of Pentecost. (they actually didn’t receive the Holy Spirit in this verse).

FALSE. IIRC, the same Greek word for “breathed”
in John is the same Greek word in Genesis when God “breathed” into the face of Adam. Was that figurative too? Obviously not.

@ReaderT, am I correct re the Greek?

 

[Gorgias]

IIRC, the same Greek word for “breathed”
in John is the same Greek word in Genesis when God “breathed” into the face of Adam. Was that figurative too? Obviously not.

Be careful, though. The creation epics of Genesis 1 & 2 are seen as figurative epic.

However, you make a good point: if the Scriptural narrative of Genesis 2 includes a reference to “breathing”, then you can make the case that the narrative of John 20 alludes to it. However, even that approach is problematic for a couple reasons in this case, no? First, the Protestant pastor is likely to shrug and say “Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek”, and not accept the Septuagint version. Moreover the Hebrew word in Genesis 2 means both “blow” and “breathe”, and therefore, he might suggest that “blow” is the correct interpretation here.

Secondly, you’d have to explain why the breath of God did something applicable to all humans in Genesis (i.e., created human life) and only applicable to the apostles in John 20 (created an ‘ordination’ into an order of sacramental ministers).

I think you’d want to avoid approaching the discussion on those terms, then.

(BTW: yes, in both the Septuagint of Genesis 2 and in John 20:22, the word ἐνεφύσησεν is used.)

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus was speaking to the disciples (v. 19) and is preparing them to receive the gift of holy spirit. He breathed on them to instruct them on how to receive the holy spirit when the time came (v. 22). We know this is preparatory and they did not receive here because nothing was manifested or shown that anything happened.

This fails on the face of the words themselves. Jesus didn’t say “prepare to receive the Holy Spirit”, but explicitly “receive the Holy Spirit”.

The ‘manifestation’ is the reception of the ability to forgive sins in Jesus’ name.

If he wants a further proof of ‘manifestation’, he can simply continue reading John 20. The apostles – God-breathed with the Holy Spirit – were confirmed in faith, but Thomas – who was not present – continued to disbelieve.

So, I’m going to go with “eisegesis” on this “preparation” argument.

Note: This is a pentecostalist group (sorta)

More to the point: Pentecostal theology asserts that the evidence of the receipt of the Holy Spirit is the exhibition of charisms (speaking in tongues, etc, etc). Yet, in Scripture, not all Christians who are baptized and receive the Spirit actually do so, now don’t they? Therefore, the argument fails.

One of those great accomplishments is the forgiveness of sins.

Well, at least he admits that the apostles thereby received the power to forgive sins!

Gabster:

the words “they are remitted” is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect tense. The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., “I have been eating.”

Your friend’s pastor is doing a rather poor job of explaining the Greek of this passage. One hopes he merely misremembers his seminary training in Greek, and is not trying deliberately to mislead.

You might point him back to his copy of Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”. There, in the section “Proleptic (Futuristic) Perfect”, in the chapter entitled “The Perfect and Pluperfect Tenses” (in my copy, it’s on page 581), Wallace identifies that John 20:23 is an example of the proleptic perfect.

Wallace explains that, although rare, this use of perfect is “used to refer to a state resulting from an antecedent action that is future from the time of speaking.” In other words, the subjunctive verb aphēte (“you might forgive”) is an event in the future, and the perfect verb apheōntai (“are forgiven [them]”) not only happens afterward, but actually depends on the forgiveness that is offered by the apostles! (He mentions the root word ‘aphiami’ – it’s the root of both of these; when you refer to a Greek verb, you use this form, and then you use the various tenses, etc, etc, in the same way in English we might say “to forgive” and then “ya’ll forgive” and “they are forgiven”.)

So, the pastor’s explanation of the Greek is not only incorrect, but misleading. Jesus is conditioning His divine forgiveness on the human act of the apostles, and the Greek grammar actually identifies this dynamic explicitly!

 

[ReaderT]

@ReaderT, am I correct re the Greek?

Yes. I concur with Gorgias:

(BTW: yes, in both the Septuagint of Genesis 2 and in John 20:22, the word ἐνεφύσησεν is used.)

 

[bob4]

Can anyone help me reply?

So, @Gabster, did these replies help?

 

[Gabster]

@Gorgias @Todd_Easton @ReaderT @Margaret_Ann @RepetantCatholic

Yes all that helped very much!
Thank you guys I don’t use this forum that often but when I do I always gets scared no one is going to reply and instead I get showered by love every time.

I also spoke to a non Catholic friend I have who is a greek scholar and we both agreed that you can’t just take out the “you” from the sentence… “whose sins YOU forgive, YOU retain”…

There’s also Church Fathers writings on it but you can’t quote that to pro sola scriptura arguments

I wish I knew how to address the claim that the pattern in acts is seeing the apostles “proclaiming” that the sins have been forgiven instead of actually forgiving sins themselves. Is there any account/verse where it’s more clear that the apostles are doing the act of forgiving In Persona Christi?

Not that it has to be or else the whole support for the Sacrament falls apart but still would be nice?

 

[po18guy]

2 Corinthians 2:10
And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

I wish I knew how to address the claim that the pattern in acts is seeing the apostles “proclaiming” that the sins have been forgiven instead of actually forgiving sins themselves.

We also don’t see them actually praying and breaking bread, but rather, we see it described that they did so. Would we say “meh… they didn’t do it – it’s just being proclaimed that they did!”…?!? Of course not. The Scriptural assertion that they did so is sufficient! (Or, at least, you’d think that folks who believe in ‘sola scriptura’ would believe that!)

 

[bob4]

for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ.

Strange, all of translation I have, RSVCE, NABCE, Jerusalem Bible, all read “in the presence of Christ.”

 

[po18guy]

I do not like most of the so-called modern translations. They are primarily Protestant and even some Catholic bibles are based on Protestant translations, and are then ‘Catholicized’.

But, have a look in the King James Version. “person of Christ” is the translation. and that is the way the Church of England used to view it - some sects may still. It all traces back to the oldest manuscripts and commonly to Saint Jerome’s translation into the Latin Vulgate.

Many argue against the Vulgate, but I note that other translations tend toward the technical and may lose their focus. Saint Jerome was assigned the task of translation for a reason. He was the most scripturally learned of that age and had no agenda except to remain 100% true to the meaning of the scriptures in accord with the Apostolic Tradition handed on to him. Even though he was an irascible sort, I find his translation warmer and more human.

Again, modern translations strike me as too focused on parsing sentences which were never intended to be linguistically dissected. They become flexible so that Christians of all stripes and pseudo-Christians alike can use them.

That was not the intent of the scriptures.

 

[Gorgias]

But, have a look in the King James Version. “person of Christ” is the translation. and that is the way the Church of England used to view it - some sects may still. It all traces back to the oldest manuscripts and commonly to Saint Jerome’s translation into the Latin Vulgate.

Right. And so, it’s also “person” in the Douay-Rheims.

 

[po18guy]

And the Knox. Vulgate based, excellent translations.
As many know, I repeat myself - therefore I counsel them to obtain a 1941-1969 Confraternity Bible. Cannot go wrong. $10-$20 or so on eBay. Excellent NT (orthodox notes and intros a big plus) and the Douay OT. Additionally, they are filled with beautiful artwork. Notice how modern translations are text only? Solus textus?

There is certainly beauty in the text, but man does not live by text alone. Paraphrasing there…