Posted on 12/13/2015 3:12:46 PM PST by NYer
"Yep."
"Even the Confession thing?"
"Yeah. All the time."
One older lady gasped, "Well, I think that that would be the worst.
It would be so depressing; hearing all about people’s sins."
I think there are three things.
First, I see the costly mercy of God in action.
I get to regularly come face to face with the overwhelming, life-transforming power of God’s love.
I get to see God's love up-close and it reminds me of how good God is.
I see a saint in the making.
The second thing I see is a person who is still trying – a saint in the making.
I don't care if this is the person’s third confession this week; if they are seeking the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it means that they are trying.
That's all that I care about.
This thought is worth considering: going to Confession is a sign that you haven’t given up on Jesus.
1. He will not be disappointed! What your priest will see is a person who is trying! I dare you to find a saint who didn’t need to God’s mercy! (Even Mary needed God's mercy; she received the mercy of God in a dramatic and powerful way at her conception.
Boom. Lawyered.)
So often, people will ask if I remember people's sin from Confession.
As a priest, I rarely, if ever, remember sins from the confessional.
That might seem impossible, but the truth is, sins aren’t all that impressive.
They aren’t like memorable sunsets or meteor showers or super-intriguing movies… they are more like the garbage.
Honestly, once you realize that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is less about the sin and more about Christ's death and resurrection having victory in a person's life, the sins lose all of their luster, and Jesus' victory takes center stage.
In Confession, we meet the life transforming, costly love of God… freely given to us every time we ask for it. We meet Jesus who reminds us, "You are worth dying for .. even in your sins, you are worth dying for."
Whenever someone comes to Confession, I see a person who is deeply loved by God and who is telling God that they love Him back.
That's it, and that's all.
Not according to Scripture.
24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 5:24
13When 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, 14having 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. Colossians 2:13-14
Indeed, but which manifests misuse or ignorance of Scripture, as this is not restricted to ordained ministers. And though NT presbuteros are to be the primary ministers in this, yet nowhere in the life of the church are New Testament ministers called priests ("hiereus, " being the distinctive word for them).
God does have regard to the intercession of believers in removing His hand of chastisement/forgiving sin, as the Lord did in healing the palsied man, (Mk. 2:9-11) and which the sick can be too weak to confess, and or can be sins of ignorance. But while NT presbuteros are the primary ministers in the prayer of faith which looses one from infirmity, yet apart from judicial binding and loosing, which flows from the OT magisterium in cases brought to them, (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 18:15-18) spiritually this power is extended to all believers, so that all holy believers of fervent prayer can engage in such, as Elijah did in binding up the heavens for 3.5 years and loosing them.
And which is the only exhortation to confess sins to others in the NT, that being in the general context of all believers.
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)
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. (James 5:16)
Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:17-20)
To proclaim the gospel with the authority of Christ
Which again, all believers are commissioned to do, and the Lord Himself affirmed the deliverance ministry done in His name by one who was not part of the apostle's company, and whom they censured. (Mk. 9:38-40)
Moreover, it does not follow that those whom Christ appointed to proclaim the gospel He (including by writers of holy Writ) infallibly proclaimed are themselves protected from error, anymore than those who sat in the seat of Moses were. Instead of the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture, the church actually began with souls following itinerant preachers established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did their Lord. e (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
to govern the Church in His stead (cf. Luke 22:29-30),
Luke 22:29-30 is actually talking about judging the twelve tribes of Israel, which flows from the apostles being chosen (Lk. 6:13) and appearing to and charged with commission, though they were not alone, (Lk. 24:9,33) and only that foundational number (cf, Rv. 21:14) was maintained, this being thru the OT method of casting lots. (Acts 1:26)
Thus only one was manifestly chosen, and no more, even after the apostle James was martyred. (Acts 12:1,2). Moreover, Rome's so-called apostolic successors were never elected by the non-political method of casting lots, while they fail of both the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:10; 12:12)
and to sanctify her through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist (cf. John 6:54, I Cor. 11:24-29)
Wrong, first due to the fact that, contrary to the literalistic (many Caths deny it is the Lord's actual flesh and blood) Cath miscontruance, only the metaphorical understanding of the Lords Supper is supported by the totality of Scripture, as extensively shown here by the grace of God.
And as regards Jn. 6:54, which goes along with v. 53, this is just as much an unequivocal imperative as other "verily verily" statements, and to be consistent with the Cath literalistic error, this would mean one must believe and receive the Cath Eucharist in order to have spiritual and eternal life. Which "official" (subject to interpretation) modern Cath teaching denies.
Instead, NT presbuteros were to feed the flock the word of God via preaching, which is said to build them up, (Acts 20:28,32) and nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) that being their primary ordained duty along with prayer, (Acts 6:4) versus physically feeding people.
Thus in the life of the church - interpretive of the gospels out of of which Caths erroneously extrapolate much - you cannot even find priests officiating at the Lord's supper (which is only described in one epistle, besides it being a "feast of charity in Jn. 1:12), nor it being treated as in Catholicism, as the source and summit of the Christian life around which all revolves, with priests engaging in turning bread and wine into "real flesh" to be offered as a sacrifice for sin and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life.
As for I Cor. 11:24-29, your wresting of this verse ignores the immediate context, which begins in v. 17, and in which the body of Christ is the church, which some were not recognizing as being the Lord's body by treating others as if they were not part of that body, going ahead and eating independently, of others and leaving them hungry and thus "shame them that have not," contrary to the love Christ showed in purchasing the body, (Acts 20:28) whose death they were supposed to be showing/declaring by this very communal meal. And the larger context is also that of the church being referred to as the body of Christ, and interpreting "this is my body" as representing His death.
And which, contrary to physically eating to obtain spiritual life, which is nowhere seen, is consistent with Scripture, in which men are called "bread" for Israel, as they are for a land, and the word of God is eaten, and the water obtained at the risk of the lives of men is plainly said to be their blood, and poured out unto the Lord as an offering. More .
Which, along with many of things, leaves Catholicism to basically be the invisible church in Scripture, while some of her servant supporters are also anti-historical America as well, and seek to censure all who expose her lack of clothes.
The end.
Other than the general priesthood (hieráteuma) of all believers .
There were no NT *priests* when Jesus gave that instruction and that idea of reconciliation has to do with individual believers and personal disputes, not a blanket delegated authority to forgive ALL sin.
The priesthood was done away with when Jesus became our great high priest.
The book of Hebrews addresses it more than clearly.
If I am in dispute with my believing brother and we discuss it and confess the sin and the other forgives, then the matter is settled, not to be brought up again. It’s a done deal and reconciliation between believers have been accomplished, which is NOT done when a person doesn’t confront the other person with whom they have the disagreement.
Going to *confession* and having a priest *forgive* your sins, does nothing to restore the relationship between you and the brother or sister with whom you are at odds. That has to be done in an individual, face to face level.
God HIMSELF will forgive our sins if we confess them.
That is HIS promise to us, we have that as a certainty.
If God is going to do it anyway, then we don’t need a priest to do it and especially, we don’t need a priest to claim to *retain* our sins if he doesn’t think we’re sincere enough.
Clear as can be.
Unless someone WANTS to think that God won’t do what He promised.
The fallacy in YOPIOS, is that those who "believe in Christ" are henceforth cleared of any sins they commit, assuming they recognize some action as a sin (definition?). They are free to sin on a daily basis for there are no repercussions from those sins because they are "saved".
All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ's finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.
Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism - sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its.aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, "the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God "had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
What John is suggesting when he uses this description of Jesus imparting the Holy Spirit by breathing on them, that Jesus is bringing about, in all of them, a new creation. We will be different now from the human beings we were before because we're filled with God's spirit in a way we never were before.
My take on this is that as a Protestant, my confession is directly to Jesus; however I think that making such a confession of sins to my pastor, an elder, or deacon in the congregation is also useful as that forces me to acknowledge publicly, if in confidence of what I have done wrong/sinned.
I see the Roman Catholic of confessing to a priest as being in the tradition of telling others one’s sins. The priest cannot absolve the sins, but provides one to whom you know that knows your sins in addition to Jesus. The priest giving a penance is to help one reflect on the sin and hopefully learn NOT to sin any more.
my bottomline is that “confession is good for the soul and bad for one’s reputation” and that is a good thing, for one is thus truthful in public.
The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: The Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:
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.
thank you. Personally, I don’t get wrapped up over confession being made in private prayer, to a priest or to my minister or a fellow elder; when I’m seeking resolution to wrongs in my life.
Getting the ‘sin off one’s chest’ is the goal in my view and clearing the way to move one’s life toward or back toward what God wants is to be and do.
And it we’ll find out when we get to heaven if we’ve correctly interpreted what Jesus taught. :-)
Yes he can! He does so by virtue of the authority passed down to him through the laying on of hands from the time of the Apostles who received this command from Jesus: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’" (John 20:21-23). How else to can this be done other than through an oral confession.
Among christians, it is generally agreed that regular confession of one’s sins is obviously necessary to remain in good relationship with God. So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?"
Is there any record of a priest not forgiving anyone sins?
Here is where Greek reveals your claim is based on a poor translation of the passage.
For your edification...
-----------------------
20:23 The Great Commission not only requires supernatural power to carry it out (v. 22), but it also involves the forgiveness of sins (cf. Jer. 31:31-34, Matt. 26:28). In the similar passages in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18, the context is church discipline. Here the context is evangelism.
The second part of each conditional clause in this verse is in the passive voice and the perfect tense in the Greek text. The passive voice indicates that someone has already done the forgiving or retaining. That person must be God since He alone has the authority to do that (Matt. 9:2-3, Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21). The perfect tense indicates that the action has continuing effects; the sins stand forgiven or retained at least temporarily if not permanently.
Jesus appears to have been saying that when His disciples went to others with the message of salvation, as He had done, some people would believe and others would not. Reaction to their ministry would be the same as reaction to His had been. He viewed their forgiving and retaining the sins of their hearers as the actions of God’s agents.
If people ("any" or "anyone," plural Gr. tinon) believed the gospel, the disciples could tell the believers that God had forgiven their sins. If they disbelieved, they could tell them that God had not forgiven but retained their sins. Jesus had done this (cf. 9:39-41), and now His disciples would continue to do it. Thus their ministry would be a continuation of His ministry relative to the forgiveness of sins, as it would be in relation to the Spirit’s enablement. This, too, applies to all succeeding generations of Jesus’ disciples since Jesus was still talking about the disciples’ mission.
". . . all who proclaim the gospel are in effect forgiving or not forgiving sins, depending on whether the hearer accepts or rejects the Lord Jesus as the Sin-Bearer."
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Jn 20:23).
So since you cannot,
find one single NT church pastor ( presbuteros/episkopos) titled hiereus though that is the distinctive word for priests (and see here before you attempt to defend or and or use the RC etymological fallacy );
and or find NT church pastors having a distinct sacrificial function;
and thus you cannot find any promise or commission to NT church priests to forgive sins;
nor can you find one single example in which a NT church pastor distinctively hears confessions and gives absolution;
and or one command or exhortation to confess sins distinctively to NT pastors who binds or looses them;
and or find where the power of binding and loosing is distinctively possessed by NT pastors, except in the judicial sense of church discipline in settling disputes; nor where the latter is unique to the NT and requires or infers the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility;
while the only NT priesthood is that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) who are all called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9)
and the only exhortation to confess faults/sins is a general one to each other;
and the power of binding and loosing is provided for all holy living believers of fervent prayers such as Elijah exampled;
then you must resort to repeating the same texts from the gospels out of which you extrapolate something foreign to what the rest of the NT, interpretive of the gospels, reveals this to mean!
So the issue is not whether we should or should not confess our sins. Rather, the real issue is, How does God say that our sins are forgiven or retained?"
To begin to answer that, we need to examine how it is used. If the Cath position is correct, then consistent with the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit in showing us the call, and names as well as the requirements and functions of the apostles in the NT church, and even their marital status, and so much of the travels and experiences of Peter and Paul, then we must expect to see examples of church members coming to them to confess sins and obtain absolution, and exhortations to distinctively do so, and thus defining binding and loosing.
But which we simply do not, but instead we see binding and loosing as mainly pertaining to discipline, and believers also having the spiritual power of binding and loosing.
The only power of binding and loosing that distinctively pertains to the church magisterium is that of judicial judgments as pertains to church discipline, which is what the oft-quoted text of Mt. 18L15-17 pertains to (though by extension is applies also to Acts 15), and which, as said, flows from the OT.
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:8,9)
But ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was not required for authority nor promised anywhere in Scripture.
As forgiveness more particularly, besides remission for sins that are past, (Rm. 3:25) and effectual faith also appropriating justification in the present, (Rm. 3:26ff) thereby placing souls accepted in the Beloved. (Eph. 1:6) God can deal with present sins, as a father with his children, that are not repented from, including sins of ignorance and character faults, for which repentance God works to chasten the believer to do (as well as to effect Job-type purity and victorious character in the Godly).
And in which He can let such go free in heeding the intercessory prayers of others in preventing or removing His hand of judgment, which Job prevention did in praying for his prosperity preacher friends, not biding them to their sins for judgment, and likewise deacon Stephen did, (Acts 7:60) following the Lord's example. (Lk. 23:34) And which can include deliverance from chastisement for sins of ignorance, or which one may be too weak to deal with. Note that healing can be synonymous with forgiveness, as seen by the Lord healing the palsied man, (Mk. 2) as the latter effects the former.
Likewise God can heed believers in binding one in iniquity as a judgment against them, such as in cases in which one has sinned against the body and they have a case against him.
The incestuous man of 1Cor. 5 is a clear case of this, in which a man who is supposed to be a brother is engaging in a gross sin not heard of among the Gentiles, and Paul, together with the body, binds that man over to the devil to have at him, that perhaps his soul may be saved thru chastisement of the flesh. Note that the wicked can also be God's sword. (Ps. 17:13)
And this apparently having its desired effect repentance, the man did not come to Paul for absolution, but he exhorted the church body to forgive him, Paul said "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ." (2 Corinthians 2:10)
Paul also can be seen binding Hymenaeus and Alexander to their sin in also delivering them "unto Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme," (1Tim. 1:10) as well as Alexander the coppersmith that "the Lord reward him according to his works," (2Tim. 4:14)
Which we can see the psalmist doing in such imprecatory Psalms as 69 ("Pour out thine indignation upon them...Add iniquity unto their iniquity").
Peter bound Ananias and Sapphira to their in judgment in Acts 5, and another case is that of Simon the magician, whom Peter did not have a right heart toward God. Thus Peter told him to "repent if perhaps Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. (Acts 8:22,23)
Which was not a good place to be left in, and thus, while Peter told him to ask God for forgiveness, Simon wisely asked for intercessory prayer, but the only prescription by Peter was for Simon to repent and ask for forgiveness.
Thus we see magisterial judicial binding and loosing in church discipline but nowhere is there the practice of coming to the apostles or pastors for confession, much less on a regular basis, nor of them distinctively having the spiritual power of binding and loosing.
For as Mt. 18 goes on to say in a general sense to all, searching
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:18-20)
We can hardly presume this promise is restricted to the apostles.
And while NT pastors are to primarily be the ones to intercede for the sick, including deliverance from chastisement and or mercy for the covering of sins of ignorance, and to provide the prayer of faith, yet the the only exhortation to confess sins is given in the general sense as to each other:
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. Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (James 5:16-20)
This exhortation to confession, and promise of covering sins is surely not restricted to the clergy, and in addition we have the clear promise of 1 John 1:9:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Which corresponds to the Lord's instructions to praise and ask God, not the church, for bread and forgiveness, and Hebrews tells us believers have direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of the Lord Jesus, (Heb. 10:19) though the prayers of some can be more effectual than others.
However, consistent with her autocratic bureaucracy like the empire she found herself in, Rome insists on interposing herself btwn God and man, directing souls to herself for regular confession of any sins, and to created beings in Heaven in prayer, which the Holy Spirit also provides zero examples of.
But as has been abundantly manifest by now, Scripture is not the supreme authority for Caths, but it a superfluous support, and often an abused servant to support Rome.
From what i see we are to forgive the ignorant, and while provision for redress of personal injustices is provided for, (Mt. 18:15-18) not in vengeance, but perhaps for discipline and peace in upholding holiness, yet the higher call is to allow one to due us wrong, (1Co. 6:7) if not in a continual practice.
Through faith in Christ, they are forgiven. Anybody who has to ask the question, lacks faith in Christ and is already not in fellowship.
The only fallacy is the repeated misrepresentation of the Evangelical position.
True, we are cleared of any and all sins, those we have committed and those yet to be committed. We have been FORGIVEN, once for all and TRANSFERRED into the kingdom of the Son God loves.
We are saved. Finished. Done deal.
Our sin cannot separate us from God because IN CHRIST, that relationship has been restored and God sees us as and with the righteousness of Christ.
The notion that we think we can then sin with impunity and do live that way if we know we are secure in our salvation is a fallacy from the pit and has been corrected many times on this forum and yet it STILL gets repeated on a regular basis, as if nobody has ever addressed it before.
When we sin, there are consequences. God doe snot let His children continue in sin. However, instead of it casting us our salvation, He disciplines us, for our good, with the natural consequences of our actions.
Our sin usually leaves a mess for us to work through and clean up here on earth, even though we are already and still saved.
Baptism is NOT how sins are forgiven. Confession is.
If baptism saves, then why aren't Catholics sure they are going to heaven? If baptism saves, then it must work and it must work all the time, so that even gross sinners like Stalin and Hitler are saved.
To say that salvation is dependent on keeping current with sacraments puts salvation on a works level, something that one merits if one is good enough, which nullifies the grace of God.
Then you are back to Judaism, where they thought that salvation was by keeping the Law.
It's NOT.
You have a chapter and verse on that where Christ gave that formula to His disciples so that if they recited it, the person’s sins were magically erased?
What if the priest says it wrong? Then what? No forgiveness?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.