Protestants how to you get by without confession

[guanophore]

I understand what you believe, I just don’t believe God holds your sins against you depending on who you confess to.

I believe a sincere heart seeking repentance and forgiveness shall be forgiven by God. Just seems like a pretty Christian concept to me.

Yes:

Ps 51:17
7 The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

I think what we lose sight of is the healing aspect of confession. Keeping our sins secret makes us sick in mind, body and Spirit. Jesus set up confession, both in the OT and the NT so that we can be healed of guilt and shame, and so that we can be assured of forgiveness (people really need to hear it from a human mouth to their human ear).

Ps 32:3-5

3 When I declared not my sin, my body wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer.
Selah

5 I acknowledged my sin to thee,
and I did not hide my iniquity;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the LORD”;
then thou didst forgive the guilt of my sin.

 

[guanophore]

Aren’t we all a Priesthood? Don’t we all receive the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but you did not answer the question.

Also, He did not say this to everyone, but only to his Apostles. And the Apostles understood it to be a gift that should be passed to their successors, the Bishops. It was never something exercised only between the laity.

Do you think that Christians misunderstood Jesus’ intentions for 1500 years?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, scripture hardly paints forgiveness through the Apostles as the only route to forgiveness by Christ.

Before I address your proof texting, let me preface my comments by saying that I have never said that the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession, Penance) is the only manner in which one may be forgiven. God can forgive however and whenever and whoever he chooses to forgive. I am certain that there are people whom God has forgiven who are ignorant of Christ altogether and so cannot even call on his name. We have a merciful God who desires that none be lost and it is only He that intimately knows the hearts of all people.

What I have said is that God, through Jesus Christ, has chosen the sacrament of Reconciliation as the ordinary means of obtaining forgiveness. He wants us to go to the Church which he established in order to have a relationship with him. And that was Jesus’ entire purpose in coming to earth; the union of God and man which had been lost as a consequence of sin. Reconciliation does just that. It reunites us with our God. We have a relationship with Christ by having a relationship with his Church. Otherwise why would he have founded a Church at all? This is a gift, not some sort of penalty we must undergo.

So we partake of the sacrament because that is the manner in which Christ has chosen to be present to us in our desire to be reunited with him. Why in the world do you imagine he would have given the Church the authority to forgive sins if he did not want his Church to exercise that authority?

And so, in addressing the verses you have provided below, lets view these in the correct context, that being that Christ said to the Apostles “Whoever sins you forgive are forgiven them and whoever sins you retain they are retained.” And this after he breathed on them and gave them the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 6:14-16 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Yes, we must forgive others if we are to be forgiven. This doesn’t say we don’t need to confess our sins as well.

Acts 10:43 - To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Yes, it is certainly through Christ that we are forgiven. Once again, this does not say that we do not need to confess our sins. Remember, believing is only one element. “Even the demons believe, and they shudder.”

Romans 10:13 - For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” (MT 7:21)

That’s the problem with proof texting.

Acts 3:19 - Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Yes, we must certainly repent and convert. That is part of the sacrament.

James 5:16 - Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Amen.

 

[Tommy999]

Before I address your proof texting, let me preface my comments by saying that I have never said that the sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession, Penance) is the only manner in which one may be forgiven. God can forgive however and whenever and whoever he chooses to forgive. I am certain that there are people whom God has forgiven who are ignorant of Christ altogether and so cannot even call on his name. We have a merciful God who desires that none be lost and it is only He that intimately knows the hearts of all people.

I’m glad you clarified that, SteveVH, because otherwise I was going to dismiss your statements outright because the implication is that most or all non-Catholic Christians who do not confess theirs sins to a Catholic priest are walking around unforgiven even when they sincerely and contritely confess their sins to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, our sole mediator between God and man, (I Tim 2:5). I know that our Lord is much more merciful than to allow that.

1 John 1:9New International Version (NIV)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

If “to a priest” was so critical, why wouldn’t have it been emphasized or added by the Apostle John?

In spite of all that, I would concede that confessing one’s sins to a priest may possibly be the most effective means through which a Christian receives closure on his or her sins – by virtue of having a human counselor who is a trained and ordained in administering the sacrament of confession. I truly believe that there is something special about that process and I’m not even a Catholic and have never been to a Catholic Confession. However, I sense in my spirit there is something special about that, especially when someone I respect like Cat says so. I think she comes from a background similar to mine and I see a lot of wisdom in her.

However, I also suspect that there are priests who problably treat confession like a cattle call with a stop watch trying to get everyone in and out as quickly as possible so that he can go do something else he needs to do. I doubt that confessions from such a priest are as special or meaningful. However, I trust those type of priests are in the minority.

 

[SteveVH]

1 John 1:9New International Version (NIV)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

If “to a priest” was so critical, why wouldn’t have it been emphasized or added by the Apostle John?

Possibly because he didn’t have to explain it, it was already part of Sacred Tradition and was being practiced by the Church. I guess you would have to give me a date as to when you believe the practice of confessing to a priest began.

According to St. Cypryian it was the practice of the early Church:

“Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God” (St. Cyprian - “De lapsis”, A.D. 251)

And that is just one example from the early Fathers.

In spite of all that, I would concede that confessing one’s sins to a priest may possibly be the most effective means through which a Christian receives closure on his or her sins – by virtue of having a human counselor who is a trained and ordained in administering the sacrament of confession. I truly believe that there is something special about that process and I’m not even a Catholic and have never been to a Catholic Confession. However, I sense in my spirit there is something special about that, especially when someone I respect like Cat says so. I think she comes from a background similar to mine and I see a lot of wisdom in her.

While counseling and receiving “closure” may be of great benefit, they are not the reason one goes to confession. The psychological relief one feels is a consequence of being truly forgiven and knowing you are truly forgiven; pouring out one’s heart, coming clean with God and hearing the words of absolution in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. What we receive in the Sacrament of Reconciliation is grace which permeates our entire being. We are reconciled with our Creator and are once again in union with him. That is what is so special and your own soul seems to recognize this.

However, I also suspect that there are priests who problably treat confession like a cattle call with a stop watch trying to get everyone in and out as quickly as possible so that he can go do something else he needs to do. I doubt that confessions from such a priest are as special or meaningful. However, I trust those type of priests are in the minority.

Yes, there are priests like this. While it may be nice and useful to hear some words of wisdom from a kind and understanding priest, it really doesn’t matter. One still receives absolution and therefore God’s grace even if the priest may not be all that one might hope.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Tomyris]

Possibly because he didn’t have to explain it, it was already part of Sacred Tradition and was being practiced by the Church. I guess you would have to give me a date as to when you believe the practice of confessing to a priest began.

According to St. Cypryian it was the practice of the early Church:

"Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God" (St. Cyprian - “De lapsis”, A.D. 251)

And that is just one example from the early Fathers.

251 is not early.

 

[Tomyris]

Aren’t we all called to be priests and ministers of reconciliation?

 

[benhur]

And…

Well, Ot had no confessionals and secondly it is a new covenant and old priesthood is done away with, at least in many denominations.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Aren’t we all called to be priests and ministers of reconciliation?

Tomyris

As a Presbyterian you follow the ecumenical creeds, yes? The Apostles Creed origin dates as early as 180AD. So accepting the teachings of the early Church is consistent with Presbyterianism since the Apostles practiced private confession.

 

[benhur]

]If the Bible was an exhaustive account of everything the Apostles said and did I might tend to agree with you,

and if the bible were “incomplete”, leaving out important details and evidences I might agree with you.

What we do know from Scripture is that Christ gave the Church, very clearly, the authority to forgive sins and you have failed to address this fact, other than to acknowledge that “I know this is what you believe”. My question is: What do you believe Christ meant when he said to the Apostles: “whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained”. You cannot simply ignore these words.

Well, the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming the Holy Ghost and He is the purveyor of the Gospel. And just before giving this ability to forgive …the Lord breathed on them the Holy Ghost. Remission is conditional upon receiving the gospel. No one can deny that the great commission, carried out by those filled with the Holy Ghost, is the dividing line between righteous and unrighteous, forgiven and not forgiven, reconciled and unreconciled to God. Certainly there is no evidence for thinking the apostles now have power to simply pick and choose who should be forgiven and who should not . No evidence that the condition is whether you "confess your sins " to the apostles for absolution, which is what you suggest. The only evidence for this ability to see inward and judge might be the incident with Ananias and Saphira, but far cry from your sacrament of reconciliation. Luke 24 "repentance and remission of sins should be preached…beginning in Jerusalem’’ Indeed Peter preached that great day in Jerusalem and much reconciliation and forgiveness took place, thru preaching and some say baptism, but no mention of "confessing’’ to apostles. It was however a group “confession” of error, in crucifying the Lord (not believing) and “what would you have us do” they all cried out. Repent (believe) and be baptized for remission of sins…Bottom line, the Lord’s words in John 20 are not ignored on this matter by non-sacramentalists.

 

[cmodrmac]

the Episcopal Church has “confession” both general or personal with a Priest if requested

 

[SteveVH]

251 is not early.

Well, St. Cyprian was obviously talking about a practice already common in the Church. It isn’t as if confession to a priest was just “invented” in A.D. 251. Just what date would satisfy you, if any?

“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).

“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ” (Ignatius of Antioch - Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A.D. 110]).

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Tertullian - Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

I presume that you will not deny that Christ certainly gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins (John 20:23). How in the world could the apostles know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless someone confessed them?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

251 is not early.

Also what Cyprian describes in De Lapsis is hardly like the current Roman Catholic practice.

 

[benhur]

well, st. Cyprian was obviously talking about a practice already common in the church. It isn’t as if confession to a priest was just “invented” in a.d. 251. Just what date would satisfy you, if any?

“confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the lord’s day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (didache 4:14, 14:1 [a.d. 70]).

“for as many as are of god and of jesus christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the church, these, too, shall belong to god, that they may live according to jesus christ” (ignatius of antioch - letter to the philadelphians 3 [a.d. 110]).

“[regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (tertullian - repentance 10:1 [a.d. 203]).

I presume that you will not deny that christ certainly gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins (john 20:23). How in the world could the apostles know what sins to forgive and what not to forgive unless someone confessed them?

again, evolution. The church did begin to have public confession, before the assembly, the entire congregation a form of confessing faults one to another per james. Besides the penance, this may be the reason some postponed baptism until deathbed

 

[SteveVH]

Well, Ot had no confessionals

Quite correct. There was no sacrament before Christ. So what?

and secondly it is a new covenant and old priesthood is done away with, at least in many denominations.

Catholic priests are priests in the order of Melchizedek who offered a sacrifice of bread and wine. The Psalms refer to Jesus as “a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4) This priesthood, therefore, has never been done away with and cannot be done away with unless Jesus is done away with.

 

[SteveVH]

Also what Cyprian describes in De Lapsis is hardly like the current Roman Catholic practice.

Yes. In the early days people made a confession not only in the presence of the priest but the entire congregation as well and the penance was very stiff for certain sins. The Church, like all living things, grows in wisdom and understanding as the centuries pass. This doesn’t mean that the sacrament was not administered, just that it was administered differently than today (thank God). It still required a confession, contrition and penance on the part of the one confessing and absolution on the part of the Church, through a priest.

 

[SteveVH]

again, evolution. The church did begin to have public confession, before the assembly, the entire congregation a form of confessing faults one to another per james. Besides the penance, this may be the reason some postponed baptism until deathbed

And your point is…?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes. In the early days people made a confession not only in the presence of the priest but the entire congregation as well and the penance was very stiff for certain sins. The Church, like all living things, grows in wisdom and understanding as the centuries pass. This doesn’t mean that the sacrament was not administered, just that it was administered differently than today (thank God). It still required a confession, contrition and penance on the part of the one confessing and absolution on the part of the Church, through a priest.

You’ve aptly described Lutheran practice. In most cases the priest absolves everyone’s sin each Sunday and Absolution is also pronounced at even non-eucharistic services.

 

[SteveVH]

You’ve aptly described Lutheran practice. In most cases the priest absolves everyone’s sin each Sunday and Absolution is also pronounced at even non-eucharistic services.

Unless each member stands up and confesses his/her sins in front of the pastor and the entire congregation I have not described the Lutheran practice. That is what happened in the early Church and I am thankful that the Church has changed to private confession instead. It wasn’t a matter of some general “I am a sinner, forgive me” type of thing. It was a specific “I just committed adultery” kind of thing. And the penance for serious sin was severe. This was to help one not commit that sin ever again (and it probably worked).

 

[benhur]

And your point is…?

if it evolved, then difficult to say it is apostolic nor even correct or dogmatically binding and leaves open that it is possibly a “custom”.