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

[mercygate]

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).

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.

Are your priests prophets who call attention to your sin in the confessional prior to your confessing it?

David’s sin was not hidden. A good confessor often asks the key question that reveals your weaknesses to you in a way that enables more fruitful repentance.

As for the other points you make in this post, all of that has been well covered elsewhere with you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.”
​

You must be bind then? You claim you see nothing in this passaging on the basis of their confession their sins.

Do you expect the Bible to be a Field Manual for Christians like those that the US Army have for Field Manuals on how to survive on the forest and the how to use weapons?

Christianity is not the religion of the book, my distorted Christian friend. Second, the Didache written around 50 AD (around the time the Apostles live give instructions to new Christians to confess their sins. In 50 AD, the Apostles were very much alive.

The Didache states;

4:14 thou shalt confess thy transgressions in the Church, and shalt not come unto prayer with an evil conscience. This is the path of life.

The Didache is concerned by many Christian historians and theologians as a early form of catechesis for converts to the faith.

Second, in Matthew 3:1-6 states the following:

Matt.3
[1]
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,

[2] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
[3] For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.”
[4] Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan,
[6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.​

 

[Mannyfit75]

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.

Your interpretation is erroneous because you completely ignore Jesus’ own words that he gave the Apostles to the ability to forgive sins through the power of the Holy Spirit. You seen to deny this very fact.

Who is telling the truth? Jesus or you? I trust Jesus than some new doctrine made by some Protestant Christian who apparently do not have a clue what he is talking about.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Moondweller your OSAS fundamentalism is one of the worst heresies to ever come into the planet. It is not sustainable by scripture and is not apostolically taught and it is a substantially NEW gospel never taught ANYWHERE on the planet until the 1500s. You are spreading one of the worst lies to ever befall Christianity and are directly participating in heresy by teaching people this nonsense that the apostle Paul tells us is worthy of a curse and damnable.

Take heed - that’s all I have to say to you since you refuse to even read clear scriptural text that contradict everything you are saying.

James

 

[Mannyfit75]

Moondweller your OSAS fundamentalism is one of the worst heresies to ever come into the planet. It is not sustainable by scripture and is not apostolically taught and it is a substantially NEW gospel never taught ANYWHERE on the planet until the 1500s. You are spreading one of the worst lies to ever befall Christianity and are directly participating in heresy by teaching people this nonsense that the apostle Paul tells us is worthy of a curse and damnable.

Take heed - that’s all I have to say to you since you refuse to even read clear scriptural text that contradict everything you are saying.

James

OSAS developed later over time. It did not exist during the reformation. It is based on faith alone but not all Protestants believe in OSAS.

 

[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.

Quote= OneNow1. How about this md even to this day priests do not go about revealing private matters to the public at large.

And let’s not forget the woman at the well.

2Corinthians 5:17-20, “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave US Apostles the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

I believe in the above passage the word US refers to the apostles and there represenitives, who God gave the MINISTRY of reconciloiation.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[CentralFLJames]

OSAS developed later over time. It did not exist during the reformation. It is based on faith alone but not all Protestants believe in OSAS.

Actually the word “developed” imparts a false positive perspective - it really should be something like “OSAS devolved as a progressive heresy coming out of the Reformation”.
Anyway, I agree but it certainly had its roots in Lutherian scrupulosity.

As an aside this may be Luther’s greatest contribution to humanity - proving that scrupulosity and mental illness in the presence of ignorance and chauvinistic self determination are highly contagious.

James

 

[moondweller]

Quote= OneNow1. How about this md even to this day priests do not go about revealing private matters to the public at large.

And let’s not forget the woman at the well.

The woman at the well didn’t kneel before Jesus and confess her sins. He Himself revealed them to her, there was no humble confession coming out of her. By her response she agreed with Him but she didn’t come to Him confessing. When you enter the confessional does the priest reveal your sins to you?

2Corinthians 5:17-20, “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave US Apostles the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, GOD making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”

I believe in the above passage the word US refers to the apostles and there represenitives, who God gave the MINISTRY of reconciloiation.

Peace, OneNow1

“Us” does refer directly to the Apostles whom He sent. It states nothing about some so-called “representatives” of theirs. He gave them the WORD of reconciliation, that is, the word concerning Christ’s work of reconciliation on the cross. A work that had to be divinely revealed to them. A “finished” work appropriated to the sinner by the Holy Spirit at the time of belief in Christ. The “word of reconciliation” is a proclamation of reconciliation to God, just as is forgiveness of sins (Acts 13:38).

Their “word of reconciliation” and proclamation of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ was then hard copied in the theopneustos Scriptures. Believers everywhere may now, by the authority of the Scriptures (God’s Word), proclaim reconciliation with God and forgiveness of all sins through faith in Jesus Christ. This is the gospel (good news).

 

[CentralFLJames]

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 lack of insight and contrary to history you would take it that the apostles were unfruitful in the apostolic mission and did not appoint any new bishops or priests and just ran around the countryside talking to people and baptising.

Perhaps its time to reacquaint yourself with God’s Word rather than try to second guess what “ought to be in the bible according to Moondweller”

John 21:25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

Funny how I don’t see a word in the bible about many of the other writings that Paul referenced in his speeches nor all of his works that we know must have existed. Why don’t we have details about Jesus life between the time in the temple and his public ministry? Why don’t we have accounts of the Sanhedrin’s questioning Lazarus for being raised from the dead when they were informed (and probable shaken to their core with fear over what it implied). Why don’t we have biblical accounts of how not one person was ever converted in a revival tent with gospel singing and hand-clapping.

Come on dude - get real.

James