As a former Roman Catholic, I even thought of the majesty of my first Communion. At one point, I contemplated the priesthood. If I ever got into a situation that bad, maybe I may have prayed like Martin Luther. I may have said, “Mother Mary, if you will deliver me, I will be a Jesuit!” I remember my first confession which I was told, “Unless you confess your sins to a priest, you can’t be guaranteed forgiveness.” Before my first confession, I was told “If you like watching the Family Rosary Hour, why not sign up for the priesthood?” Who knows, I might’ve become like Luther, trying to achieve everything. Maybe, the Jesuit confessor will tell me to return if I did something worse, a mortal sin. I might’ve even written my own version of the 95 Theses and nailed it at the parish. Luther spent time at the confessional, hoping to achieve righteousness.
I would like to cite Catholic Answers (and no, I won’t waste my time refuting Catholic fake defenders like Splendor of the Church by Abraham Arganiosa) for their justification of the practice. Before Easter Sunday arrives, I think I’d like to look at John 20:23 from the Catholic vs. “Protestant” view. What I like about Catholic Answers is the professionalism they display, unlike Arganiosa’s band of so-called apologists. One such example to defend the practice of confessing the sins to a priest is this:
Forgiving and retaining
A Protestant might respond, “Even if these things didn’t occur on the same day, maybe they mean the same thing.” But this is problematic for a few reasons.
First, nowhere in the immediate context of John 20 does Jesus talk about the apostles going out to preach the gospel.
Second, the wording itself doesn’t suggest an instruction to preach. The actions that Jesus’ ministers are to perform are forgiving and retaining: “If you forgive . . . if you retain.”
Telling someone to forgive is not the same thing as telling someone to preach. When I tell my seven-year-old daughter to forgive her ten-year-old brother for pushing her, I don’t mean, “Tell him that he what he did was wrong and that he needs to repent in order for God to forgive him.”
To suggest that forgiving sins (and retaining sins) means the same as preaching the forgiveness of sins is take the text in an unnatural sense. And since there is no evidence in the context to suggest otherwise, we’re justified in taking the language in its natural sense.
Moreover, if Jesus meant what the objection suggests (tell people their sins will be forgiven or retained by God depending on whether they accept or reject the gospel), then why does he say the apostles are the ones who will be forgiving and retaining (“If you forgive . . . if you retain.”). Of course, God is the one who forgives and retains sins. But the apostles are the ones whom Jesus highlights as performing the action.
What I also like about Catholic Answers is that they presented this argument from a former Catholic turned-Protestant, named Todd Baker:
A second counterargument appeals to the ancient Greek text. Many argue that it reveals that the forgiveness and retainment of sins is something God has already done before the apostles declare it to be so. Protestant apologist Todd Baker, a former Catholic, makes the argument this way:
The phrases Jesus spoke, “are forgiven” and “are retained,” are spoken in the perfect tense. The verse would then literally read: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are already forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are already retained.” Anyone familiar with Greek grammar here will know the perfect tense normally expresses a past action completed with ongoing results. Therefore, the forgiveness or the retainment of sins has already occurred prior to the disciples’ ability to declare this to be so. The perfect tenses used in John 20:23 are in the passive voice and at once show it is God who is acting alone, either to forgive or retain the sins of the one being acted upon. Jesus is giving the authority for the disciple to affirm or deny this is the case, where God has already determined the results of either action (Exodus from Rome, ch. 11; emphasis in original).
For Baker, the perfect tense of the Greek words translated “are forgiven” (apheontai) and “are retained” (kekratentai) implies an abiding state that began before the actions of “forgiving” and “retaining” are accomplished. And this, Baker argues, implies God is the one forgiving and retaining, not the apostles.
In my case, I’m naturally inclined to agree with Baker over Karlo Broussard in Catholic Answers. Both sides would always say about careful rereading. Well, I did read more and I don’t see any example of people confessing their sins to the apostles! 1 John 1:9 says that we are to confess our sins to God. True, James 5:16 says that we are to confess our sins one to another. One to another doesn’t only mean the priest or pastor! What James said in James 5:16 is consistent with the church discipline in Matthew 18:15-20. If your brother sins against you, go to him and talk to him alone. That would make a lot of sense to confess your sins to one another, by engaging in private talk about offenses. Yes, all the faults are sins too.
From Just for Catholics, this answer would be with a re-reading. Catholics don’t realize it but they tend to also make a lot of assumptions while reading the Bible. It’s like how Catholics use Matthew 16:16-18 as a proof-text for Peter as the first Pope. Once again, I only give out the Word and the purpose of preaching the Gospel is to share the good news, not to convince the person with human intelligence. Now, for that answer:
I appreciate your difficulties and problems in understanding John 20:23. I also struggled with its interpretation because I honestly wanted to know its correct meaning. The issue – forgiveness of sins – is absolutely vital to all of us, whether Catholic, Evangelical, and indeed all people. All of us are sinners, all of us need to know how to receive God’s gracious pardon.
You write that it has never been a clear statement to you. Oftentimes our religious preconceptions dull our vision. To a Roman Catholic the meaning is “obvious” – Jesus commissioned the priests to perform the sacrament of penance. He does not even realize that the essential aspects of the sacrament such as confession, or hearing confession by a priest, absolution, or performing penance, are not even mentioned. Similarly, an Evangelical sees the power to forgive linked to the preaching of the Gospel. He too does not notice that there is no mention of believing in Jesus or the preaching of the Gospel.
Forget for a moment your preconceptions, and ask yourself: Did Jesus give the apostles the power to remit sins? I trust that you would agree that, yes, a straightforward understanding of “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them” implies that Jesus gave the disciples power to forgive sin.
That leads us to ask another question. He gave them power to forgive, but what KIND of power did he give them? Or to put it in another way, He told them to forgive, but did He also tell them HOW they should forgive?
I don’t think it is possible from this verse alone to answer that question. Yes, He gave them power to forgive, but in this context He does not state what kind of power He entrusted to them. We cannot simply assume that it is by absolution or by the preaching of the Gospel. The issue must be decided by referring to other portions of Scripture that deal with the same subject. Specifically we want to know how the apostles remitted sins.
Did the apostles hear confessions and prescribe penance? Did they assume the role of Judges and give judicial sentences in the Name of God (as the Catholic church teaches)? Or did they proclaim the Gospel and assure believers that their sins are forgiven (as Evangelicals teach)?
If you are familiar with the Acts of the Apostles, and the rest of the New Testament, you should have no problem to identify which interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Bible.
In conclusion I say that Jesus gave the disciples power to forgive. This we know from John 20:23. Whether He gave them DECLARATIVE or JUDICIAL power; and whether He made the apostles PREACHERS or JUDGES must be established from the study of the New Testament. For further discussion, please read the following article: The Forgiveness of Sins.
The standard is once again, the Word of God. How can I really trust the church that claims to be true Church, not now engaging in ecumenism to be never-changing? Even more, how can the “one true Church” even claim to be founded in 33 A.D. when it’s now allowing religious intermarriage? How can you expect to have a happy Catholic home if one of the parents doesn’t share the same faith as the other? The Semper Edem boast may only mean this, “Rome is consistent in being inconsistent.” How can I trust the priests to forgive my sins when they can’t even get their Bible right? How can I trust that priests save souls when they too, need forgiveness themselves?
Reformed Baptist Christian Blogger 