Should Christians Confess Sins to An Earthly Priest?

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9)

I enter on this branch of the subject with sorrowful feelings. I approach it as a sailor would approach some rock on which many gallant ships have made shipwreck. I cannot forget that I have arrived at a point on which millions of so-called Christians have erred greatly, and millions are erring at the present day. But I dare not keep back anything that is Scriptural, for fear of giving offence. The errors of millions must not prevent a minister of the Gospel speaking the truth. If multitudes are hewing out broken cisterns that can hold no water, it becomes the more needful to point out the true fountain. If countless souls are turning aside from the right way, it becomes the more important to show clearly to whom confession ought to be made.

Sin, to speak generally, ought to be confessed to God. He it is whom we have chiefly offended. His are the laws which we have broken. To him all men and women will one day give account. His displeasure is that which sinners have principally to fear. This is what David felt: “Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight” (Psalm 51:4). This is what David practised: I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord” (Psalm 32:5). This is what Joshua advised Achan to do: “My son, give glory to God, and make confession to Him” (Joshua 7:19). The Jews were right when they said, “Who can forgive sins but God only? ” (Mark 2:7).

But must we leave the matter here? Can vile sinners like us ever dare to confess our sins to a holy God? Will not the thought of his infinite purity shut our mouths and make us afraid? Must not the remembrance of His holiness make us afraid? Is it not written of God, that He is ” of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity?” (Hab. 1:13). Is it not said, that He “hates all workers of iniquity?” (Psalm 5:5). Did He not say to Moses, “There shalt no man see My face and live?” (Exodus 33:20). Did not Israel say of old, “Let not God speak with us, lest we die?” (Exodus 20:19). Did not Daniel say, ” How can the servant of this my Lord talk with this my Lord?” (Dan. 10:17). Did not Job say, “When I consider, I am afraid of Him?” (Job xxiii. 15). Did not Isaiah say, “Woe is me, for I am undone; . . . for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts?” (Isaiah 6:5). Does not Elihu say, “Shall it be told Him that I speak? If a man speak, surely he shall be swallowed up” (Job 37:20).

Reader, these are serious questions. They are questions which must and will occur to thoughtful minds. There are many who know what Luther meant when he said. “I dare not have anything to do with an absolute God.” But I thank God, they are questions to which the Gospel supplies a full and satisfactory answer. The Gospel reveals One who is exactly suited to the wants of souls which desire to confess sin.

I say then that sin ought to be confessed to God in Christ. I say that sin ought specially to be confessed to God manifest in the flesh,-to Christ Jesus the Lord,-to that Jesus who came into the world to save sinners,-to that Jesus who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and now lives at the right hand of God to intercede for all who come to God by Him. He that desires to confess sin, should apply direct to Christ.

Christ is a great High Priest. Let that truth sink down into our hearts, and never be forgotten. He is sealed and appointed by God the Father for that very purpose. It is His peculiar office to receive and hear, and pardon and absolve sinners. It is His place to receive confessions and to grant plenary absolutions. It is written in Scripture, ” Thou art a priest for ever.” “We have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens.” “Having an High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 4:14; 6:20; 10:21, 22).

Christ is a High Priest of Almighty power. There is no sin that He cannot pardon, and no sinner that He cannot absolve. He is very God of very God. He is “over all, God blessed for ever.” He says Himself, “I and My Father are one.” He has “all power in heaven and in earth.” He has “power on earth to forgive sins.” He has complete authority to say to the chief of sinners, ” Thy sins are forgiven. Go in Peace.” He has “the keys of death and hell.” When He opens, no man can shut. (Rom. 9:5; John 10:30; Matt. 28:18; Matt 9:6; Luke 7:48, 50; Rev. 1:18; 3:7).

Christ is a High Priest of infinite willingness to receive confession of sin. He invites all who feel their guilt to come to Him for relief. “Come unto Me,” He says, “all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” “If any man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink.” When the penitent thief cried to Him on the cross, He at once absolved him fully, and gave him an answer of peace (Matt. 11:28; John 7:37).

Christ is a High Priest of perfect knowledge. He knows exactly the whole history of all who confess to Him. From Him no secrets are hid. He never errs in judgment. He makes no mistakes. It is written that “He is of quick understanding. He shall not judge after the sight of His eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of His ears ” (Isaiah 11:3). He can discern the difference between the hypocritical professor who is full of words, and the broken-hearted sinner who can scarce stammer out his confession. People may deceive ministers by “good words and fair speeches,” but they will never deceive Christ.

Christ is a High Priest of matchless tenderness. He will not afflict willingly, or grieve any soul that comes to Him. He will handle delicately every wound that is exposed to Him. He will deal tenderly even with the vilest sinners, as He did with the Samaritan woman. Confidence reposed in Him is never abused. Secrets confided to Him are completely safe. Of Him it is right. But when we ask a reason for the practice, we may ask long without getting an answer.

There is no need for such a confession. Christ has not given up His office, and ceased to be a Priest. The saints and angels cannot possibly do more for us than Christ can. They certainly have not more pity or compassion, or goodwill towards our souls.

There is no warrant of Scripture for such a confession. There is not a text in the Bible that bids us confess to dead saints and angels. There is not an instance in Scripture of any living believer taking his sins to them.

There is not the slightest proof that there is any use in such a confession. We do not even know that the saints in glory can hear what we say. Much less do we know that they could help us if they heard. They were all sinners, saved by grace themselves. Where is the likelihood that they could do anything to aid our souls

Reader, the man who turns away from Christ to confess to saints and angels is a deluded robber of his own soul. He is following a shadow, and forsaking the substance. He is rejecting the bread of life, and trying to satisfy his spiritual hunger with sand.

But why, again, should we confess our sins to living priests and ministers, while we have Christ for a High Priest? The Church of Rome commands her members to do so. A party within the Church of England approves the practice as useful, helpful, and almost needful to the soul. But, again, when we ask for Scripture and reason in support of the practice, we receive no satisfactory answer. written, that He will not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax. “He is one that “despiseth not any” (Isaiah 42:3; Job 36:5).

Christ is a High Priest who can sympathise with all that confess to Him. He knows the heart of a man by experience, for He had a body like our own, and was made in the likeness of man. “We have not a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). To Him the words can most truly be applied, which Elihu applied to himself, “Behold, I am according to thy wish in God’s stead; I also am formed out of the clay. Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee” (Job 33:6, 7).

Reader, this great High Priest is the person whom you and I ought specially to employ in our confession of sin. It is only through Him and by Him that we should make all our approaches to God. In Him we may draw near to God with boldness, and have access with confidence (Eph. 3:12). Laying our hand on Him and His atonement, we may come “boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:16). We need no other mediator or priest. We can find no better High Priest. To whom should the sick man disclose his ailment, but the physician? To whom should the prisoner tell his story, but to his legal advocate? To whom should the sinner open his heart and confess his sins, but to Christ?

Why should we confess our sins to angels and dead saints, while we have Christ for a High Priest? Why should we confess to the Virgin Mary, Michael the archangel. John the Baptist. St. Paul, or any other creature in the unseen world? The Church of Rome enjoins such confession as this on her millions of members, and many members of the Church of England seem half disposed to think the Church of Rome is right. But when we ask a reason for the practice, we may ask long without getting an answer.

Is there any need for confessing to priests or ministers There is none. There is nothing they can do for a sinner that Christ cannot do a thousand times better. When Christ has failed the soul that cries to Him it may be time to turn to ministers. But that time will never come.

Is there any Scriptural warrant for confessing to priests or ministers? There is none. There is not a passage in the New Testament which commands it. St. Paul writes three epistles to Timothy and Titus about ministerial duty. But he says nothing about receiving confessions. St. James bids us “confess our faults to one another,” but he says nothing about confessing to ministers. Above all, there is not a single example in the Bible of any one confessing to a minister and receiving absolution. We see the Apostles often declaring plainly the way of forgiveness, and pointing men to Christ. But we nowhere find them telling men to confess to them, and offering to absolve them after confession.

Finally, is any good likely to result from confessing to priests or ministers? I answer boldly, there is none. Ministers can never know that those who confess to them are telling the truth. Those who confess to them will never feel their consciences really satisfied, and will never feel certain that what they confess will not be improperly used. Above all, facts, stubborn facts abound, to show that the practice of confessing to ministers has often led to the grossest and most disgusting immorality. A living writer has truly said, “There is no better school of wickedness on earth than the confessional. History testifies that for every offender whom the confessional has reclaimed, it has hardened thousands; for one it may have saved it has destroyed millions” (Wylie on Popery, p. 329).

Reader, the man who turns away from Christ to confess his sins to ministers, is like a man who chooses to live in prison when he may walk at liberty; or to starve and go in rags in the midst of riches and plenty; or to cringe for favours at the feet of a servant, when he may go boldly to the Master and ask what he will. A mighty and sinless High Priest is provided for him, and yet he prefers to employ the aid of mere fellow sinners like himself! He is trying to fill his purse with rubbish when he may have fine gold for the asking. He is insisting on lighting a rushlight, when he may enjoy the noon-day light of God’s sun!

Reader, if you love your soul, beware of giving to ministers the honour that belongs to Christ alone. He is the true High Priest of the Christian’s profession. He ever lives to receive confessions, and to absolve sinners. Why should we turn away from Him to man Above all, beware of the whole system of the Romish confessional. Of all practices that were ever devised by man, in the name of religion, I firmly believe that none was ever devised so mischievous and objectionable as the confessional. It overthrows Christ’s office, and places man in the seat which should only be occupied by the Son of God. It puts two sinners in a thoroughly wrong position. It exalts the confessor far too high. It places those who confess far too low, it gives the confessor a place which is not safe for any child of Adam to occupy. It imposes on those who confess a bondage to which it is not safe for any child of Adam to submit. It sinks one poor sinner into the degrading attitude of a serf. It raises another poor sinner into a dangerous mastery over his brother’s soul. It makes the confessor little less than a God. It makes those who confess little better than slaves. If you love Christian liberty, if you value inward peace, remember the advice I give you this day. Beware, beware of the slightest approach to the Romish confessional!

Listen not to those who tell you that Christian ministers were intended to receive confessions, and that evangelical teaching makes light of the ministerial office, and strips it of all authority and power. Such assertions are more easily made than proved. We honour the minister’s office highly, but we refuse to give it a hair’s breadth more dignity than we find given in the Word of God. We honour ministers as Christ’s ambassadors, Christ’ s messengers, Christ’s watchmen, helpers of believers’ joy, preachers of the Word, and stewards of the mysteries of God. But we decline to regard them as priests, mediators, confessors, and rulers over men’s faith, both for the sake of their souls and of our own.

Listen not to those who tell you that evangelical teaching is opposed to the exercise of soul-discipline, or heart examination, or self-humiliation, or mortification of the flesh, or true contrition. Opposed to it! There never was a more baseless assertion. We are entirely favourable to it. This only we require, that it shall be carried on in the right way. We approve of a confessional; but it must be the only true one,- the throne of grace. We approve of going to a confessor; but it must be the true one,-Christ the Lord. We approve of submitting consciences to a priest; but it must be to the great High Priest,-Jesus the Son of God. We approve of unbecoming our secret sins, and seeking absolution; but it must be at the feet of the great Head of the Church, and not at the feet of one of His weak members. We approve of kneeling to receive ghostly counsel; but it must be at the feet of Christ, and not at the feet of man.

Reader, beware of ever losing sight of Christ’s priestly office. Glory in His atoning death. Honour Him as your substitute and surety on the cross. Follow Him as your Shepherd. Hear His voice as your Prophet. Obey Him as your King. But in all your thoughts about Christ, let it be often before your mind that He alone is your High Priest, and that He has deputed His priestly office to no order of men in the world. This is the office of Christ, which Satan labours above all to obscure. It is the neglect of this office which leads to every kind of error. It is the remembrance of this office which is the best safeguard against the plausible teaching of the Church of Rome. Once right about this office you will never greatly err in the matter of the confession of sin. You will know to whom confession ought to be made; and to know that rightly is no slight thing.

Note that catholic is almost always the 3rd or 4th most popular keyword, and it is not because of articles as these, but the incessant posting by RC devotees. If they want to do that, then do not complain when her elitists presumptions are challenged.

There are no presumptions in the Catholic Church. The what you call the presumptions of the Church, the Church itself, is never challenged here.

Then you are either one who does not frequent the RF, or you define "challenged" contrary to any dictionary. As i have never seen you here then the former may be the case. Hopefully.

Not one poster hateful of the Church have I ever spoken with here has ever been curious, except the afore mentioned. Not curious enough to consult the theologians, the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications.

As others can attest, multitudes of my heavily referenced posts refuting RCs have been abundantly based upon what theologians, and or the Catechism, Canon law, Catholic publications etc. say, as here , here , here , here , etc.

A challenge like facing a champion boxer in the ring wearing no gloves, wearing street clothes.

Rather, your blindness is like a thief who cannot find a police station.

It’s just a lot of bigotry

Which dismissive is often the recourse of RCs when faced with refutation, while they can assert they have never seen any anti-Prot bigotry here!

You can not find one serious challenge to the Church o FR to cut and paste and post (Now there’s a challenge for you) I have never seen one.

The latter ignorance or blindness the cause of the former. Put your gloves on and respond to some these i posted recently , which are based upon Catholic teaching or apologetic, which i can show.

it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as

• an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

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.

IGNORE...