The meaning of "Confess your sins, one to another"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One question I don’t see MD and company answering is, if you obey the scripture in St. James 5:16 to “confess your sins to one another” then who exactly are you confessing those sins to? I spent over 30 years among n-Cs and I never heard not a single one confess sins to another believer of any kind.

Yet it’s very plain that this is a command of scripture in the New Testament. So…where’s the obedience to it then?

I think I can offer a couple of sources that might help this discussion a little.
Catholic Confession

Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest, rather than going directly to God?
 
Sacramental confession certainly goes against what Paul says concerning belief in Christ and the forgiveness of sins.And yet you run to men to seek forgiveness:Acts 13:38-41 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon {you:} "Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you."I would think that the “practical application” would be to believe that your sins ARE forgiven, just as the Apostle proclaims.
You completely ducked the majority of the things I mentioned that prove you wrong. Listen MD, you can run but you can’t hide. There is no such thing as automatic forgivness of sin nor is there any such thing as Once Saved Always Saved. No one is saved until they are judged to be saved - PERIOD. I am very sorry to say this but you do not have a rational mind. You simply lack the wherewithal to mentally grasp that if A=B and B=C then A=C.

You completely and utterly reject the plain simple scriptural truth that we are told explicitly “Confess your sins to each other”. You do not want to account for this because you are literally poisoned by the false doctrine that some spiritually lazy, mentally ill and scrupulous person has taught you. It’s simply all you know and you comfortable with it because it makes your life simple and easy to go about living carefree and never worrying that you an do anything wrong in God’s eyes. That is like having your cake and eating it to.

The Apostle Paul’s words do not contradict sacramental confession. Acts 13:38-41 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.

Priests forgive sin “through Him” and every Catholic believes in Christ and His word when He said “EVERYTHING in heaven has been given to me - those sins YOU forgive are FORGIVEN those sins YOU hold bound ARE held bound.” The question remains why you do not do what Christ and the apostles commanded and “confess your sins one to another” so that Christ’s priest can forgive you YOUR sins in HIS name?

You my friend only want to pick and choose those things in scripture that support what YOU want to do. You do not want to do what CHRIST wants you to do. Take heed - not all who call me Lord Lord will enter my kingdom. You can’t take the Word of God and divide it against itself. Either you accept ALL of the Word of God or you accept NONE of the Word of God. There is no middle ground. You must live by every word that comes from God.

The “other Gospel” that Paul said was deserving of a curse upon that man is ANY different gospel - not just “works” based gospel. You are preaching a new and novel sort of “auto-forgivness” sort of gospel that NO APOSTLE ever taught. Therefore the Apostle Paul holds you worthy of a curse. And for the record the Catholic Church does not teach salvation through works; we have explained this to you perhaps a dozen times. So please stop trying to obscure the issue here by running away and hiding under a cover of subterfuge and false witness.

James
 
Sacramental confession certainly goes against what Paul says concerning belief in Christ and the forgiveness of sins.
What about the passage in James, where we are counseled to confess our sins “to one another”?
And yet you run to men to seek forgiveness:
What about the passage in 2 Cor where the incestuous man is reconciled to the church through the ministry of Paul? You make it sound like Jesus leaves the room when we come for confession or that we confess to the priest but not to God.
Acts 13:38-41 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon {you:} “Behold, you scoffers, and marvel, and perish; for I am accomplishing a work in your days, a work which you will never believe, though someone should describe it to you.”
You make it sound like sacramental confession shows lack of faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, admitting our faults and sins to another sinner puts the mark of conviction on our penitence. It takes humility.
I would think that the “practical application” would be to believe that your sins ARE forgiven, just as the Apostle proclaims.
We believe our sins are forgiven. But since the Apostles were given the authority to forgive and retain sins, we approach our appointed pastors to receive this beautiful grace on the terms Our Lord has offered.

If you were to read 2 Cor 2:10 with your “catholic” glasses on, you would clearly see confession in that verse. This is where the incestuous man is reconciled to the Church. Paul states that what he [Paul] has forgiven, “forgave I it in the person of Christ.” Note: Paul forgives “in the person of Christ.” This is precisely the Catholic teaching on confession. The priest acts “in persona Christi.

The formula of absolution is beautiful:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Confession is the second best thing about being Catholic! Moreover it is the consistent practice of the Church since the Apostolic age.
 
I think the OP misstates a few things about Catholic belief, as opposed to Catholic rules and Catholic practice. A few comments
Confession to others is necessary in order to gain or keep God’s acceptance.
This is certainly not Catholic teaching - God accepts all of us whether we confess or not. Any refusing or rejecting comes from the human side, not the divine.
Unless you are willing to confess your sins to a priest and follow his instructions on doing penance, you cannot be forgiven by God.
This is not Catholic teaching. The Catechism requires that the faithful confess their sins, but despite all the very strong language in the CCC, Catholics still believe that an individual can be forgiven without a priest-mediated confession. As for the penance, Catholics are required by Church law to complete it, but if one’s contrition is genuine, one is forgiven. Forgiveness is not withdrawn for failing to complete the penance.
This teaching directly contradicts the main message of the New Testament. The good news is not that God doles out forgiveness week by week through a priest prescribing penance–but that God grants you complete and permanent forgiveness once and for all when you confess your guilt before him and receive Christ’s full payment for it (read Rom. 5:1).
I agree that a teaching that God dole’s out forgiveness week by week according to the whims of men directly contradicts the Good News. One of the main points of Jesus ministry was that man should not erect artificial barriers between man and God. I agree that there is some tension between that message and reconciliation, but as a theological matter the Church does not teach that salvation strictly requires a priest-mediated confession. (I know that many Catholics will disagree with that statement, but I stand by it.)
This is the basis for all biblical confession to other people. When you have received Christ and know that God now accepts you apart from your works, you can afford to be honest with him and other people. If you want to experience the benefits of confession to other people, you first need to experience the benefit of God’s complete forgiveness.
I nostly agree with this, but I don’t think it is inconsistent with the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The one quibble I have is that I would say that God accepts us despite our works. He accepts us as we are, works and all. The way you put it makes it sound as if we are seperate from our works, that what we do is not the real “us.” I find that a bit Gnostic, and certainly not Catholic. God accepts our whole being and asks only that we behave the same towards him and towards one another.
 
The Catechism requires that the faithful confess their sins, but despite all the very strong language in the CCC, Catholics still believe that an individual can be forgiven without a priest-mediated confession. As for the penance, Catholics are required by Church law to complete it, but if one’s contrition is genuine, one is forgiven. Forgiveness is not withdrawn for failing to complete the penance.
Technically, what you say is correct. The normative requirement of confession in the Catholic Church is just that: normative and required of those who can access the Sacrament. Your statement here could be dangerously misleading. For while the Church allows that one may be forgiven by an act of perfect contrition, it is nearly impossible to produce such perfection of penitence. When the plane is plummeting into the Indian Ocean, or when we are facing almost certain death in war or in an emergency, clearly confession is not an option.

But the “pass” definitely does NOT apply to ordinary life. Where confession is available, it is required.
I agree that a teaching that God dole’s out forgiveness week by week according to the whims of men directly contradicts the Good News. One of the main points of Jesus ministry was that man should not erect artificial barriers between man and God. I agree that there is some tension between that message and reconciliation, but as a theological matter the Church does not teach that salvation strictly requires a priest-mediated confession. (I know that many Catholics will disagree with that statement, but I stand by it.)
Confession is not an “artificial barrier” it is a “supernatural bridge” between God and man.

Again. Where confession is available it IS required.
 
Church Militant:
One question I don’t see MD and company answering is, if you obey the scripture in St. James 5:16 to “confess your sins to one another” then who exactly are you confessing those sins to?
To God, and to one another.
Church Militant:
I spent over 30 years among n-Cs and I never heard not a single one confess sins to another believer of any kind.
🤷 That would include you as well; what kept you from confession to those against whom you transgressed at that time?

Confession of sin to one another is a private matter.
Church Militant:
Yet it’s very plain that this is a command of scripture in the New Testament. So…where’s the obedience to it then?
Just because you never heard anyone confess to another, isn’t proof that it doesn’t happen—it happens all of the time.

The error from your Catholic Apologetic link:
Notice, Scripture does not say confess your sins straight to God and only to God…it says confess your sins to one another.
Psalm 32:3-5 (by King David)

*3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long.

4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer.

5** I acknowledged my sin to you,** and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him.* For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.”

—Clement (known by Paul: Php 4:3) in his First Epistle to the CorinthiansWas Clement wrong, CM, when he says, “The Lord desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him.” ???

Confession to one another concerns transgressions to one another, and they are a private matter.
 
To God, and to one another.

🤷 That would include you as well; what kept you from confession to those against whom you transgressed at that time?

Confession of sin to one another is a private matter.

Just because you never heard anyone confess to another, isn’t proof that it doesn’t happen—it happens all of the time.

The error from your Catholic Apologetic link:Psalm 32:3-5 (by King David)

*3 When I kept silent about my sin, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. *

4 For day and night Your hand was heavy upon me; my vitality was drained away as with the fever heat of summer.

5
* I acknowledged my sin to you,*** and my iniquity I did not hide; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; and you forgave the guilt of my sin.

The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him.
For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock that hath horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.”

—Clement (known by Paul: Php 4:3) in his First Epistle to the CorinthiansWas Clement wrong, CM, when he says, “The Lord desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him.” ???

Confession to one another concerns transgressions to one another, and they are a private matter.
How is confession to the person we have offended by our sin separate from our confession to God?

How is confession to the Church, represented by the Priest separate from our confession to God.

And just a detail about David. He didn’t even realize his sin until Samuel poignantly brought it to his attention with the story of the poor man’s lamb. So David “confessed” to God, but looks to me like he had help from God’s minister, the prophet Samuel.
 
Church Militant:
One question I don’t see MD and company answering is, if you obey the scripture in St. James 5:16 to “confess your sins to one another” then who exactly are you confessing those sins to?
Of whom is James referring when he says “one to another.” He’s making no distinction between “layman” and “clergy.” A separation that developed later in church history. James makes no reference or inference to confessing sins for Divine “absolution” (forgiveness), but it is stated in the context of being healed (physical).

Remember, James approved of both Peter’s and Paul’s gospel in which they proclaimed the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ.Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”
 
40.png
CentralFLJames:
You completely ducked the majority of the things I mentioned that prove you wrong. Listen MD, you can run but you can’t hide. There is no such thing as automatic forgivness of sin nor is there any such thing as Once Saved Always Saved. No one is saved until they are judged to be saved - PERIOD.
I don’t think I have to disprove assertions. It’s you who needs to prove what you assert.

By “no such things as automatic forgiveness,” I assume you mean that God does not completely and perfectly forgiven men of ALL sins at the time of belief in Christ. Yet that IS the Apostolic message of the cross of Christ as recorded in Scripture. Please consider Paul’s teaching to the church with this warning:Col. 2:8-14 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete (this would require the forgiveness of ALL sins), and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us ALL our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."This wasn’t some sort of misunderstood teaching on his part. He begins his letter with:Col 1:14 "…in whom (Christ) we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."He states that his ministry to the Gentiles, commissioned to him by Christ Himself, was:Acts 26:18 "…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God (i.e., through faith in Christ), that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’"If the Law of Moses taught us anything it was that apart from the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins:Heb 9:22 "And according to the Law, {one may} almost {say,} all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.The Apostolic proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, through faith in Christ, is based on Christ shedding His blood to inaugurate the new covenantMatt 26:28 "…for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."Under the Old Covenant priests offered sacrifice year after year. Those sacrifices served only as a reminder of sins, they had no power to take them away (read Hebrews chapter 10). But Christ inaugurated the NEW covenant with the shedding of His blood on the cross. And based on this, once for all, blood sacrifice of the New Covenant, God forgives and remembers no more the sins of all who believe in Christ:Heb 10:9-18 "…then He said, “Behold I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (time).

Every priest (O.T., there are no priests (Gr. hiereus) under the N.C.) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for 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 one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them." {He then says,} “and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.The Scriptural teaching regarding the believer’s sins is that upon belief in Christ he is completely forgiven and his sins are remembered no more. Something the sacrifices under the O.C. could not do.
You completely and utterly reject the plain simple scriptural truth that we are told explicitly “Confess your sins to each other”.
But you do not address the fact that James states nothing there about confessing (acknowledging) sin for the purpose of Divine absolution.

The Apostle John writes:1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."They’re forgiven for His sake because of what He endured on the cross that they might be forgiven upon faith in Him.
Priests forgive sin “through Him” and every Catholic believes in Christ and His word when He said “EVERYTHING in heaven has been given to me - those sins YOU forgive are FORGIVEN those sins YOU hold bound ARE held bound.”
Yet that passage states nothing about forgiving sins based on their confessing sins to them. That notion is read into the passage. Nor is there any historical record of any such activity occurring. Instead they proclaimed the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ.
 
40.png
mercygate:
What about the passage in James, where we are counseled to confess our sins “to one another”?
James says confess (acknowledge) your sins one to another. He states nothing about confessing for the purpose of obtaining Divine absolution (forgiveness). As I told CM, the context is physical healing not absolution.
What about the passage in 2 Cor where the incestuous man is reconciled to the church through the ministry of Paul?
This occurred in the context of church discipline (which is also the context of the James passage). A whole different context, MG. It has nothing to do with confessing for absolution.
You make it sound like sacramental confession shows lack of faith.
It is my opinion that the sacrament denies the revealed fact that upon faith in Christ the believer’s sins (all of them, past, present, future) are Divinely and sovereignly forgiven by God. It denies that He has done so, has the power through the blood of Christ to do so, and is “just,” because of the blood, when He does so.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, admitting our faults and sins to another sinner puts the mark of conviction on our penitence. It takes humility.
I agree it take humility. But forgiveness of sins is through faith, not humility. What I don’t agree with is the power of absolution you give to the confessor. The believer’s sins are already forgiven by God upon belief in Christ. He has the right to do so.
We believe our sins are forgiven.
Then why do you seek forgiveness through men?
But since the Apostles were given the authority to forgive and retain sins, we approach our appointed pastors to receive this beautiful grace on the terms Our Lord has offered.
Christ nowhere offers forgiveness of sins on the basis of confessing them. Jesus did not say to the Apostles that they were to absolve sins based on men confessing their sins to them. That’s nowhere to be found in Jn. 20:23. It states nothing there about forgiving or retaining sins based on confessing or not confessing them. Such a notion is being read into that verse.
God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and the resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins
;
Can you show me where it is stated in Scripture that the Holy Spirit was sent for the purpose of forgiving sins? Christ defined His ministry in the world (not in the church) as convicting it (the world) of sin, righteousness and judgment. But He states nothing about His ministry being that of forgiving sins.
Confession is the second best thing about being Catholic! Moreover it is the consistent practice of the Church since the Apostolic age.
I disagree that it was practiced “since” the Apostolic age. As I pointed out, there’s no record of it. I would agree that the practice developed and took hold AFTER the Apostolic age, but I see no Apostolic or Scriptural support for it. The Apostolic teaching to the church is that our sins have been forgiven. That in Christ “we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:14).
 
40.png
mercygate:
How is confession to the person we have offended by our sin separate from our confession to God?
James’ direction is to confess sins to one another—to each other, each to the other—confess to the one whom you’ve offended. Confession to God is separate, and at that, not for forgiveness of sins (they’ve been forgiven (Col 2:13ff), but for a cleansing from the defilements of the world (cf 1 Jn 1:9).
40.png
mercygate:
How is confession to the Church, represented by the Priest separate from our confession to God.
James’ direction is to confess sins to one another. James says nothing about that confession being public; and, he says nothing about confession to a “priest.”

That begs the question: is confession to a Priest proper. Which begs the question: is the Priesthood proper.
40.png
mercygate:
And just a detail about David. He didn’t even realize his sin until Samuel poignantly brought it to his attention with the story of the poor man’s lamb. So David “confessed” to God, but looks to me like he had help from God’s minister, the prophet Samuel.
🤷 Are your priests prophets who call attention to your sin in the confessional prior to your confessing it?
 
I don’t think I have to disprove assertions. It’s you who needs to prove what you assert.

By “no such things as automatic forgiveness,” I assume you mean that God does not completely and perfectly forgiven men of ALL sins at the time of belief in Christ. Yet that IS the Apostolic message of the cross of Christ as recorded in Scripture. …

But Christ inaugurated the NEW covenant with the shedding of His blood on the cross. And based on this, once for all, blood sacrifice of the New Covenant, God forgives and remembers no more the sins of all who believe in Christ:Heb 10:9-18 "…then He said, “Behold I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (time).
**I assume you mean that God does not completely and perfectly forgiven men of ALL sins at the time of belief in Christ? **

You know that Catholics believe and scripture confirms that baptism completely forgives all sins present at the time they are baptised. But this is not what we are talking about here and you know it. Why do we constantly have to play these posturing games? Be honest and cut to the chase. We are talking about sins committed after baptism. Baptism may be performed only one time and baptism DOES NOT forgive one of future sins committed. Sacramental confession is the means to have sins that are committed after baptism forgiven. Scripture explicitly states “those sins that you hold bound on earth are held bound in heaven are those and those you lose are loosed in heaven”. The apostolic succession received this authority from the original apostles and they have elected to hold sins bound except through sacramental confession and through sincere acts of contrition when unable to confess sacramentally. Those who try to circumvent the apostolic authority and this apostolic practise are explicitly rejecting those who Christ gave the sole authority to forgive sins. That itself is a damnable offence since it falls under the warning “those who reject you reject Me”. Further Christ did NOT give a universal authority seperate from the apostolic succession for just ANYONE to self forgive their own sins! Heavens NO! Anyone may ask God with a sincere heart for forgivness of sins but it is highly unlikely God will so honor anyone who does this for the sake of refusing to submit to the apostolic authority. Christ never gives false authority. He would not have given the apostle the authority to forgive sins unless it was a real and special authority. You, do NOT have authority to to forgive your own sins - neither do you have forgivness of sins as an automatic function of belief in Christ. That is heretical and non-biblical as well as contrary to explicit apostolic teaching. Its an utter fabrication.
Every priest (O.T., there are no priests (Gr. hiereus) under the N.C.) stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for 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 one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them." {He then says,} “and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer {any} offering for sin.The Scriptural teaching regarding the believer’s sins is that upon belief in Christ he is completely forgiven and his sins are remembered no more. Something the sacrifices under the O.C. could not do.But you do not address the fact that James states nothing there about confessing (acknowledging) sin for the purpose of Divine absolution.
Please, don’t be ridiculous. You spewed a lot of superfluous filler words just to obscure your own private interpretation that NO APOSTLE EVER TAUGHT. Listen, anyone can make the bible say anything they want by slicing and dicing scripture all out of context to re-mosaic it into a spaghetti knot of nonsense. That’s what you have done here. No matter what scriptural references you can string together if your interpretation is a different gospel that what the apostles preached then its utter nonsense and grounds for being burdened by the apostolic curse for false teaching. Don’t you get it? NO APOSTLE EVERY TAUGHT THIS STUFF YOU ARE TRYING TO TEACH. What they taught was a single baptism for the remission of sins and public confession in the Church and forgiveness through the office of the apostolic succession (apostles and ordained bishops & priests ). This is the essence of the apostolic authority of loosing and binding. The Apostles elected among themselves that followers under their teaching MUST first be baptised and then for sins subsequent publicly confess their sins before they would invoke their authority to loose and bind.

I know you don’t like it because you have a life time of sins that you don’t want to be responsbile for and you imagine that any sin you commit is automatically forgiven simply because “you believe in Christ” - but this is an utter LIE and false teaching. The Apostles have passed down to us their doctrine requiring that sins be confessed before they are forgiven. You or no man can change this - only the bishops of the Catholic Church can decide what their requirements are for invoking the authority of loosing and binding. You can’t duck the fact that you have NO authority on your own to forgive sins. You can’t duck that fact that by rejecting the apostolic authority you also reject Christ. PERIOD.

The single significant apostolic succession change that the Catholic Church made to its apostolic criteria for loosing and binding is that she did away with the requirement for public confession of sins since it proved to be to humiliating to the dignity of sinners. So a change was made to make private confessions to only a priest rather than to the entire congregation (with the priest present).
The Apostle John writes:1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."They’re forgiven for His sake because of what He endured on the cross that they might be forgiven upon faith in Him.Yet that passage states nothing about forgiving sins based on their confessing sins to them. That notion is read into the passage. Nor is there any historical record of any such activity occurring. Instead they proclaimed the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ.
No Christian doubts the power of Christ to forgive sins through the infinite merits gained on the cross. You can’t pick a single scripture in isolation that you imagine supports your view and ignore the contradictions elsewhere. The contradiction is in the sole apostolic authority given by Jesus to Loose and Bind. There is NO ESCAPING THIS. Sacramental confession has been established by the apostolic succession as the normative means for forgivness of sins committed after baptism. You may not like it but you simply can not challenge the authority without rejecting Christ. So get over it and get with the program and get biblical.

In all compassion The Church has extended the means to confess sins privately (act of contrition prayer) with the intention of going to sacramental confession as soon as possible. But in this case it is still incumbent for the sinner to willingly embrace humility (as an antidote for pride - the core cause of all sin) and submit to the apostolic authority to release sins at the soonest possibility. In this manner if somone dies with the intention thus made these sins are considered released by desire and intention.

Anything outside of these provisions is a highly dubious practise. God of course has the sole Divine Right to forgive sins confessed non-sacramentally since He alone can read hearts. But it is highly unlikely that anyone can achieve an interior state of contrition if approaching God for forgivness while simultaneously attempting to challenge apostolic authority and bypass the authority of “loosing and binding”.

James
 
You know that Catholics believe and scripture confirms that baptism completely forgives all sins present at the time they are baptised.
I believe Scripture confirms that God Himself forgives sinners of ALL their sins (past, present, future) upon belief in Jesus Christ. The basis for Christ saying that whoever believes in Him “does not come into judgment” (Jn. 5:24), and Paul’s teaching that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
But this is not what we are talking about here and you know it. Why do we constantly have to play these posturing games? Be honest and cut to the chase. We are talking about sins committed after baptism. Baptism may be performed only one time and baptism DOES NOT forgive one of future sins committed.
Baptism forgives no one of sins, God does. And He forgives based on which sins Christ bore on the cross. And according to Scripture He bore them ALL (Col. 2:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:24; Jn. 1:29).
Sacramental confession is the means to have sins that are committed after baptism forgiven.
But then you’d have to conclude that Christ bore on the cross sins only to one’s water baptism. Can you show me where the Apostles actually taught such a differentiation of sins? And are we suppose to write that addendum into our Bibles ourselves per your authority?

For instance, where Paul wrote “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins,” we’re to ink in (per your authority), “prior to water baptism only.” I wonder why Paul neglected that most important distinction, or that Christ neglected to inform him.
Scripture explicitly states “those sins that you hold bound on earth are held bound in heaven are those and those you lose are loosed in heaven”.
And yet nothing is said there about binding or loosing sins, or even the confessing of them. It actually has to do with those within a local church confronting someone in their midst about sinning, not confessing sins for absolutionMatt 18:15-18 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen {to you,} take one or two more with you, so that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed.” If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."The context here is corporate, disciplinary action within a local church. We actually see this played out in Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian church with the man who had his father’s wife. The congregation corporately excommunicated him, he repented, and was brought back into fellowship.
Further Christ did NOT give a universal authority seperate from the apostolic succession for just ANYONE to self forgive their own sins! Heavens NO!
Only God forgives sins, and this He does perfectly and completely based on the cross of Christ. As foreshadowed in the O.T., He forgives sin based on the shedding of blood. Which sins He forgives is based entirely on which sins were laid on the Substitute: That would be ALL OF THEM. Hence, upon belief all the sins of a believer are forgiven since all were laid on Christ.
Anyone may ask God with a sincere heart for forgivness of sins but it is highly unlikely God will so honor anyone who does this for the sake of refusing to submit to the apostolic authority.
If anyone asks God for forgiveness of sins he is doing so in unbelief. IOWs, he refuses to believe the Apostle’s words where he says:Col 2:13-14 "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."Oh, that’s right, we need to ink in what Paul left out: “having forgiven us all our transgressions” (prior to water baptism only).
You, do NOT have authority to to forgive your own sins
That’s true!! But I do have the faith to know that God forgave ALL of them since ALL of them were laid upon the Substitute. And my faith in His word honors Him and glorifies Christ - His Person and work.
Please, don’t be ridiculous. You spewed a lot of superfluous filler words just to obscure your own private interpretation that NO APOSTLE EVER TAUGHT. Listen, anyone can make the bible say anything they want by slicing and dicing scripture all out of context to re-mosaic it into a spaghetti knot of nonsense. That’s what you have done here.
But I’m not the one appending the Apostle’s teachings on Divine forgiveness. I’m not the one having to “ink” something in for it to conform to my own belief system.
 
James says confess (acknowledge) your sins one to another. He states nothing about confessing for the purpose of obtaining Divine absolution (forgiveness). As I told CM, the context is physical healing not absolution.This occurred in the context of church discipline (which is also the context of the James passage). A whole different context, MG. It has nothing to do with confessing for absolution.It is my opinion that the sacrament denies the revealed fact that upon faith in Christ the believer’s sins (all of them, past, present, future) are Divinely and sovereignly forgiven by God. It denies that He has done so, has the power through the blood of Christ to do so, and is “just,” because of the blood, when He does so.I agree it take humility. But forgiveness of sins is through faith, not humility. What I don’t agree with is the power of absolution you give to the confessor. The believer’s sins are already forgiven by God upon belief in Christ. He has the right to do so.Then why do you seek forgiveness through men?Christ nowhere offers forgiveness of sins on the basis of confessing them.
Yes he did. Read John 20:23.
Jesus did not say to the Apostles that they were to absolve sins based on men confessing their sins to them. That’s nowhere to be found in Jn. 20:23. It states nothing there about forgiving or retaining sins based on confessing or not confessing them. Such a notion is being read into that verse.Can you show me where it is stated in Scripture that the Holy Spirit was sent for the purpose of forgiving sins?
Same answer.

Let see what Scripture has to say:

John 20:21-23:

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

This passage clearly shows the following:
  1. Jesus breathed on them and said received the Holy Spirit; which the Apostles did. He then addresses the Apostles, whosever sin you shall forgive, they are forgiven, and who sins they are not retain, they are retain.
  2. In order to forgive sins. The Apostles have to hear confession and know what the sins are.
This passage is not the only one where Jesus grant men to forgive sins.

Here are others:

Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?

Matt. 9:6; Mark 2:10 - Christ forgave sins as a man (not God) to convince us that the “Son of man” has authority to forgive sins on earth.

Luke 5:24 - Luke also points out that Jesus’ authority to forgive sins is as a man, not God. The Gospel writers record this to convince us that God has given this authority to men. This authority has been transferred from Christ to the apostles and their successors.

Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.

John 20:22-23; Matt. 18:18 - the power to remit/retain sin is also the power to remit/retain punishment due to sin. If Christ’s ministers can forgive the eternal penalty of sin, they can certainly remit the temporal penalty of sin (which is called an “indulgence”).

2 Cor. 2:10 - Paul forgives in the presence of Christ (some translations refer to the presences of Christ as “in persona Christi”). Some say that this may also be a reference to sins.

2 Cor. 5:18 - the ministry of reconciliation was given to the ambassadors of the Church. This ministry of reconciliation refers to the sacrament of reconciliation, also called the sacrament of confession or penance.

James 5:15-16 - in verse 15 we see that sins are forgiven by the priests in the sacrament of the sick. This is another example of man’s authority to forgive sins on earth. Then in verse 16, James says “Therefore, confess our sins to one another,” in reference to the men referred to in verse 15, the priests of the Church.

1 Tim. 2:5 - Christ is the only mediator, but He was free to decide how His mediation would be applied to us. The Lord chose to use priests of God to carry out His work of forgiveness.

Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
 
Hi,

The Apostles obviously would not live forever, and sin will always be with us, so they passed the authority on to others.

2Corinthians 2:10, “Whom you pardon anything, I also pardon. Indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I have done for your sakes, IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST.”

The priest says in the confessional, “I absolve you of your sins.” The priest is acting in Personna Christi, in the person of Christ. Since the priest is acting in the person of Christ, then it is Christ to whom you confess your sins. It is Christ alone who remits them. Jesus Christ uses the priest as His voice and His hands.

Moses and the prophets spoke for God in the old covenant, why is it so hard to believe that it would not be the same in the new covenant ?

Matthew 9:5-8, “For which is easier to say, “Your sins are forgiven you, or to say arise and walk? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins” - then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your pallet and go to your house”. And he arose, and went away to his house. But when the crowds saw it, they were struck with fear, AND GLORIFIED GOD WHO HAD GIVEN SUCH POWER TO MEN.”

The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New

John 20:21-23, “He therefore said to them again, ‘Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you’. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’.”

Peace,OneNow1
 
I truly enjoy reading what you all have to say about Confession…
even when some of you disagree with eachother I am still learning.

Confessing my sins to a priest really helps me psychologically and I always leave the confessional happy and free from my sins and I can feel God’s forgiveness and grace.

It would be really sad if confession was not part of the Catholic religion.
 
Yes he did. Read John 20:23.

Same answer.

Let see what Scripture has to say:

John 20:21-23:

21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
I see nothing in this passage about forgiving sins on the basis of their confessing them to the Apostles. Nor do I see in Scripture the practice of men lining up to confess their sins to the Apostles for absolution. What I do see, however, is their proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through FAITH in Christ - but not through confession of them:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."Based on this Apostolic proclamation, wouldn’t confessing sins for the sake of receiving absolution actually be an act of unbelief?
 
I see nothing in this passage about forgiving sins on the basis of their confessing them to the Apostles.

John 20:21-23, “He therefore said to them again, ‘Peace be to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you’. When He had said this, He breathed upon them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’.”

Quote= OneNow1, md how do you forgive or retain without knowing what sin was committed?🤷

Peace, OneNow1
 
md how do you forgive or retain without knowing what sin was committed?🤷

Peace, OneNow1
Based on your logic the Apostles would have had to listen to the confession of sins of all men starting from Jerusalem and stretching outward north, south, east and west. And not just once, but throughout their lives. Yet, not once in Scripture do I read where even one person confessed to an Apostle for the sake of having his sins absolved. How do you explain this?

You would think on Paul’s second and third missionary journeys it would have been recorded that Christians from all the surrounding areas crowded into the cities he visited for the purpose of confessing their sins that they had committed after baptism, for the purpose of having them absolved.

You could argue that that’s why elders (overseers) were appointed in each church, but nowhere is it recorded that these men were instructed to forgive sins, or even had the power to do so, upon hearing men confess them. Your argument would be based on silence.

I contend that you present an erroneous interpretation of that verse and read into it that which is not there or even intended.
 
Based on your logic the Apostles would have had to listen to the confession of sins of all men starting from Jerusalem and stretching outward north, south, east and west. And not just once, but throughout their lives. Yet, not once in Scripture do I read where even one person confessed to an Apostle for the sake of having his sins absolved. How do you explain this?

You would think on Paul’s second and third missionary journeys it would have been recorded that Christians from all the surrounding areas crowded into the cities he visited for the purpose of confessing their sins that they had committed after baptism, for the purpose of having them absolved.

You could argue that that’s why elders (overseers) were appointed in each church, but nowhere is it recorded that these men were instructed to forgive sins, or even had the power to do so, upon hearing men confess them. Your argument would be based on silence.

I contend that you present an erroneous interpretation of that verse and read into it that which is not there or even intended.
That is because you think Scripture is a stand-alone, self-interpreting, owners manual and maintenance manual. But the Bible arose from the Church and early patristic sources are clear about the practice of confession as received from the Apostles. They are clear about Apostolic Succession. And the pieces of the puzzle all fit together in full color when Scripture is read as a product of the Church that produced it.

There is no argument from silence, there is only the refusal to hear the testimony of the Church of the apostolic and sub-apostolic age. For one who reads Scripture from the heart of the Church, Scripture strongly supports Catholic and Orthodox practice. And as you point out, this is exactly how the Apostles, “in the person of Christ” “listen to the confession of sins of all men starting from Jerusalem and stretching outward north, south, east and west. And not just once, but throughout their lives.”

Confession is a beautiful and munificent gift of grace – a touch point of personal contact with Christ through His priests.

A Catholic sees Scripture the way archaeologist sees a single row of cut stones emerging from the desert sand. He does not assume that he has found all there is of the building. He digs down to the bottom and finds revealed a monumental edifice, replete with architectural detail, and frescoes that tell a story one could never guess by looking only at the surface stratum. But you have to know how and where to dig.

“Elders” are not “overseers.” They are “presbyteroi” – that’s where our word “priest” comes from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top