Need help refuting a Protestant argument against confession. I’m kind of stumped
- Status
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
If you had been raised in a family where belief in a flat earth or in a certain political party was foundational, where this set of beliefs is all you have known, the confirmation bias runs deep.
I’ve been Catholic for more than 20 years now, and I had huge doubts about the protestant beliefs of my childhood since my teen. As one of those who read my way in, and this silly Eidetic memory, the answers are deep in my head yet there are still times when I feel the old beliefs creeping in (for me it is particularly in the area of end times/return of Christ etc. It is hard not to start “seeing signs” because I knew them backwards and forwards. Heck, sometimes the old health and wealth creep in, as well as the ‘God is cursing me because I did not give 10% + offerings’ thoughts)
I’ve been Catholic for more than 20 years now, and I had huge doubts about the protestant beliefs of my childhood since my teen. As one of those who read my way in, and this silly Eidetic memory, the answers are deep in my head yet there are still times when I feel the old beliefs creeping in (for me it is particularly in the area of end times/return of Christ etc. It is hard not to start “seeing signs” because I knew them backwards and forwards. Heck, sometimes the old health and wealth creep in, as well as the ‘God is cursing me because I did not give 10% + offerings’ thoughts)
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Thank you, @TheLittleLady. That’s something new I learned today.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
It is strange, I can see the pages of books/articles and recall what written there. Sometimes I can only see the area of the page (if it was something that did not really interest me at the time) “it was on the bottom left column of the page in blah blah book”.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
In my case, I have learned not to place too much reliance on my memories of that kind. As often as not the words turn out to be in a different place, or on a different page, or nowhere in the book at all.
T
TULIPed
Guest
From the Reformed peanut gallery - for informational purposes: we Reformed Protestants do confess our sins both privately, directly to our Father in heaven (see Luke 11:1-4; Matthew 6:6), and to other Believers - ordained and otherwise (see James 5:16). We also confess our sins publicly, but corporately, during worship (which is followed by a corporate absolution given by an ordained pastor).
In any case, I would say that the “Protestant” argument set forth in the OP is perhaps legalistic at best and uncharitable at worst. We Protestants would do well to learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters and spend more time in confession - of any sort, but certainly to each other. Where there is confession, there is accountability.
In any case, I would say that the “Protestant” argument set forth in the OP is perhaps legalistic at best and uncharitable at worst. We Protestants would do well to learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters and spend more time in confession - of any sort, but certainly to each other. Where there is confession, there is accountability.
H
halogirl
Guest
I honestly believed when I said the sinners prayer I was saved as that’s what I was told. There were no Catholics around to tell me otherwise so I would be surprised if God didn’t take that into account when it comes to Protestants facing God after they die. It’s good to see some evangelising being done by the OP. What I now think happened with me was I was then led further back to the RCC thru the Holy Spirit. My favourite meme about all this is I was saved through the cross, I am being saved, God is working out my salvation into the future. I’m paraphrasing it.
po18guy
Well-known member
Hard to believe, but we Catholics are acutely - painfully - aware of the plethora of opposing views. We have the consistent practice of the Apostles, as handed on over 2,000 years. If one’s heart and mind are open, there is scriptural warrant (although that requirement was never taught by Christ) for each and every Catholic doctrine - if not explicitly, then implicitly.
Please stick around, as Catholicism is the least understood religion on the face of this earth.
Please stick around, as Catholicism is the least understood religion on the face of this earth.
Last edited:
B
Bre6785
Guest
I haven’t met a protestant yet that doesn’t believe this way.
B
Bre6785
Guest
I think you make a good point. But I wonder if you will research how far back in your particular denomination (or non) that practice goes. Accountability I mean.
I once heard somebody say that if we all went to confession on a regular basis, psychological therapists would cease to exist.
I once heard somebody say that if we all went to confession on a regular basis, psychological therapists would cease to exist.
B
Bre6785
Guest
Yes, I believe this is where, “God knows your heart” comes in. Ive struggled with the only Catholics go to heaven thing.
The way I understand, is the Catholic Church, is the only - church- that leads souls to heaven, but that doesn’t mean somebody who is seriously searching, longing for truth, won’t get there.
Praise God you accepted the grace to accept the grace!
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Except when in conversation with someone who can read the Greek himself.
What struck me immediately about his argument was the use of the description of the “passive perfect”:
I think that, in response, I would grab my GNT and show them Luke 1:28 (“Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη”) – you know, Gabriel’s greeting to Mary: “Hail, full of grace”!
His argument would also demonstrate that Mary – the κεχαριτωμένη – had been graced, is graced at that time, and will continue to be in a state of grace. In short, his argument against the sacrament of reconciliation is an argument for the Immaculate Conception and for Mary’s perpetual sinlessness!
In any case, the writer comes from the tradition that says “go ahead and sin all you want – your future sins are already forgiven.” That’s a notion that’s 2000 years old – one of the flavors of Gnosticism believed that, and therefore, taught that you could go and sin all you want. The Church refuted that one a long, long time ago.
G
Gorgias
Guest
The interesting part is that this isn’t precisely the pattern!
It’s “if you forgive [aorist subjunctive], they are forgiven [perfect indicative]… if you retain [present subjunctive], they are retained [perfect indicative]”.
I could go back to the article, but I don’t recall him discussing this. The question becomes “why the change in tense from aorist to present between ‘forgive’ and ‘retain’? What might that signify?”
G
Gorgias
Guest
Gnosticism.
(Some ‘Reformers’ just picked up that ball a millennium later and ran with it again.)
B
BartholomewB
Guest
“Some” Reformers? Which ones?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Good question! I hadn’t noticed that.
My own take, without full comprehension of Greek conditionals: To forgive is a “one and done” thing. Thus we need an aspect (aorist is an aspect, not a tense) that captures the action in itself all at once, not as a continuing thing. In contrast, “retain” is in the durative aspect (often called “present”, as if it were a tense) because a person who does not forgive is holding one’s sins against them in an ongoing way.
Last edited:
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
See now, this gets at the ambiguity I was talking about. The passive perfect can be used to mean either a state of being (being the type of person that is in a permanent state of grace) or a passive fact about oneself that is the completion of a process but is not a continual state of being (being full of grace at the moment). According to my understanding of Greek, the only thing that decides the reading is the context. You cannot say that it ALWAYS means the “stative” meaning, because that would imply that the Greeks had no way of talking about a person who has undergone a temporary process which is complete at that particular moment (except perhaps to use a finite verb instead of a participle, which would sometimes be excessively bad Greek).
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Any who claim that all future sins have already been forgiven (and therefore, nothing you do matters to the state of your salvation). There are at least some Protestants who don’t believe that Christians cannot sin.
Nice take on it! The only thing I’d suggest is that “retaining” isn’t hoped to be a permanent thing, right? We’d hope that one who’s had his sins “retained” eventually has them forgiven, no? So, then: the priest is “retaining”… until he isn’t.
One quibble: it’s a completed process with ongoing results (at least, that’s what I recall being taught).
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Yeah, I was trying to remember the exact phrase, and I bungled it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s all good. So, to your concern, I think I’d reply that the perfect tends to indicate “ongoing results” that extend through the present moment into the future. In other words, the kind of results that would take positive action to bring to an end. In that light, I think that you’re right – I don’t know of a tense (yeah, I’m gonna keep calling them ‘tenses’, just because that’s what most think of when you talk about verbs) that does what you ask. It’s just “perfect” – and ongoing action – until and if something causes it to change.
- Status