The Sacrament of Confession Part Two
I. Introduction
In my previous post, I explained problems with many of the Evangelical views on Baptism. Now, however, I wish to show problems with the Roman Catholic view.
II. The Case of King David
One of the cases cited for the Catholic view of private confession is King David's confession of his sins to Nathan the prophet in 2 Samuel 12. Several books from this perspective have been written on this, which seek to defend this understanding according to scripture. It has been claimed, for instance, that after the king committed adultery with Bathsheba, he needed a religious leader for the forgiveness of his sins.
However, while the case of David confessing his sin to Nathan the Prophet is an interesting one, can this case emphasize the standards of the New Testament Church? Nathan was not an apostle, after all, but a prophet before Christ. Thus, the parallel of David's confession to an Old Testament prophet does not seem entirely connected to Christians today going to priests for confession. But even if we acknowledge that there is continuity between David's confession and our own, the Old Testament nowhere implies that David had to confess to Nathan for the forgiveness of his sins. At most, the case of David's confession to Nathan would illustrate to us a biblical case of seeking wise counsel for our prior or current sins. Secondly, while Nathan does assure David that God has forgiven the king of his sin (2 Samuel 12:13), the prophet again, at best, assures the king of God's forgiveness rather than absolve David of the sin. Thirdly, even if it could be proven that David only received forgiveness by virtue of his confession to Nathan, we should recall that the king still lived in the days of the Old Testament, before Jesus's one sacrifice on the cross substituted the slaying of animals for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, I don't think any of the Roman Catholic arguments addressed is proven from scripture. The case of David's confession of sin is important for many reasons, though not in laying the foundation for the later Catholic practice of the necessity of private confession (as the Fourth Lateran taught).
III. Further Problems with the Roman Catholic View
The New Testament does not teach that one should confess only mortal sins, to the exclusion of or including Venial sins. Nor does the New Testament teach anything about Masses for the dead, indulgences, the treasury of Merits, or Purgatory as a place (in recent years, Pope Benedict XVI has suggested simply that believers are purged before entering Heaven). Thus, there are significant problems with the Roman Catholic understanding of confession and the mentioned topics, which are all related to it.
In fact, we don't see the smallest glimpse of most of these ideas in the New Testament at all. Not only are many of these practices absent from scripture, however, but many of them didn't even exist in the early centuries. Paying for indulgences and observing relics didn't occur until the eleventh century (primarily during the Crusades). Likewise, the concept of treasury of merits was formatted as late as the thirteenth century. If these practices had existed since the time of the Apostles, then it is likely that we would see them practiced in not just the Catholic Church but the Orthodox Church as well. However, especially after the so-called Great Schism of 1054, the church of Rome gradually added more and more doctrines to her faith, which had not descended from the Apostles.
Not only does the Catholic Church hold private confession in high regard (which arguably didn't exist in the ancient church), but Catholicism, since the 13th century (at least formally), has taught this form of confession is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. However, there is nothing about this in Scripture. Even if the context of James 5:16 was about private confession, the passage never holds the sacrament of penance/confession as necessary for the forgiveness of sins and salvation. In fact, there is far more biblical evidence that baptism and the Eucharist contribute to our salvation and our necessary for it than there is that private confession to a priest somehow brings us more into a right standing with God.
Furthermore, David confessed his sins to God (Psalm 51). Nothing in the passage implies that he confessed to a Hebrew priest or prophet. Even if he had, however, the fact that this was not messaged here seems to imply that it would not have been necessary for the forgiveness of his sins.
IV. The Gospels and the Forgiveness of Sins
The New Testament gives us some important glimpses into early Christian confession. Below, I will discuss some of them.
Probably at the heart of the many theological discussions of Confession is what Jesus taught about it in John 20, which remains one of the most important passages in this debate. In this chapter, Catholic apologists argue that in order to be forgiven of sins, one must confess to a priest. Their reasoning is based on Jesus breathing on the Apostles in this passage, as he gives them the authority to forgive others of their sins.
While some Evangelicals have argued that John 20:23 is simply about the assurance others feel from a pastor granting forgiveness, Lutherans argue this is not the case. The authority that Jesus gives the Apostles in John 20 is not simply to tell others they are forgiven but actually to forgive them. Likewise, while John Calvin interpreted this passage as concerning the preaching of Christ, nothing about that is found here. John 20 is quite clearly about Jesus giving the Apostles the power to forgive others of sins.
Outside of the Gospel of John, though, we see other examples of Confession in the New Testament. One of the most important, besides John 23, is in the Gospel of Luke. In Luke 10:1, Jesus sends out the seventy (who the Lutheran article below argues are pastors) to do his bidding. In verse 16, we learn that he says those who hear them hear him, but anyone who rejects them rejects him. The fact that the seventy were church leaders shows that the power to forgive others of their sins did not cease with the original twelve. For those who allege that scripture does not explicitly refer to the seventy as pastors and then assume they weren't pastors, what arrogance has so filled their minds to think that they know more than the fathers? Furthermore, the Lutheran article provides evidence for it believes the seventy to be other church leaders:
https://in.lcms.org/hearing-jesus-through-pastors/
In the provided Lutheran article, it is argued that the character of Jesus's language to the seventy shows that they had the power of absolution. I highly recommend all reading this post to check this article out.
For those who argue that the seventy were not pastors in Luke 10, they should see this Eastern Orthodox list, based on the teachings of the Fathers, that shows essentially all (or near all of the seventy were themselves) church clergy:
Dr. Jordan Cooper, a Lutheran theologian, has a helpful ten-minute video on the topic of confession and absolution according to Scripture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saKALWuDk6A
While many Lutherans historically practiced private confession, public confession is far more common today. Likewise, while the Council of Trent taught the confession of sins to a priest is necessary for salvation, this Anglican article explains that the historical view of the Church of England has been simply that a priest may help the troubles of an individual through the latter's confession. According to the author, the Church of England has traditionally believed the authority of priests, as pertains to confession, is simply acknowledging that others have been forgiven by God.
V. Some Insights From Church History
Outside the New Testament, there are many examples of how confession/absolution was viewed in church history. Below are just a few examples.
In the ancient church, confession was often done publically. Often, Christians confess their sins in the presence of the priest though without speaking directly to the clergy. The idea that confession must be before the clergy developed later.
Basil the Great (fourth century) was the first church father to believe in the necessity of confession to a priest. Private confessions to priests certainly existed in the ancient church during Cyprian times, for instance. However, the earliest records of early Christianity from the first and second centuries imply it to be a public confession.
In the Middle Ages, Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard believed one could receive absolution from another believer (even if not a priest). All of this gradually changed when the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) mandated private confession to a priest on at least a once-a-year basis. While private confession certainly existed before the council, Catholicism had historically included a range of views on the prerequisites to achieving absolution from God of sin. By the Protestant Reformation, most Protestants (while not denying some sort of power of absolution for believers from the minister) denied the need for private confession as necessary to receive forgiveness.
Eastern Orthodox theologian Saint Theophan the Recluse (nineteenth century) taught that we can repent and be forgiven by God outside the Sacrament of Confession, but we don't feel at peace until we have confessed to a priest. In other words, there is spiritual and psychological healing from Christians confessing their sins in the presence of a priest. To me, his view is more Biblical than claiming all those in mortal sin who don't go to confession will perish, as some Roman Catholic sources imply. In this way, Orthodoxy often emphasizes the purpose of confession as freeing one from the psychological burden of sin (and attaining healing), whereas Catholicism often emphasizes the purpose of confession as being about the need to receive forgiveness (as in a legal sense).
VI. Conclusion
In conclusion, both Scripture and early Christian history weigh more heavily on the public confession of one's sins. Roman Catholic catechisms have often added elements to this teaching that lack Scriptural support, while Baptists have taken away from Scriptural teachings on these issues. Nothing in the Bible teaches the necessity of confession to anyone other than God, though the promise of forgiveness through Jesus's Apostles to believers should be a reminder to us that if we can receive any grace in confessing our sins to church clergy, we ought to take advance of what God has given us.
On the other hand, saying that the absolution of sins from a priest/minister is not found in the New Testament is an unbiblical claim for many of the reasons I have already stated. If we believe that the power to forgive sins was just for the Apostles (which the church fathers denied, considering that they believed this power had been passed onto the successors of the Apostles), then in order to be consistent, we must reject baptism, the Lord's Table, foot washing, the offices of elder and deacon, the call of evangelists, pastors, prophets and teachers, and insist that all these offices and/or calling were simply for the twelve Apostles. Such a claim would be disastrous, however, as the New Testament was written not only to be read and followed by Jesus's original disciples but also for the church to follow until he returns to judge the living and the dead.
Martin Luther wished to correct what he saw as the abuses in Roman Catholic confession from that of the early church. As one Lutheran theologian explains, the Sacrament of Confession was never done away by Luther or the early Lutherans (though most contemporary Lutherans no longer practice private confession):
No, it’s not. Private Confession is a Lutheran thing, too. Luther did not get rid of Private Confession, he just reformed it, cleaned it up of its abuses. There were three abuses in particular that needed to be corrected. One was that Confession was forced, mandatory, done under coercion and compulsion. The second abuse was the enumeration of sins, that you had to come up with a complete listing of your sins, in detail, or else you could not be sure that you had confessed adequately. The third, and perhaps the worst, abuse was that, instead of putting the emphasis on the absolution, God’s free gift of forgiveness, the priest would give the penitent works of satisfaction to perform, works of penance, to offset his sins. These “three oppressive things,” as Luther called them, had corrupted the practice of Confession, had turned it from a gift into a torture. And therefore these were the abuses that the Lutherans corrected and reformed*2.
''But,'' you may ask, ''if Luther believed that we are forgiven of our sins the moment we are baptized and we don't need to go to confession to be forgiven, why do we go at all? Indeed, Lutheranism does not teach that we must partake in the Sacrament of Confession/Penance to be forgiven of our sins, as do Roman Catholics. So why do Confession/Penance at all?''
The same Lutheran article I quoted above demonstrates that we should partake in Confession because it is good for us. Baptism, the Lord's Table, and confession can/and should bring us closer to Christ. Acknowledging our sins (which reciting the Ten Commandments can help us do) in confession can make us aware of their seriousness. Thirdly, we can be reminded of the promise of Jesus's forgiveness by going to confession (whether privately or in a more public manner). Luther differed from Rome, not because he felt that we shouldn't confess our sins to a priest, but because he believed that no amount of penance we could do would make us right with God or equal God's forgiveness. These are reasons we should either find a place to privately confess our sins to a priest/minister or, at least, consider our sins and be ready to confess them during a church service where this takes place. Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins in John 20:23, but Lutherans don't understand this (nor does any Protestant sect that I'm aware of) that ministers can actually withhold God's forgiveness for you. Rather, ministers are here to listen to people's confession of sins, to direct them in righteousness, to take sin seriously, etc. Ministers absolve, but people can be forgiven without confessing to them. Approaching a minister in confession, however, may give the individual assurance, the assurance that Jesus loves them regardless of their sin and that the Gospel is powerful enough to save anyone.
I write all of this as one honesty opened to changing my view. Whether it is the Catholics on the one hand or the Baptists on the other, I am opened to their (and other viewpoints on this topic), provided they graciously respond to my arguments and make their case according to scripture.
Notes:
*1-Swan, Laura (2016). The Wisdom of the Beguines. The Forgotten Story of a Medieval Women's Movement. p. 118.
The point you make are absolutely amazing and impressive. But, I'm not only amazed with your intellect and your research but I'm even more amazed with your search for truth and your heart for god. I'm so proud of you my son! Dad
ReplyDeleteThank you, did you read part I?
ReplyDelete