One of the things that is very much part of the DNA of our public ministry is the teaching that Christians need to keep short accounts with God, confessing their sins regularly and honestly. The teaching of Scripture on the subject is plain enough.
“He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: But whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy” (Prov. 28:13).
“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).
So confession of sin is a necessary spiritual discipline. Those who neglect it do not prosper. Those who do not acknowledge their sins as sin are not forgiven, are not cleansed from all unrighteousness. And that creates a problem for those who understand the free grace of justification, does it not? How do we sort this out?
When a man is justified, he is forgiven. Not only is he forgiven, but he is definitively forgiven. All his sins, past, present, and future, are not imputed to him, and the perfect obedience of Christ is imputed to him. So let us say that a man is converted and justified in this way on Monday, and that on the Friday following, he falls into the sin of lust. For the sake of our thought experiment, let us say that there is no question about how genuine his conversion was, and there is no doubt about how genuine the sin was. He really is justified and he really did sin after that point.
What is the relationship of his justification to that subsequent sin? And if the subsequent sin is “covered” by the justification, then why does he need to undergo the “discipline” of confessing the sin? Will not the discipline of confessing lust start to seem to him like doing penance? Trying to pay for his sin in some way? Teaching that confession is a requirement therefore seems to some Bible teachers as an introduction of works-righteousness. There are a number of men who teach that Christians ought not to confess their sins, and that to do so betrays that there is a real misunderstanding of the free grace of justification.
I would like to point out that the problem is not between justification and confession, but rather between justification and any moral obligations after that point whatever. When I teach a young Christian that he should confess his sins, the retort will come back that that I am setting him up to try to supplement the righteousness of Christ with something that he contributes. His lust was something that was dealt with, once and for all, in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Whether I am forgiven for it or not has nothing whatever to do with whether or not I confessed it.
The problem with this simplistic approach is that it proves way too much. If justification takes care of the lust whether I confess it or not, then justification should be able to handle me doing penance. Given justification taken in this sense, there is no room for moral demand after that point. This includes thou shalt confess, but — unfortunately for the approach — it also includes you must not confess.
Any confessional Protestant knows that if a truly justified man dies with unconfessed sin in his life, he goes straight to be with the Lord. Whether I am “in or out” is in no way dependent on whether I am confessed up to date. If a truly justified Christian dies while believing that he needed to have confessed all his sins in order to go to be with the Lord, that belief was false, which he has now to his delight discovered. If a truly justified Christian dies while falsely believing that any confession whatever is works-righteousness, then he goes straight to Heaven also. If a truly justified Christian is stupidly crawling up the cathedral steps on his knees, and has a heart attack on the way, he will find himself inside the Pearlies, standing on his feet, saying something like “Imagine my surprise.”
The grace of justification really is free grace. My life of sanctification after that point is a life of learning how to live out the ramfications of the gift I have been given. In a real sense, sanctification is the process of learning to think like a justified person. “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him” (Col. 2:6). But my justification is in no way grounded on how well I do in getting my head around that. My justification is grounded on how well Christ obeyed, not how well I do.
That sanctification is a relationship with God that occurs in time. That means I experience forgiveness in time, and I experience that cleansing in time. I can experience that forgiveness after confessing while knowing the entire time that the one with whom I am in relationship does not have the same relationship to time that I do. In a sense, I was forgiven before I confessed. In that same sense, I was forgiven before I sinned. In that same sense, I was forgiven 2,000 years ago. But I still pray in time, learn about my motivations in time, put things right with brothers and sisters in time. And I do the same with my Father in Heaven. In other words, to put the whole thing very simply, the receipt of forgiveness is a blessing that sinners can receive in more than one way. If I seek to receive it for the sin I committed yesterday, this in no way constitutes forgetfulness that I have already received it in another.
People who live by penance and confession might be revealing that they were never truly justified. That is quite possible, and I am sure it has happened a lot. But it is also true that someone with a crinkum crankum theology full of ought nots concerning confession might be in the same position — trusting in something he has done, not done, figured out, not figured out, instead of trusting in Christ alone.
So why do I seek to confess my sins in any ongoing way? I do it because I am justified. Confession of sin is not in a fight with my justification — it is simply one more way in which my justification is working its way out. Justification justifies the dishonest, and God undertakes the process of making that man honest. And any honest man is going to confess his sins.
No street-crossing necessary – they’ll come right to your house.
http://www.katc.com/story/30506253/diocese-of-lafayette-unveils-mobile-confessional?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KATC-TV_3%3A_Acadiana_s_Newschannel
Is it possible to simply say that confession of sin for a believer restores the believer’s fellowship and communion with God and forgives sin only in that sense? (That is, only in the sanctification sense)
I think it’s better to focus not on the idea of “restoring” but to see confession as part of the work of sanctification. We confess our sins because we (1) hate sin, (2) love God, and (3) are reliant on his mercy. Much like prayer, confession is an expression of our right relationship before God. I suggest that confession is intimately tied up with holiness and gratitude. All of these are an expression of and response to what God has done for us. If we don’t thank, we don’t recognise what God has done. If we don’t seek holiness, we… Read more »
‘DNA of our public ministry’ was a fun mash-up.
What was the common ancestor of DNA again? A big explosion?
Or, How did DNA come into being, from non organic elements and ambient energy?
Just the facts please.
(Hint: The answer is not, “Hitler was a Catholic”. ; – )
No one is sure how life began. But that doesn’t mean we will not find out. But I think my celestial teapot may have had a hand (arm) in it? Who needs fact when you have faith! Seriously adad, the study of abiogenesis (not: A bio- Genesis) is a place you might start? One idea is that current life on Earth descended from an RNA world, although RNA-based life may not have been the first life to have existed. Most amino acids, (basic chemicals of life,) can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early… Read more »
OK, ideas and theorys may be in, not all facts have been ascertained. Some have faith that the missing facts will be ascertained. Another position is that the Sentient Universe has always been. AKA God, ‘least that’s what He said about Himself anyway. Others have faith in that. Editorial note: The review board was hoping for humorus referrences to Justin Bieber deftly woven in to the previous response! ; – ) Points are however awarded, for the absence of Hitler referrences! R’, (aka Krychek-2?) I appreciate it when you are as straight as you can be. You were granted, or… Read more »
No faith needed. Filling in the blanks is of course not necessary. I can happily exist not knowing how life began. But of course I would be happier still to know. Either way it changes nothing. In the meantime, my celestial teapot makes the same amount of sense as your god and has the same weight of evidence behind it. To get you thru the night, I’ll leave you with some ‘faith wisdom’ from The Beib: “I gave you the key when the door wasn’t open, just admit it! See, I gave you faith, turned your doubt into hoping, cannot… Read more »
OK that’s it, I call your Justin Beiber and raise you a George Michael:
(Where he demonstrates that a broken clock, wrong most of the time ; -)
” ‘Cause I gotta have faith
I gotta faith
Because I gotta to have faith faith
I gotta to have faith, faith, faith”
“No one is sure how life began. But that doesn’t mean we will not find out.
The truth is we don;t really know for certain… yet.”
Sounds like you have faith that those unknowns will be found out.
Long odds though.
No I am saying that it doesn’t matter. Adding an even more incredible complication- a being that can create a universe solves nothing and infinitely complicates things. You are still left with the question of who created him.
R’, we both have faith in the infinite.
Where did energy / matter come from? What created it?
We both take it on faith that there has always been something.
You have faith that “it” is energy / matter.
I have faith that “it” is God.
Faith matters to both of us,whether you can conceed it directly or not.
Faith and revelation are not ways of truly knowing anything.
There might not have always ‘been something’. There might be more somethings. We don’t know. But we might someday. So until that day based on the systematic refutation of all other god claims over the centuries by science I am unwilling to throw up my hands and say celestial teapot.
You keep that faith babe!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist! ????)
Science may not have refuted as much as your faith allows.
David Berlinski had a work on the RNA hypothesis. The guys doing the work admitted that the mass of amino acids needed to created a bit of RNA exceeded the mass of the Earth itself.
Seriously adad, the study of abiogenesis (not: A bio- Genesis) is a place you might start?
You should take your own advice.
“Who needs fact when you have faith!”: Randman
T’,
Randchek_2 is pretty much constructing where his faith lies.
“The truth is we don;t really know for certain… yet.”
Once it’s conceeded that one has faith, then it’s only a matter of what one’s faith is in.
; – )
David Berlinski is shill for the Discovery Institute . DI being of course a hub of the discredited intelligent design movement. So there is of course that.
The math was not done by Berlinski, it was done by the scientists themselves.
Your ignorance is astounding. Berlinski’s predates I.D. and the Discovery Institute.
Your reliance on the genetic fallacy is typical of your fourth-rate intellect.
DISQUALIFY as a tactic doesn’t work.
Your “hope” in RNA being the basis for life is unfounded by the science you proclaim.
Do you follow the Sensuous Curmudgeon?
I wasn’t aware of it… but I just looked the site up and enjoyed the first posts or two I read. I will dig in a bit more….Thank you jillybean. You are a thoughtful human.
Do you follow that blog? Or did you just think I would enjoy it!
I personally don’t really follow the exploits of the DI Too closely. They seem pretty easily dismissable.
I often read it because I love biology and he makes difficult concepts accessible. He also is very funny. I thought it likely that you might follow his blog. He wrote a post called “Bring me an angel detector” which I have found useful in explaining the difference between scientific and philosophic materialism. He said that a religious scientist might believe with all his heart that his lab is full of invisible angels flying over his head and perching on his shoulders, but that using the tools of modern science, he can’t prove or disprove his belief.
Not sure how the works of Shakespeare began. But when Sarah Henning, age 5, wanted to join the game of Boggle, some of what she put on her paper was English letters. Most words can be synthesized from letters.
Not exactly certain what that is meant to shine a light on, but please elaborate.
Thank you for writing like this today. Very refreshing and encouraging.
P.S. I love when this place gets this quiet. :)
There is a thing beyond confession,it is to ask God to search us out for sins we are not aware of.
Confession need not be formal (in my view) ; Larry The Cable Guy’s “Lord, I apologize” is perfectly adequate
Excellent post, so much to discuss. Teaching that confession is a requirement therefore seems to some Bible teachers as an introduction of works-righteousness. I am surprised at what gets called “works” within some enclaves of Christendom. For Paul “works” either meant works of the Mosaic Law, or to earn. Intellectual ascent and obedience are never classified this way. Works of the Mosiac Law fail because we cannot keep all of the Law but, more importantly, because salvation is by trusting in God, not by earning righteousness. Faith was always the pathway since the time of Adam. Even when the Law… Read more »
Any confessional Protestant knows that if a truly justified man dies with unconfessed sin in his life, he goes straight to be with the Lord. Whether I am “in or out” is in no way dependent on whether I am confessed up to date. Agreed. Confession is important in that it keeps us sensitive to God. The man who walks in unconfession is hardening his hard to the Spirit. I don’t see it so much a confession else we are not sanctified, rather, confession is us agreeing with God about our sin. It keeps us obedient and faithful to him.… Read more »
I think a key word there is shame. Hanging onto shame is a toxic thing and confession, making it right with God, rids us of that shame. Confession to one another keeps us honest and lets us all know that none of us are perfect. In the world today, many of the problems we see stem from toxic shame. So, say for instance that divorce is not a good thing and a dozen people will accuse you of divorce- shaming. One cannot be shamed if one has truly confessed and turned it over to the Lord, however. In Christ there… Read more »
Yes. Shame of course is partly manifested based on culture, so we can feel shame about doing what is right and not feel shame when sinning.
I think we need to have a culture where there is a degree of shame associated with sin but without the accusing spirit that we have (in order to justify ourselves).
As you know, Catholics believe they can lose their salvation if they die with unrepented mortal sins on their soul. The definition of mortal sin is tighter than it was pre-Vatican II, and most Catholics would interpret it as being in a state of conscious and intentional rebellion against God. Although a Catholic who commits a mortal sin should get to confession pretty quickly, a sincere act of contrition can bring forgiveness if a priest is not available. Pastor Wilson mentioned that confessional Protestants do not believe you can lose your salvation if you sin after having been justified. I… Read more »
Mrs. Bean,
“…certainly believe you must persevere to the end in order to be saved.”
As a reformed Protestant Christian, I understand that God perseveres (All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.) with us, and keeps us, and so we persevere to the end, which is one of the evidences of justification.
I think that must be a very comforting doctrine, as long as you believe you are one of the elect. I think that this is probably one of the most significant differences between the Catholic and Reformed traditions. I don’t totally understand your doctrine. To take an extreme example, if Ted Bundy committed his crimes after conversion and justification, are the crimes proof that the conversion was not actual and that he is not one of the elect? But what if his conversion was genuine, and that years later he gave himself over to evil? I understand that he was… Read more »
I think that Scripture teaches that we all sin, and are to confess our sin to God. ” If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” Someone who “gives himself over to evil” sounds to me like life-long (not episodic) practice. I would say that someone who cannot play the… Read more »
How do you interpret John 20:23? Do you think it authorizes confessing to a person?
No, I do not think that verse speaks to that. I understand it in two senses: first, since the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, this was an conferring of foundational authority as a special commission to accomplish what Jesus said that the Spirit would do (He had just “inspired” them prior to the instant statement): “He will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness…” The apostles would be making these public declarations immediately following Pentecost, and they would act with special apostolic authority (Ananias and Sapphira, etc) to essentially get the church “up and… Read more »
From my southern baptist upbringing I would say that his crimes prove that any prior conversion was not genuine.
Thanks Jill, that’s helpful. A couple of comments. I don’t think Doug said that confessional Protestants believe that you can’t lose your salvation. He believes this but I doubt he would apply that to all Protestants. His was more that sin doesn’t make one unsaved if it is unconfessed. Salvation loss is something slightly different. As for my position, I think that saved people can apostasize. I left it out because I differ from Doug here, but still agree with much of the post. My position is that sin hardens us against God. Unconfessed sin contributes to this as our… Read more »
bethyada, Yes, something like that. I don’t know if it is technically correct to say a Christian can “lose” their salvation, but I’m inclined to believe genuine apostasy is a genuine possibility. May I ask, from which denomination or tradition do you hail?
Predominantly baptist, though not like your Southern Baptists. I have also attended Calvinist churches and Pentecostal churches.
I don’t like the term “lose salvation” either as it sounds like something misplaced rather than a rejection of Christ. But so long we don’t get hung up on the term, most understand what is meant.
You’re right. “Losing” makes it sound passive and innocent, like the sort of misfortune that just happens to people.
I completely agree with you. I don’t think it is one mortal sin that sends you to hell, but rather losing the capacity for contrition as a result of persistent unrepentant sinfulness. Catholic catechists used to simplify this (and terrify us) by saying that you could lead an exemplary life, commit one mortal sin, get hit by a truck on your way to confession, and end up in hell for all eternity. This understanding completely disregarded the mercy of God who knows the sorrowing heart of the sinner on his way to confession. And it made it sound as if… Read more »
The thing I wonder about when it comes to the Roman Catholic doctrine of confession is the notion of penance. What exactly do RCs suppose that adds or accomplishes? Also, would not trust in God’s faithfulness to forgive also be an element? Not being contentious for the sake of being…just wondering.
We are taught to have absolute confidence in God’s faithfulness to forgive. The forgiveness is not conditional upon the penance, and we are taught always that the penance is completely token. It is for our own sake, not God’s. Where reparation for a particular sin is possible, the assigned penance will likely be to fix the damage we have caused. For example, we’d better give back anything we have stolen or correct the false rumors we spread about somebody. Where this is not possible, the penance reminds us that although we have God’s forgiveness, there are still temporal consequences for… Read more »
You said above: “However, for a confession to be valid, it must contain four elements: truthful reporting of all mortal sins, sincere contrition, performance of the penance, and–here is the key part for this discussion–a firm determination not to commit that sin again. ” I don’t doubt the sincerity behind this statement, but I also don’t believe any person (including the virgin Mary) could ever report all of their sins, mortal or venial.
This is an easy one! No one is required to confess venial sins, although I expect most people do. It is a little bit difficult to imagine forgetting a mortal sin, as we now understand them to be. (“Oops, I forgot to tell Father about driving the get away car and shooting the bank guard!”) However, if you have a genuine case of forgetfulness, your absolution is valid and you just tell the priest the next time. A priest would probably be more concerned about a person who gets hung up on making totally accurate confessions and lives in a… Read more »
“A priest would probably be more concerned about a person who gets hung up on making totally accurate confessions and lives in a state of obsessive anxiety about making a mistake.”
Like Martin Luther? Sorry couldn’t resist lol. :)
Have you ever wondered if the Protestant Reformation would have happened if all those grim dudes had been given Prozac? Imagine a mellow John Knox.
Ha! I think you just came up with a new Prozac commercial.
I used to write advertising copy, and now I am obsessed with your idea. Before Prozac: Knox to Queen Mary: “Wonder not, Madam, that I call Rome an harlot, for that Church is altogether polluted with all kind of spiritual fornication, as well in doctrine as in manners” After Prozac: “Mary, chill. All I said is that your church kind of gives me a bad vibe.” Prozacked Calvin on Servetus: “He does his thing, and I do mine. Different drummers and all that.” Prozacked Luther: “You know, I just can’t get behind defacing church property.” (I just realized that I… Read more »
Oh boy, what have I done?
LOL. Could “Bloody Mary” and Archbishop Laud have used some too? (And is “Go take some Prozac” what a Christian needs to hear when he sees a gap between a church leader and God which the leader intends to maintain, e.g. Jesus used wine but we use grape juice?)
Bloody Mary was so nasty I would have recommended a prefrontal lobotomy.
Why does this not surprise me?
The Father deeply loves you Jill; and I am sure that many of your attempts to please him bring a smile to his face.
That was so kind of you, Bethyada, and you certainly brought a smile to my face!
I forgot to tell one of my favorite confession stories which I read in a biography. A man had been away from the sacraments for many years, and one day, walking past a Catholic church, he was inspired by grace to go inside. A nun was shepherding her flock to confession, as used to be the case in parochial schools, and the man simply joined the queue. He entered the confessional, unloaded twenty years of wrong doing, and waited. There was a long pause, and then the priest said, “Those are some sins for a fifth grader.”
Thanks. That sounds better than the general impression I had. The thing is, if I may say so, there is a tendency for things that were probably originally conceived as aids to become primary means or even the end intended, in the minds of those who practice them. From an Evangelical point of view Roman Catholic practice is quite, um… involved. :) In your experience how well does the average professing Roman Catholic understand the intent of what they are doing?
I think most Catholics don’t get too hung up on theology. My godchildren who attended Catholic schools amaze me with how little they know about traditional Catholic teaching. The modern emphasis is very much on knowing how much God loves us, knowing that Jesus conquered sin and death on our behalf, and knowing that we must love, serve, and forgive one another. Incidentally, we are supposed to shine so brightly with the love of the Father that people who know us want to be Catholics like us (I am still working on that one!) For those of us taught in… Read more »
Salvation is by grace alone. For this statement to be truly true it should follow that your perseverance is by grace alone also. If this is not so, than you are saved by grace and than kept by your own works.
The official catechism of the Catholic church says, “Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (Jn 4:14; 7:38-39.)” But where we differ from the Reformed tradition is that we believe we retain the free will to apostasize, to toss away the gift we have been given. No amount of good works can get us into heaven. But we are commanded by Christ to do good works,… Read more »
This is also the position of many Evangelicals in my country, and it was also my position before I came to a reformed understanding of the faith. I am from a country where 86% of people are Eastern Orthodox. If you were to ask people why would they be accepted by God, the answer would be, because of their good works. And by good works they always mean doing good to others and never about living holy lives. That part is taken care of, by the confession of sins to their priest. What is not taken care of while they… Read more »