12 June 2013
A Little Luther on Private Confession
As to the current practice of private confession, I am heartily in favor of it, even though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures. It is useful, even necessary, and I would not have it abolished. Indeed, I rejoice that it exists in the church of Christ, for it is a cure without equal for distressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our conscience to our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked within, we receive from our brother’s lips the word of comfort spoken by God himself. And, if we accept this in faith, we find peace in the mercy of God speaking to us through our brother. AE 36:86
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So, then, how can you still defend Scripture as the norma normans for doctrine and practice when clearly there is no Scriptural precedent (according to Luther; I think he's wrong. See James)?
Don't know who made the comment, but I don't think you understand how Lutherans use norma normans. As a Lutheran I do not believe that unless Scripture prescribes something that it is forbidden - that is a Calvinist approach (regulative principle) rather than a Lutheran one. The Lutheran approach rejoices that there are many practices that have developed in the Church which while not explicit in Scripture are nevertheless in harmony with Scriptures and beneficial to the Christian. Private Confession is one of those. The Symbols agree that the form in which it has come down to us is not mandated in Scripture, but that it would be wicked for it to be removed from the Church's life for it so manifestly is in harmony with the Scriptures and useful in the care of souls.
P.S. I think James has import for the practice of private confession (and I've used it that way), but I'd stop short of identifying it as exactly how we practice this, because the "private" part is what you can't be sure was intended or included in James. One thinks of the public confession of private sin that we know occurred in the early church.
If all Luther meant was that one could not prove from Scripture that our confession ought to be private, then perhaps he was right. In the very early days, it seems that confessions were made publicly in the body of the Church.
However, if (as it appears) he is speaking of the practice of confessing one's sins to an Apostolic minister and receiving absolution from Christ through the ministry of the pastor, then he is quite wrong to say that it cannot be proved from Scripture. James is not the primary locus; it is Jn 20.23 (whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained). And of course 1 Co 4.1: Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
One can say that private confession cannot be "proved" from Scripture only by interpreting Scripture entirely without reference to the actual liturgical and pastoral practice of the Church; which is to say, interpreting them outside of their proper context. If you look to Scripture for an exhaustive manual of pastoral practice, you are going to be disappointed. If, on the other hand, you understand that the Scriptures were written to and for the Catholic Church when she was already a "going concern," then you will recognize it when the Scriptures refer to liturgical and pastoral practice that was already happening, and has continued to happen throughout the history of the Church.
Chris,
I think historically Luther was correct: the "current practice" (as he calls it) was not known in the earliest centuries. Certainly no Lutheran disputes that our Lord established holy absolution and that it is administered by the ministers in His name and at His command. It is the nature of privately confessing sins that I think Luther is suggesting is useful and even necessary as things while honestly admitting that it cannot be demonstrated from the text of the Scriptures to have been an apostolic practice per se.
should be "as things have developed." Sorry about that.
Post a Comment