Protestants how to you get by without confession

[TC2]

I confess every day, often right after I sin (thoughts, words), and then again at bedtime.

I go straight to our High Priest Himself (Jesus Christ) and set it right with him right away. No worries.

 

[TC2]

If I had an ongoing problem, then I’d contact my pastor for prayer and counseling about it. It might be a one time visit, or he might feel we need to meet regularly to discuss it and my progress, as well as to pray.

 

[benhur]

ben,

What is your understanding of:

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.

I thought I stated it . Isaid Hebrews continues and tells u what it is…trod ding the son of god the spirit of grace , calling the blood an unholy thing, etc

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I thought I stated it . Isaid Hebrews continues and tells u what it is…trod ding the son of god the spirit of grace , calling the blood an unholy thing, etc

You mean verse 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

There is no longer a sacrifice.

If there is no sacrifice anymore, we are not covered by said sacrifice.

How can we be restored?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I confess every day, often right after I sin (thoughts, words), and then again at bedtime.

I go straight to our High Priest Himself (Jesus Christ) and set it right with him right away. No worries.

Didn’t our High Priest Jesus Christ delegate the power to forgive sins?

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

And didn’t the first Christians confess in the presence of the Apostles and others?

Acts 19:18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

 

[SteveVH]

I confess every day, often right after I sin (thoughts, words), and then again at bedtime.

I go straight to our High Priest Himself (Jesus Christ) and set it right with him right away. No worries.

That’s great, TC2. And so what is your take on John 20:21:23?

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Why did Jesus give the Church, through the Apostles, the authority to forgive sins and to retain them if he did not intend for his flock to go to the Church in order to obtain forgiveness and absolution?

Thank you.

Steve

 

[Theo520]

Steve, how can you possibly read an exclusivity clause into your quoted verse?
Yes, the verse clearly says the ‘original Apostles’ were given the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins (no Protestant disputes this fact).

No, the verse (nor any other I’ve seen) does not state/imply confessing to an Apostle is the only avenue to forgiveness. There is no scriptural support for your position, just conjecture that it makes sense to you.

That’s great, TC2. And so what is your take on John 20:21:23?

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Why did Jesus give the Church, through the Apostles, the authority to forgive sins and to retain them if he did not intend for his flock to go to the Church in order to obtain forgiveness and absolution?

Thank you.

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, how can you possibly read an exclusivity clause into your quoted verse?
Yes, the verse clearly says the ‘original Apostles’ were given the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins (no Protestant disputes this fact).

No, the verse (nor any other I’ve seen) does not state/imply confessing to an Apostle is the only avenue to forgiveness. There is no scriptural support for your position, just conjecture that it makes sense to you.

Does it make more sense to believe that the authority to forgive sins was to continue in the Church Christ founded or that it should end with the death of the Apostles? Why would Christ do something so temporary that it would have no impact on future generations of Christians?

Let me put this another way. Can you find a Bible verse that even implies that this gift was to end?

The conjecture is on your part, my friend, and it goes against just good old common sense, not to mention the understanding and teachings of the Church from the beginning.

And, if you have been paying attention, you will note that I have never claimed that the sacrament of Reconciliation is the only way to be forgiven. It is, however, the way in which Christ has chosen to forgive those who belong to his Church.

 

[benhur]

You mean verse 29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

There is no longer a sacrifice.

If there is no sacrifice anymore, we are not covered by said sacrifice.

How can we be restored?

If you want to be restored you have not spurned the grace of God, profaned the blood etc even call your salvation accursed and the sacrifice does cover you. …Again restoration ,reconciliation are not exactly the same as the "confessional’’ rite/sacrament…Again you asked what is the sin in vs 26 and verse 29 tells you. It is not about one who wants reconciliation but rejects it totally. Si in the OT,which Paul refers to, it is not only breaking a commandment but despising the word of the lord,despising the commandment itself (Nu 15:31) or one who won’t listen to the judge or priest on the matter(Deut.17:12). For us in NT it is one who despises any correction whether you believe it is from the confessional, or from a brother or pastor or any method you believe to apply the Blood and Word. This person has rejected reconciliation.

 

[benhur]

Does it make more sense to believe that the authority to forgive sins was to continue in the Church Christ founded or that it should end with the death of the Apostles? Why would Christ do something so temporary that it would have no impact on future generations of Christians?

Let me put this another way. Can you find a Bible verse that even implies that this gift was to end?

The conjecture is on your part, my friend, and it goes against just good old common sense, not to mention the understanding and teachings of the Church from the beginning.

And, if you have been paying attention, you will note that I have never claimed that the sacrament of Reconciliation is the only way to be forgiven. It is, however, the way in which Christ has chosen to forgive those who belong to his Church.

Of course there may be reconciliation to those who have never heard the gospel but I think the poster was suggesting there is reconciliation besides confessing to an apostle, that it was not exclusive to them. Hence, no one is suggesting anything has ended, as with the apostles.

 

[meltzerboy]

You are so right. Not sure where I drifted off to. Apologies.

As to your “real” question, where would one begin to talk about repentance in the Old Testament. Is confession prefigured in the Old Testament? It is everywhere.

This from Catholic News Agency:

*"Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, God continues to call persons to repent, confess and do penance. It also becomes more ritualized. Through the law of Moses, he gave specific ritual ways for individuals to confess their sins. In Leviticus 5:5-6 we read after a litany of sins, “…whoever is guilty in any of these cases shall confess the sin he has incurred, and as his sin offering for the sin he has committed he shall bring to the Lord a female animal from the flock…The priest shall then make atonement for his sin.” There must be a confession of sin, penance of sacrifice, and the involvement of a priest. It is the priest who makes atonement, which means to remove an obstacle to reconciliation. Leviticus 5:10 goes on to say, “Thus the priest shall make atonement for the sin the man committed, and it will be forgiven.”

We also read in Numbers 5:5-7, “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Tell the Israelites: If a man [or woman] commits a fault against his fellow man and wrongs him, thus breaking faith with the Lord, he shall confess the wrong he has done, restore his ill-gotten goods in full, and in addition give one fifth of their value to the one he has wronged.” There must be a confession and restitution shall be made as a form of penance."*

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. The Eucharist is, in a very real sense, a meal to satisfy our hunger; our spiritual hunger. I doubt anyone mistakes this for a meal to nourish our physical bodies.

The sacrificial offering is the body and blood of the Lord under the appearance of bread and wine. That is what the priest is offering to the Father; the once, for all time, perfect offering, Jesus Christ.

I would like to point out that, in the Hebrew Bible, the repentance of sins by means of confession via the Priest was almost exclusively for those sins which were unintentional, that is, without foreknowledge. Further, plenty of poorer people did not have access to the Temple or Priest so they went to their “neighborhood” synagogue instead. And grain or flour sacrifice could substitute for the blood of animals. Individual penance by means of prayer, if the sin committed was directly against G-d, and seeking forgiveness from the injured party (as you point out), if the sin was committed against one’s fellow man, has always been the primary means of repentance in both ancient and modern Judaism.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I would like to point out that, in the Hebrew Bible, the repentance of sins by means of confession via the Priest was almost exclusively for those sins which were unintentional, that is, without foreknowledge. Further, plenty of poorer people did not have access to the Temple or Priest so they went to their “neighborhood” synagogue instead. And grain or flour sacrifice could substitute for the blood of animals. Individual penance by means of prayer, if the sin committed was directly against G-d, and seeking forgiveness from the injured party (as you point out), if the sin was committed against one’s fellow man, has always been the primary means of repentance in both ancient and modern Judaism.

Good knowledge. Thanks.

 

[benhur]

I would like to point out that, in the Hebrew Bible, the repentance of sins by means of confession via the Priest was almost exclusively for those sins which were unintentional, that is, without foreknowledge. Further, plenty of poorer people did not have access to the Temple or Priest so they went to their “neighborhood” synagogue instead. And grain or flour sacrifice could substitute for the blood of animals. Individual penance by means of prayer, if the sin committed was directly against G-d, and seeking forgiveness from the injured party (as you point out), if the sin was committed against one’s fellow man, has always been the primary means of repentance in both ancient and modern Judaism.

“There, the Bible simply states that Gd saw the works of the people of Niniveh. Specifically it says that these works consisted of abandoning their evil ways, and because they did, Gd forgave them… whatjewsbelieve.org/explanation2.html
How fitting I was just reading this. It was improper to confess sins to priest if they were against primarily God and to confess to the person offended otherwise. The priest function was not to “hear” confession per say but to slay the animal with the penitents hand on the animal. The foreshadow is not that a middleman would still be needed (priest) in NT but that when the Messiah came, the final” middleman, Melchizedek like , no more middle man would be needed, and we can boldly go before His throne,we being royal priests in His likeness ,the veil being torn in two.

 

[SteveVH]

Of course there may be reconciliation to those who have never heard the gospel but I think the poster was suggesting there is reconciliation besides confessing to an apostle, that it was not exclusive to them.

Well please tell me to whom Jesus’ words were addressed in John 20:23? He was speaking directly to the Apostles and no one else. They are the one’s who received authority, them and to whoever they passed on this authority through the laying on of hands. So you are correct. It was not exclusive to them. It included their successors, the bishops, and the priests.

Hence, no one is suggesting anything has ended, as with the apostles.

Then what are you suggesting?

 

[Starrsmother]

benhur;12251820:

John 20:21 - 23, 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven

This is one that always worries me a little–that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin. Yet nobody seems to know exactly what it entails. As someone who left the church for 30 years and has been back about 3 years and who committed about every sin out there while absent, I always wonder if I did that one too—

 

[rinnie]

Not all Protestants do without confession. Both the Lutherans and Episcopalians have confession. Either privately to a priest, or publicly as part of their liturgy.

Even Presbyterians have public confession with absolution.

Orthodox have private confession, but we don’t go into a small room to confess. We confess in the open church.

I understand this, and no disrespect but how do you know your sins are forgiven and not held bound?

 

[rinnie]

I would like to point out that, in the Hebrew Bible, the repentance of sins by means of confession via the Priest was almost exclusively for those sins which were unintentional, that is, without foreknowledge. Further, plenty of poorer people did not have access to the Temple or Priest so they went to their “neighborhood” synagogue instead. And grain or flour sacrifice could substitute for the blood of animals. Individual penance by means of prayer, if the sin committed was directly against G-d, and seeking forgiveness from the injured party (as you point out), if the sin was committed against one’s fellow man, has always been the primary means of repentance in both ancient and modern Judaism.

But the difference for us is this, Jesus now gave the Apostles and whoever has the laying of hands we call Holy Orders to forgive sins in his name.

I understand you don’t agree with us, but as Christians that is what we are taught.

In our teaching for the Sin to be Mortal, you know what you are doing and choose your sin knowing you are separating yourself from God.

And it is only through a Priest that you can confess and be forgiven from that sin, of course if the Priest looses you of it with the Power of the Holy Spirit given to him by God.

But if someone repents but refuse to quit the sin, they would be held bound. And remain in mortal sin.

 

[rinnie]

After reading Hebrews I would disagree with your immolate and oblate differences.That we need to confess and continually wash, renew, be filled with the Spirit, ok. But to oblate for sin, not so. It is not a matter of sins beyond baptism or initial Calvary washing, but of conscience. Otherwise in oblation you are just “bringing remembrance unto sins” once more. Like I confessed, and you promise to remember no more under this more merciful new covenant, yet I must later “oblate” for such sins in the Mass ? Mass should be a remembrance of the immolation only. Our oblation is thanksgiving for the immolation, hence “eucharist-thanksgiving”. (Hebrews 10 :3 ,10:18). " Where there is remission of sins there is no more offering for sin" I take that to mean even your oblation… As to vs. 26 sinning willfully and no more sacrifice, the sin is later described as trodding under foot the Son of God, and counting His blood an unholy thing as those that despised. Moses…Again the greatest sin is that blaspheming of the Holy Ghost, against this Spirit of grace, the same Holy Ghost the Lord breathed into the apostles before he told them of binding and loosing sin which I think is thru the good news of this once forever offered Blood, which is the heart of the gospel. Nothing to do with remembrance of sin and a confessional. He is not talking about confessing mortal or venial sins in a confessional…No, Hebrews tells us to maintain the faith, keep the grace, persevere, that indeed His blood does cleanse us (our conscience) despite our imperfections (sin in the old man) yet encourage each other to good works. Do not "draw back’’ to days before you were “illumined”… Of course if you forsake the blood there is nothing under heaven that can help you. Nothing to do with reconciliation, oblation.

Really? His death on the cross did not cleanse us from our sins?

Could you explain the scripture in John that states Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

And why did he tell his Apostles whose sin they retained is retained, and loose is loosed?

How did Jesus expect the Apostles to do this in your opinion? If they did not confess their sins to them?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you want to be restored you have not spurned the grace of God, profaned the blood etc even call your salvation accursed and the sacrifice does cover you. …Again restoration ,reconciliation are not exactly the same as the "confessional’’ rite/sacrament…Again you asked what is the sin in vs 26 and verse 29 tells you. It is not about one who wants reconciliation but rejects it totally. Si in the OT,which Paul refers to, it is not only breaking a commandment but despising the word of the lord,despising the commandment itself (Nu 15:31) or one who won’t listen to the judge or priest on the matter(Deut.17:12). For us in NT it is one who despises any correction whether you believe it is from the confessional, or from a brother or pastor or any method you believe to apply the Blood and Word. This person has rejected reconciliation.

The problem with this is that verse 26 says if we “sin deliberately”. You are then classifying and exclusively determining for yourself what sin does spurn and outrages. Those are different in each of us, as we “come to the knowledge of truth”, as the same verse 26 tells us.

John talks about this in 1 John 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

While sin is not to be determined in “moral relativism”, each person will look at sin within their own limitations. You might see a sin that is not mortal, while I see that same sin as mortal.

Thus, Christ, in all His wisdom left us a way to deal with this and be restored:

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Nowhere in Scriptures does it say that this authority was to go away and die with the Apostles. On the contrary, we see the passing of this doctrine and practice onto those whom they laid hands on.

 

[dronald]

The problem with this is that verse 26 says if we “sin deliberately”. You are then classifying and exclusively determining for yourself what sin does spurn and outrages. Those are different in each of us, as we “come to the knowledge of truth”, as the same verse 26 tells us.

John talks about this in 1 John 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

While sin is not to be determined in “moral relativism”, each person will look at sin within their own limitations. You might see a sin that is not mortal, while I see that same sin as mortal.

Thus, Christ, in all His wisdom left us a way to deal with this and be restored:

John 20:19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Nowhere in Scriptures does it say that this authority was to go away and die with the Apostles. On the contrary, we see the passing of this doctrine and practice onto those whom they laid hands on.

So how then do you interpret this:

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

And of course as Christians we have received the Holy Spirit. Are we unable to teach others that their sins have been forgiven? Interestingly enough when the Bible mentions confession it says such things as this:

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

In the CC however it seems normal to confess to one Priest for forgiveness. Although I’m sure the CC teaches it to be right to confess sins to one another, in Evangelical Churches it is strongly encouraged. Accountability partners, small groups, etc to help us fight and confess our sins.

Everywhere in the NT when sins are confessed it is implied that this is done to everyone, not just to a Priest. Even when we do Baptisms the person being Baptized is encouraged to confess their sins in front of the entire Church, which numbers in the high hundreds to 1000 people.