Latest / Reformed Thinking / True Repentance vs. Empty Confession | John Calvin

Transcript

True Repentance vs. Empty Confession | John Calvin · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Reformed thinking. Welcome to the deep dive.
0:02
We're here to take a stack of sources, could be articles,
0:05
research, maybe your own notes, and really pull out the key
0:08
Nuggets of knowledge, the insights for you.
0:12
Think of it as, you know, a shortcut to getting up to speed,
0:15
maybe with some surprising facts thrown in and enough
0:18
conversation to keep it interesting.
0:19
And today, yeah, we are diving into some source material that
0:22
lays out a really sharp contrast.
0:24
It's between two different ways of looking at how you obtain
0:27
forgiveness and how you understand repentance.
0:32
We've got excerpts here from a pretty significant theological
0:35
work, and also some notes that kind of distill key historical
0:40
points, doctrinal points related to these views.
0:42
OK, so let's unpack this a bit. Our source material is taking a
0:45
critical look at what it labels the scholastic doctrine of
0:48
penance, and it's comparing that directly with what it presents
0:51
as a scriptural understanding. The real core of this comparison
0:55
seems to be around ideas like repentance, confession,
0:59
satisfaction for sins, and how all that connects to God's
1:03
forgiveness and maybe crucially, how it impacts your conscience.
1:08
That's it. The mission really is to get a
1:11
handle on the specific differences the sources are
1:14
highlighting. We want to see how this one
1:16
approach the one labeled Scholastic or sometimes Roman in
1:20
the source, how that difference from the view the source says is
1:23
grounded in Christ and Scripture.
1:26
And probably the biggest thing, what are the implications, you
1:29
know, for someone who's genuinely seeking peace with
1:32
God? Right.
1:32
So just to be clear, we're not adding our own opinions here or
1:35
bringing in outside stuff. We're just focused on what these
1:38
specific sources layout. Exactly.
1:40
What do they say about these topics and why do they see such,
1:44
well, such different pictures? OK, so where do we start?
1:47
The source material jumps right in.
1:49
Introduces the scholastic doctrine of penance.
1:52
How does it describe that framework right off the bat?
1:55
Well, the source says that the scholastics, as it calls them,
1:57
they divide repentance or penance.
2:00
They use the term somewhat interchangeably here into 3
2:03
distinct parts. OK, three parts.
2:05
And it's very emphatic. These three parts are taught as
2:08
being necessary necessary to attain forgiveness of sins after
2:14
you've been baptized. Necessary.
2:16
Wow, OK, that sounds pretty foundational.
2:18
What are these three parts that the source says are considered
2:21
essential? All right, so they're laid out
2:23
as #1 contrition of heart, sometimes called compunction of
2:27
heart #2 is confession of mouth, and the source is specific here.
2:31
This means auricular or secret confession made privately to a
2:34
priest. OK, the private confession.
2:37
Yes, and 3rd is satisfaction of works.
2:40
This means performing certain actions, certain deeds, to sort
2:43
of make recompense for the sin you committed.
2:46
So let me see if I've got this right.
2:47
According to how the source presents this view, if you sin
2:51
after baptism, getting forgiveness depends on having
2:54
all three of these. You need enough sorrow, you need
2:57
to confess everything to a priest, and then you need to do
2:59
something to like pay a penalty. That is exactly how the source
3:03
describes their teaching. Yes, it explicitly uses that
3:06
phrase necessary to attain forgiveness of sins.
3:09
And what's the sources immediate take on this whole structure?
3:12
Does it see this as you know, a helpful way to think about it?
3:15
Oh, not at all. Not even close.
3:17
The author is a partly critical right from the start.
3:20
Really. Yeah, It finds the scholastic
3:23
definition of repentance itself to be pretty inadequate.
3:26
Says it leans too much on sort of common cliches, and it
3:30
focuses, the source says, doggedly on the outward stuff.
3:33
You know things like discipline and austerity, right?
3:36
External actions. External actions while being and
3:39
this is a quote wonderfully silent about what the source
3:42
considers really core, which is the inward renewal of the mind.
3:46
Interesting. It also argues that this
3:48
division into three parts is quote no more logical than the
3:53
definition itself. And maybe the sharpest initial
3:55
jab is that it argues requiring these three specific things in
3:59
the specific way torments the conscience.
4:02
Torments the conscience. OK, that sounds like a really
4:05
central theme for the author. Let's dig into each part then,
4:07
starting with that first one, contrition.
4:10
The source says the first part of the scholastic framework is
4:14
contrition of heart. What does their doctrine,
4:18
according to the source, require when it comes to this sorrow for
4:22
sin? Well, according to the source,
4:23
they require what's called du. Contrition du contrition.
4:26
Yeah. Meaning it has to be just in
4:27
full. So the sorrow you feel for past
4:30
sins isn't just, you know, a general feeling.
4:32
It has to reach a certain level, a certain depth, a certain
4:35
adequacy. It's not enough just to be
4:38
sorry. The sorrow has to be somehow
4:41
sufficient, intense enough. OK, now sorrow for sin itself,
4:45
that's something you see talked about in Scripture, obviously,
4:48
but the source seems to pinpoint a huge fundamental problem with
4:52
requiring this just in full contrition as a condition,
4:55
forgetting forgiveness. What's the critical issue it
4:57
raises? Yes, this is precisely where the
5:00
source says the torment kicks in.
5:02
The source argues quite strongly that they do not determine when
5:05
a man can have assurance that he has, in just measure, carried
5:09
out his contrition. There's no clear benchmark, no
5:12
standard, no, you know, meter stick to tell you if your sorrow
5:15
is actually just and full enough to qualify you for forgiveness.
5:19
Right, the inherent uncertainty. How can you possibly measure an
5:23
internal feeling like? Exactly.
5:26
The source explains that because of the system demands, and this
5:29
is vivid language, a bitterness of sorrow which may balance in
5:33
the scales with assurance of pardon.
5:35
Because of that demand, consciences get tormented in
5:39
strange ways. People feel they have to quote,
5:41
rest sorrow from themselves. They try to force it, squeeze
5:44
out tears, maybe thinking the more they mourn, the closer they
5:47
get to earning that forgiveness. But the source says, even then,
5:51
they still do not grasp the measure of the debt of their
5:53
sin, and so they can never really know if they've paid what
5:57
was owed through their grief. The source even asks, you know,
6:00
very pointedly, when will anyone dare assure himself that he has
6:05
applied all of his powers to lament his sins?
6:08
The clear implication is you can't.
6:10
You can never be sure. It sounds like a completely
6:12
impossible standard. It just traps you in this
6:15
endless cycle of self examination, constantly asking,
6:19
am I sad enough? Have I grieved enough for God to
6:21
finally forgive? Me.
6:22
That's exactly the outcome the source is highlighting.
6:24
It calls it flat out a measureless torment for
6:27
consciences. If your forgiveness is
6:28
explicitly tied to achieving this internal state of just and
6:32
full contrition, and you can never, ever be certain you've
6:35
actually reached it, the source says you still do not find a
6:38
haven in which to rest. You're just left sort of adrift
6:40
in doubt. Even if you sincerely try to do
6:43
what lay in one's power to generate this level of sorrow,
6:46
it just leads to more anxiety. Was I thorough enough?
6:49
Was I diligent enough in, you know, beating myself up
6:52
emotionally? It seems like a system built on
6:55
a foundation of feeling that you can never really verify as being
6:58
enough. So how does the source contrast
7:01
this scholastic requirement for sufficient sorrow with what it
7:05
presents as the scriptural view of repentance?
7:08
What's the shift in focus there? Well, the source explains that
7:10
while, yes, true repentance definitely involves A sincere
7:13
recognition of your own misery and sinfulness, you know a
7:16
genuinely broken and humbled heart.
7:19
The scriptural view, as presented by this source, does
7:21
not put the burden of earning forgiveness on the measure of
7:24
your sorrow or you know the number of tears you cry.
7:27
Instead, the source states it very clearly.
7:29
We have taught that the Center does not dwell upon His own
7:32
compunction or tears, but fixes both eyes upon the Lorde mercy
7:36
alone. So the crucial difference is
7:38
where you're looking. In this scholastic system
7:40
described, the focus is inward, on the quality, the sufficiency
7:45
of your own sorrow, right? But in the scriptural view
7:47
presented here, the focus shifts outward to something outside
7:52
yourself, specifically God's mercy.
7:54
Precisely. Repentance, as the source
7:57
understands it, is more about that state of being afflicted,
8:00
wounded by the awareness of your sins, which then drives you,
8:04
compels you to sincerely call on God's mercy.
8:08
It's a consequence of seeing your sinfulness that naturally
8:10
leads you to seek pardon. It's not a condition you have to
8:13
meet through feeling sad enough in order to make yourself worthy
8:16
to receive that pardon. So forgiveness isn't earned by
8:19
how deeply you feel it. No, it's sought by the person
8:23
who recognizes their desperate need, and it's received freely
8:26
as a gift from God's mercy. OK, that makes sense.
8:28
Let's move then to the second part of this system, confession
8:32
of mouth, and specifically that practice of auricular or private
8:35
confession to a priest. How does the source describe
8:38
this practice and, importantly, the scholastic view of its
8:41
status or authority? Right, so the source says the
8:44
Scholastics argue that this specific form of confession, the
8:48
private 1 to a priest, is enjoined by divine precept.
8:52
Divine precept meaning commanded by God.
8:54
Yes, that's what they claim, according to the source, that
8:57
Christ himself, or maybe the apostles, commanded this
9:00
practice as a necessary part of repentance.
9:03
The requirement, as described, is for individuals to confess
9:06
all their sins before their own priest, and they're mandated to
9:10
do this at least once a year. And the source notes this
9:13
mandate comes from a law established quite a bit later.
9:16
A law established much later. All right, this sounds like a
9:19
point where the Source really pushes back hard against the
9:22
Scholastic claim of divine origin, doesn't it?
9:24
Oh, absolutely. It mounts a significant
9:26
challenge here. The source emphatically argues
9:29
that this compulsory, mandatory nature of confessing privately
9:32
to a priest, it's absolutely not a law laid down by Christ or the
9:36
apostles. OK.
9:37
It even gives some historical context stating that quote.
9:41
Not yet 300 years have passed since Innocent The third set
9:44
that trap and impose the necessity of confession.
9:46
Wow. 300 years before the source was written, presumably.
9:50
Yes, dating that requirement to around 1200 AD linked to a
9:54
decree from the 4th Lateran Council under Polk Innocent the
9:58
3rd. So well over a Millennium after
10:01
Christ, right? The source views this not as a
10:03
divine command, but as a human tradition and tyranny.
10:07
It suggests historical evidence indicates confession was
10:10
previously more voluntary, maybe a discipline bishops could
10:13
institute or change, not something universally required
10:17
from the church's earliest days. So the source is basically
10:19
saying this specific requirement is a relatively late human
10:22
invention imposed on people, not a biblical command from the
10:26
start. That's the core claim.
10:27
OK, beyond where it came from, what's the biggest practical
10:30
problem? The source identifies with the
10:31
requirement to confess all their sins.
10:35
Yes, It's deemed in the sources words simply impossible.
10:38
Impossible. Yeah.
10:40
And the source uses some incredibly powerful, almost
10:43
poetic language here to describe why it sees this as futile and
10:47
even cruel. It talks about the pit of our
10:49
sins being too deep to ever fully explore, the sheer
10:52
multitude and variety of our wrongdoings being too vast to
10:56
count, and the recesses of their evils are deep beyond fathoming.
11:01
The idea is you could never truly reckon up or list them all
11:04
completely before another human being.
11:06
It even quotes Psalm 19.12. Who can understand his errors.
11:10
Cleanse thou me from my secret faults, O Lord.
11:13
The source suggests that even someone like David, who clearly
11:16
had a deep understanding of sin, didn't try to create some
11:19
exhaustive catalog of his mistakes before confessing to
11:22
God. So it's the idea that our own
11:25
sinfulness is just so profound, so complex, reaching into hidden
11:28
motivations, secret thoughts we can't even fully grasp or list
11:32
it all ourselves. Yes, that's absolutely central
11:34
to the source's argument. It argues that trying to list
11:37
all sins, attempting to categorize them, divide them
11:40
into, as it puts it, arms, branches, twigs and leaves.
11:44
Right, like a taxonomy of sin. Exactly that whole process leads
11:47
to measureless torment and despair for anyone who has a
11:50
genuinely sensitive conscience and a real awareness of God's
11:53
holiness and his knowledge of our hearts.
11:55
A person trying to meet this impossible requirement, the
11:58
source says, finds no port or their anchorage.
12:01
They're just left in constant anxiety.
12:03
Even if they try their absolute best, doing what lay in one's
12:07
power to make a complete list, their conscience is still
12:10
uneasy. Did I miss something?
12:12
Was I thorough enough, diligent enough in myself?
12:15
Recall, and the source also suggests, this requirement can
12:18
actually make people into hypocrites, ignorant of God and
12:22
of themselves, because the focus shifts to a kind of legalistic
12:26
listing of external actions rather than confronting the real
12:30
issue, which the source calls the hidden slava vices, their
12:33
own secret transgressions and inner filth.
12:36
That's the true depth of sinfulness that should lead to
12:38
humility and running to God's mercy, not trying to complete an
12:41
inventory. And the source connects this
12:43
impossible requirement directly back to the promise of
12:46
forgiveness itself, doesn't it? Argues the scholastic system
12:49
makes forgiveness contingent on doing this impossible thing.
12:52
Precisely. The scholastic doctrine as the
12:56
source describes it basically asserted that your sin wasn't
12:59
forgiven unless you had a firmly conceived intent to confess all
13:03
those sins to the priest. If you neglected this confession
13:07
or failed to make a complete list, then according to their
13:10
teaching, the entrance to Paradise is no longer open.
13:14
Wow, that's stark. It is.
13:15
The source calls this doctrine utterly unbearable and also
13:18
utterly false. It argues that this adds a
13:21
condition for forgiveness that you simply don't find a attached
13:24
to God's promises in scripture. By making forgiveness depend on
13:27
this human act of complete enumeration, the source argues
13:31
it effectively binds not sins, but the Lord's mercy.
13:35
It implies you're limiting or putting conditions on God's free
13:38
gift based on human performance. The source is very clear God
13:41
doesn't forgive sins differently now than he always has.
13:44
It points to examples in the Gospels.
13:46
Christ forgiving the paralytic or the woman known as a Sinner.
13:49
None of them involved making a private confession into a
13:52
priest's ear first. That's a strong point.
13:55
The source also brings in historical examples right to
13:58
support its claim that mandatory private confession wasn't the
14:01
original practice you mentioned, Nectarius.
14:04
Yes, it's like the church historian Sawzeman.
14:07
He apparently wrote that while the practice of confession did
14:10
exist, it was observed most diligently in the Western
14:13
churches, particularly at Rome, which the source suggests
14:18
already indicates it wasn't some universal mandatory practice
14:22
instituted everywhere by the apostles from day one.
14:25
Sozzaman also apparently noted that in those Western churches,
14:28
one specific priest was designated for this office,
14:31
which contradicts the idea that it was just a general duty for
14:34
all priests. Interesting to you.
14:36
But the more striking point is that Sozzaman recounts how
14:38
Nectarius, who was a respected Bishop of Constantinople,
14:42
actually abolished the public right of confession in his
14:45
church. Abolished it what?
14:46
Because of a scandal involving a woman penitent, the source uses
14:50
this historical event to ask a really challenging question.
14:54
If auricular confession was truly a divine law from Christ
14:57
and the Apostles, as the Scholastics claimed, how could a
15:01
major Bishop like Nectarius possibly have dared to abolish
15:05
it? Good question.
15:07
In the source's view, this historical fact demonstrates it
15:10
was seen as an ecclesiastical practice, a church discipline
15:14
instituted by humans, not an unchangeable divine command.
15:18
And the source strengthens this point by quoting John
15:20
Chrysostom, who was Bishop in Constantinople around the same
15:23
time Nectarius made this change. Chrysostom is cited repeatedly
15:28
urging believers to confess their sins directly to God
15:30
alone. Not to a priest.
15:32
Not primarily, no. Chrysostom apparently said.
15:34
Don't confess to a fellow servant, meaning the priest who
15:37
might just abrade you or make your sins public knowledge.
15:40
He insisted God doesn't compel us to confess before many
15:43
witnesses, only before Him. Fascinating historical details
15:46
the source uses to build its case there.
15:49
So, summarizing this part, the source views mandatory auricular
15:53
confession as a harmful human invention.
15:57
It's impossible to fulfill, and it ultimately obscures the true
16:00
path to forgiveness. That's the critique.
16:02
Yes, OK. If that's the problem, what
16:04
forms of confession does the source say are actually approved
16:07
and found in Scripture? What's the alternative picture?
16:10
Well, the source presents a very different understanding.
16:13
Contrasting it directly with the scholastic view it critiques.
16:16
It identifies the primary, the most essential form of
16:19
confession as confession before God.
16:21
Confessing directly to God? OK, why is that form considered
16:26
so central and essential by the source?
16:28
Because, as the source puts it very simply, it is the lore who
16:32
forgives, forgets, and wipes out sins.
16:36
He's the one who has ultimately been offended by our sin.
16:38
He's the physician, the source says, to whom we must show our
16:41
spiritual wounds if we hope to be healed.
16:43
He's the discerner of hearts, the only One to whom we can
16:46
truly we pour out our innermost thoughts, our hidden
16:48
transgressions. Therefore we confess to Him
16:51
first foremost, principally in order to obtain pardon.
16:55
It points to scriptural examples like David's confession in Psalm
16:58
32 verse 5, or Daniel's prayer in Daniel Chapter 9.
17:02
These are direct confessions to God.
17:04
And also first John 1.9 about confessing our sins to Him so He
17:09
will forgive us. This kind of confession, the
17:12
source says, is done with a troubled and humbled heart.
17:15
It's where we wholeheartedly accuse and condemn ourselves
17:18
before God, relying entirely on his goodness and mercy alone for
17:21
acquittal. According to the source, this is
17:24
the fundamental act. It flows naturally from being
17:27
afflicted by seeing our sin, and it leads directly to sincerely
17:30
calling on God's mercy. It's the necessary foundation
17:33
for getting pardon. OK, so confession to God is
17:35
primary foundational, but the source also mentioned other
17:38
forms of confession, right? It says confession before men
17:41
follows from this confession to God.
17:42
Yes it does. It says confession before men
17:44
should happen, quote as often as either divine glory or our
17:47
humiliation demands it. And it describes 2 general forms
17:50
this might take. First is public confession.
17:52
Public How does that work? Well, it can be what the source
17:55
calls ordinary, like the general confession of sin that happens
17:59
in regular church services. The purpose there is to humble
18:03
the whole congregation together and sort of open the gate to
18:05
prayer. Right, like in many liturgies.
18:07
Exactly. Or it can be extraordinary, like
18:10
when a whole community has committed some common sin and
18:13
confesses it together publicly. It cites the Israelites under
18:17
Ezra and Nehemiah after the exile as an example.
18:20
There's also public confession by individuals who've committed
18:23
some notable transgression or evil example that has offended
18:28
the whole church community. They confess publicly as part of
18:31
being reconciled to the church, the source notes.
18:34
This was the kind of public confession and penance practiced
18:37
in the early church for restoring public sinners back
18:39
into fellowship. OK, so that's public confession.
18:42
What about private confession? Right second is private
18:44
confession, and Scripture, according to the source,
18:47
approves two kinds here, either done for our own sake or for our
18:50
neighbor's sake. Let's take those one by one
18:53
private confession for our own sake.
18:55
This is for personal benefit, for comfort, for help.
18:58
The source links this directly to James 5.16.
19:02
Confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that
19:05
you may be healed. OK, mutual confession among
19:08
believers. Exactly.
19:10
The purpose here is mutual counsel, getting consolation,
19:14
praying for each other about weaknesses, struggles with sin.
19:17
The source does suggest that pastors are often preferably
19:19
chosen for this role. Why Pastors?
19:22
Because they're generally qualified to instruct from
19:24
Scripture, offer wise counsel, and importantly, give assurance
19:27
of pardon by applying the gospel message specifically to the
19:31
individual seeking help. However, it also notes that
19:34
James's command allows for free choice in who you confess to.
19:39
For this kind of mutual support, it could be any trusted
19:42
believer. And is this mandatory or about
19:45
listing all sins? No, the source stresses, this
19:47
form ought to be free. It's not required of everyone,
19:50
and those who choose to use it confess only what they feel is
19:53
expedient, what they need help or consolation for.
19:55
It's not an attempt to list all their sins.
19:58
And the power of the keys, which we'll get to more later, has a
20:01
place here. A minister can offer private
20:03
absolution, applying the gospel promise of pardon specifically
20:07
to reassure the individual based on God's command and His Word.
20:11
OK. And the second type of private
20:13
confession, yeah, for our neighbors sake.
20:15
Yes, this is done specifically to appease someone or be
20:19
reconciled if you have personally injured them.
20:21
Think Matthew 5.2324 leaving your gift at the altar to go be
20:26
reconciled to your brother. Right?
20:28
This is about acknowledging a specific wrong you committed
20:30
against another person in order to repair that broken
20:33
relationship, or maybe to remove an offense that has hurt the
20:37
wider church community. OK, so putting it all together,
20:40
the source presents scriptural confession as fundamentally
20:43
about humbling yourself for God, seeking his mercy directly.
20:46
Primarily yes. And the confession to other
20:48
people serves these different important functions, mutual
20:51
support, getting godly counsel, restoring relationships, or
20:55
maintaining order and witness in the church community.
20:58
But it's not about fulfilling some impossible list for a
21:01
priest as the condition for earning God's forgiveness.
21:04
That's a very good summary of the contrast the source is
21:06
drawing, yes. All right, let's move to that
21:08
third part of the scholastic doctrine, then.
21:11
Satisfaction of works. What does the source say this
21:14
involves? OK, satisfaction, The source
21:16
states that the scholastics teach it's not enough for a
21:19
Sinner just to feel sorry and confess.
21:22
They also must make satisfaction to God for those things which He
21:26
has committed. Make satisfaction to God.
21:28
Yes, the underlying belief the source identifies here is
21:31
crucial. They believe that even after
21:34
God's mercy forgives the guilt of sin, a temporal penalty for
21:39
that sin still remains, and God's justice demands that this
21:42
penalty has to be paid somehow. Remaining penalty?
21:46
A debt still owed even after the guilt is forgiven.
21:50
That sounds significant. That's a major theological
21:52
assertion. It is, and it's one the source
21:55
takes very strong issue with. According to the source's
21:57
description, the Scholastics teach that this leftover
21:59
temporal penalty must be paid off through human efforts,
22:02
through satisfactions or works of charity.
22:05
Like what kind of works? They list examples like shedding
22:07
tears, fasting, giving offerings or alms, engaging in physical
22:12
discipline and austerity. They believe these human works
22:15
actually propitiate the Lord, meaning they appease God's anger
22:19
or satisfy His justice. Justice.
22:21
They think these works pay our debts to God's righteousness and
22:24
they compensate for our transgressions.
22:27
The source even notes they make a description between mortal
22:30
sins, which require heavy satisfaction, and so-called
22:34
venial sins, which apparently have easier remedies like saying
22:37
the Lord's Prayer or using holy water.
22:39
So in this view, after you receive some kind of forgiveness
22:42
for the guilt, you still need your own human effort to pay off
22:46
a remaining debt to God's justice.
22:48
How does the source respond to that specific idea?
22:51
It rejects it completely, vehemently calls it quote,
22:54
utterly intolerable sacrilege. Strong words.
22:57
Very strong. The core counter argument the
22:59
source brings forward is the clear, repeated scriptural
23:02
concept of freely given remission of sins.
23:04
Freely given remission, that phrase seems central again.
23:07
It is key, the source argues, that forgiveness in Scripture is
23:11
consistently described as a gift, an act of sheer
23:14
liberality. It compares it to a creditor who
23:18
just cancels a debt entirely without demanding or expecting
23:21
any payment. The source says that when
23:23
Scripture uses the word freely to describe forgiveness, that
23:27
word itself takes away all thought of satisfaction.
23:31
If something is truly given freely, it's not earned.
23:34
It's not paid for the cause. The foundation of forgiveness,
23:38
according to the source, lies only in goodness and mercy
23:41
acting through Christ. It's not based on any human
23:44
effort or payment contributing to it.
23:47
Scripture says we receive forgiveness through the name of
23:49
Christ, and the source argues that excludes all other names.
23:53
All other means all human works like satisfactions.
23:56
And that's really where the source places Christ's work,
23:59
right at the center of its rebuttal of this idea of human
24:02
satisfactionism. Absolutely.
24:04
Front and center, the source declares and really unambiguous
24:06
terms that satisfaction for sins is obtained solely and
24:09
completely through Jesus Christ. Solely and completely.
24:12
Yes. It identifies Christ as the sole
24:16
offering, the sole expiation, and the sole satisfaction by
24:19
which God's justice can possibly be appeased or propitiated.
24:24
There is, according to the source, simply no other
24:26
satisfaction that can do the job.
24:28
And what exactly did Christ do, according to the source, to
24:31
provide this unique and complete satisfaction?
24:34
Well, the source explains that Christ himself bore the
24:37
punishment and vengeance do for our sins in his own body on the
24:41
cross. He bore the punishment.
24:43
Yes, it quotes Isaiah 53 verse 5.
24:45
The chastisement or correction of our peace was upon him.
24:49
The source interprets this to mean that Christ bore the full
24:52
penalty required by God's justice.
24:54
Before we could ever have peace with God, He took our place,
24:57
suffering the wrath, the punishment that we deserved.
25:00
Therefore, the source argues, through Christ, God doesn't just
25:03
forgive the guilt of our sin, He also completely remits all the
25:06
accompanying penalty, All of it all.
25:08
Penalty too. Yes, when God says in scripture
25:11
he will not remember our sins, the source interprets that to me
25:14
and he will not demand the penalty for them.
25:17
Even poses a really challenging question to the scholastic view.
25:20
What, I ask you would Christ have bestowed upon us if the
25:23
penalty for our sins were still required?
25:26
The clear implication is if we still owe a penalty, then
25:29
Christ's work wasn't actually sufficient, was it?
25:31
So the stark contrast, the scholastic idea as presented
25:35
involves a remaining temporal penalty that requires human
25:39
payment. Right?
25:40
But the source argues Christ's sacrifice is the complete one
25:44
time payment that removes both the guilt and all the penalty
25:47
associated with our sin. Precisely, the Source views
25:50
requiring human satisfaction as essentially implying that our
25:53
works cooperate in obtaining the second pardon, the pardon you
25:55
get after baptism where penance applies.
25:58
And the source argues this inevitably takes away from the
26:00
unique, singular all sufficient sacrifice of Christ.
26:03
It effectively deprives Christ of his honor as the sole
26:05
Redeemer. Furthermore, it argues this
26:07
doctrine of human satisfaction also.
26:09
Guess what torments the conscience again?
26:12
Back to the tormented conscience.
26:14
How does satisfaction do that? Well, how could you ever be
26:18
certain? How could you know if your human
26:20
satisfaction, your tears, your fasting, your prayers, your alms
26:24
was truly sufficient to appease God's justice for even one sin,
26:29
let alone the multitude of sins you commit daily?
26:31
It just leads back to that constant doubt, that gnawing
26:34
anxiety about where you stand with God.
26:36
It really sounds like the source sees the scholastic doctrine of
26:39
satisfaction as fundamentally undermining the absolute
26:43
completeness and the total sufficiency of what Christ
26:46
accomplished on the cross. That's the core theological
26:49
objection, yes. And the source even digs into
26:51
specific Bible pathages that the Scholastics apparently use to
26:55
support their idea of human satisfaction.
26:57
Right to show they're being misinterpreted.
26:59
Yes, it does. It's been some time analyzing
27:02
several key passages. For instance, it looks at Daniel
27:05
advising King Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins by showing
27:08
righteousness and mercy to the poor.
27:10
The source says the scholastics interpret this as Daniel telling
27:13
the king to perform works of satisfaction to God.
27:16
But the source argues the context shows Daniel was
27:19
advising the king to make recompense to the men he had
27:21
wronged by replacing his injustice and cruelty with mercy
27:25
and righteousness. It's presented as a fruit of
27:27
repentance, demonstrating a change of heart towards people,
27:31
not as a payment rendered to God for past sins.
27:34
OK, so changing behavior towards others, not paying God back,
27:38
What else? It also considers passages like
27:41
one in Proverbs or first Peter chapter 4 that talk about love
27:44
covers a multitude of sins. Yeah, I know that one.
27:47
The source says the scholastics interpret this as love acting as
27:50
a satisfaction that earns pardon from God.
27:53
But the source counters that this is talking about love
27:55
covering faults among people. It leads believers to tolerate
27:58
each other's failings, to admonish gently, to forgive each
28:02
other within the community of faith.
28:04
Interpersonal Relationships. Yes, or it says maybe it
28:08
describes love and piety as simply the fruits or evidence of
28:10
genuine conversion and forgiveness already received,
28:13
not the payment made to God to obtain it.
28:15
OK, what about examples where God does seem to punish
28:19
believers after they sin, like David?
28:22
Right, that's a big one. It addresses examples like God
28:25
causing the death of David's child conceived with Bathsheba,
28:28
or sending a plague after David's sinful census.
28:31
The source acknowledges that the scholastics interpret these
28:34
events as God exacting A temporal penalty from believers
28:38
after forgiving their guilt. They use this to argue that,
28:41
see, temporal penalties do remain and need to be paid.
28:44
But the source argues very strongly against this
28:47
interpretation. It insists these are not
28:49
payments for sin, they are chastisement from God.
28:53
Chastisement, not satisfaction. Exactly.
28:55
They are for correction, for public example, to humble David
28:59
profoundly, and to teach him and all of us the terrible
29:02
seriousness of sin. They are not a debt collection
29:05
for God's justice after David had already received free
29:08
forgiveness based purely on God's mercy.
29:10
The Lord has put away your sin. You shall not die.
29:13
I see the distinction. The source insists that every
29:16
biblical example of forgiveness it looks at, whether it's the
29:18
tax collector in the temple, Peter after denying Christ, the
29:22
paralytic lower through the roof shows free forgiveness with no
29:26
punishment or satisfaction demanded or imposed on the
29:28
Sinner. Afterwards.
29:30
It even discusses the story of the sinful woman anointing
29:32
Jesus's feet. Her great love is presented not
29:36
as the cause or payment for her forgiveness, but as the proof
29:39
and result of the great forgiveness she had already
29:41
received. Christ explicitly says to her,
29:44
your faith has saved you, go in peace, not your love has paid
29:49
your debt. This detailed look at how
29:51
specific passages are interpreted really underscores
29:54
how deeply the source challenges the very foundations of that
29:58
Scholastic doctrine of satisfaction.
30:00
Now this whole discussion. Forgiveness, confession,
30:03
satisfaction. It seems like it has to connect
30:05
directly to the idea of the power of the keys, doesn't it?
30:08
How did the Scholastics and the source understand that authority
30:10
given to the Church? Yes, absolutely connected.
30:14
The source explains that the scholastic theologians link this
30:16
power of the keys, you know, the authority to bind and loose,
30:20
mentioned in Matthew 16 and 18, directly to their three-part
30:23
system of penance. They assert that the priest,
30:27
acting through the process of auricular confession, has the
30:29
authority to declare who are to be bound or loosed.
30:33
They basically view this power as a kind of jurisdiction joined
30:37
with investigation. The priest acts almost like a
30:39
judge. They hear the case, the
30:41
confession, assess the evidence, the contrition, impose a
30:45
sentence satisfaction, and then, based on all that, they remit or
30:49
retain the sins. So in the scholastic view
30:51
presented by the source, the priest wields a sort of judicial
30:55
power, like a spiritual magistrate, making rulings based
30:58
on the evidence presented in confession and the perceived
31:01
sincerity of the penitent. Yes, that's precisely how the
31:03
source characterizes their view. And the source argues this is a
31:06
quote, preposterous and actually harmful twisting of what Christ
31:09
originally taught about the keys.
31:11
Preposterous. It contends that the power of
31:13
the keys is not some independent judicial authority handed over
31:16
to priests to wield based on their own judgment.
31:19
Instead, the source argues, it is inseparable from the
31:22
preaching of the Gospel and is fundamentally bound to the Word
31:26
of God itself. OK, what does that mean
31:28
practically? That the power of the keys is
31:31
inseparable from preaching the gospel and bound to the Word.
31:35
It means that ministers exercise this power not as autonomous
31:39
judges making decisions on their own authority, but as heralds or
31:43
ambassadors. Heralds, yes.
31:44
They simply publish what has been dictated from the Word of
31:47
God. They are messengers delivering
31:49
the King's message. They declare and apply the
31:52
forgiveness and grace that is already offered freely in the
31:54
Gospel. The source states that the
31:56
entire power rests in the grace of the gospel itself being
31:59
publicly preached and then privately sealed in the hearts
32:02
of believers. This ceiling, this assurance of
32:06
pardon, happens through the ministry of the Word, both
32:08
public preaching and private application or counsel.
32:11
Ministers are described as witnesses, sponsors of God's
32:14
mercy, whose main role is to assure consciences of the
32:17
forgiveness promised in the Gospel.
32:19
So the minister's role isn't really to grant forgiveness
32:21
based on whether you've checked all the boxes of contrition and
32:24
confession, but rather to announce God's forgiveness,
32:27
which is freely given through Christ and which you receive
32:30
simply by faith in his promise as declared from the Word.
32:34
Precisely. The source argues that the
32:36
Scholastic view inherently makes absolution, the declaration of
32:39
pardon, fundamentally uncertain. Uncertain why?
32:43
Because its effectiveness is tied to the priests judgment and
32:46
their knowledge of things they can't possibly know for sure.
32:50
Did the person confess everything?
32:52
Was their contrition truly due and sufficient?
32:55
Does the penitent really merit absolution based on their
32:58
performance in the confessional? Since the priest cannot actually
33:02
know the inner state of someones heart, or if the list of sins is
33:05
exact and integral, the absolution they pronounce
33:08
becomes conditional. It depends on these uncertain
33:11
human factors. The source famously calls this
33:14
trying to claim power without knowledge.
33:16
Power without knowledge. That's potent.
33:18
It also questions the underlying assumption that all priests are
33:22
necessarily successors of the apostles in this specific
33:25
judicial sense, or that they automatically possess the Holy
33:29
Spirit required to exercise this kind of authority effectively,
33:32
which further undermines the certainty of the scholastic
33:36
model of absolution. OK.
33:38
And the source's view of true absolution, how does that offer
33:42
something different in terms of assurance or certainty?
33:44
Well, the source says true absolution is understood simply
33:48
as the testimony of a pardon, and that pardon is taken
33:51
directly from the freely given promise of the gospel itself.
33:54
OK. This pardon is declared to the
33:56
center by the minister acting as God's herald, and it is received
34:00
and made effective by faith. The efficacy, the certainty of
34:03
this absolution doesn't depend on the priest's insight into the
34:06
specifics of the sin or the depth of the sinner's feelings.
34:10
It depends entirely on the sinner's faith, clinging to the
34:13
gospel promise proclaimed by the minister according to God's Word
34:16
in command. This, the source argues,
34:19
provides real comfort and certainty because your hope,
34:22
your assurance, is placed firmly in the infallible promise of God
34:26
Himself, not in a fellow humans inherently uncertain judgement
34:30
of your performance. That's a significant difference.
34:32
Now, our source material also brings up God's judgements, and
34:36
it makes a very clear distinction between two kinds of
34:38
judgement. How does this distinction fit
34:41
into the bigger picture of forgiveness, and especially that
34:44
idea of human satisfaction? Yes, this distinction is really
34:48
crucial for completing the sources argument against the
34:51
need for human satisfaction. The source explains that God
34:54
exercises both a judgement of vengeance and a judgement of
34:58
chastisement. OK, vengeance and chastisement.
35:00
Let's take the judgement of vengeance first.
35:02
What does the source say defines that type of judgement?
35:05
This judgement, according to the source, is directed towards
35:08
God's enemies, towards the unrepentant wicked.
35:11
It's characterized by God's wrath, his righteous
35:13
indignation. When God exercises this
35:16
judgement, he takes vengeance. He confounds, scatters, brings
35:20
his adversaries to nothing. It's described clearly as
35:24
punishment joined with indignation, the act of a
35:26
righteous judge executing justice.
35:29
The afflictions the wicked experience in this life are seen
35:32
almost as an entryway of hell. They're not primarily meant to
35:36
bring them to repentance, but to demonstrate God publicly as a
35:39
judge and avenger against sin. OK, and the absolutely key point
35:44
the source makes here is that this judgment of vengeance is
35:46
always completely withheld from believers.
35:48
Why? Because Christ bore that
35:50
vengeance fully in their place on the cross.
35:52
Right, Christ took the vengeance, so how does that
35:54
differ from the judgment of chastisement?
35:56
Chastisement, according to the source, is directed towards
35:59
believers, towards those who are called the children of God.
36:02
In this context, God is quote, not so harsh as to be angry in
36:07
the same way he is with his enemies.
36:09
He doesn't blast them with destruction.
36:10
This is not vengeance. It's not a proper punishment in
36:13
the sense of exacting a penalty for past sin to satisfy justice.
36:17
So what is it then? It is correction and admonition.
36:21
It's the act of a loving father disciplining his child.
36:24
He's teaching him, making him more cautious for the future,
36:27
warning him, not seeking revenge or trying to maltreat him.
36:30
Even when Scripture talks about God being angry with his Saints,
36:33
the source says he always remembers mercy in that anger.
36:37
His anger is directed at their vices, the sin itself.
36:40
It's not meant to consume them. So it's like the correction from
36:43
a loving parent aimed at improvement, not the final
36:46
sentence from a judge demanding payment.
36:48
Precisely. The source explicitly calls this
36:51
chastisement a blessing of God and even a witness to His love
36:54
for His servants. Its purpose is fundamentally
36:57
different from vengeance or satisfaction.
37:00
Its purpose is not to pay the penalty for their sins to God.
37:03
That penalty was paid by Christ. OK, so why does God chasten
37:07
believers then? The source says it is sent in
37:09
order thereby to be led to repentance.
37:12
It's about amendment for the future.
37:14
It's about trial and testing for growth.
37:16
It's about learning lessons, developing caution.
37:18
It's not about settling accounts for past debts.
37:21
It's described vividly as medicinal pain, not a penal
37:24
sentence or condemnation. Medicinal pain.
37:26
Interesting. Yes, the example cited earlier.
37:29
Like God taking away David's child or sending the plague
37:32
after the census, The source interprets these not as David
37:35
paying a remaining penalty for his sin after being forgiven.
37:39
No, they are seen as proof of God's intense displeasure with
37:42
David's sin, intended for public example, intended for David's
37:46
own deep humiliation, and intended to teach him and us
37:50
never to commit such crimes again.
37:52
Believers are chastened, as the source notes from Hebrews 12, so
37:55
that they are not ultimately condemned along with the world.
37:58
When believers face difficulties, the source
38:00
suggests, they can recognize God's fatherly anger directed at
38:03
their specific vices, but at the same time recognize His
38:07
underlying mercy and kindness directed toward them as His
38:10
beloved children in sending that needed correction.
38:13
This distinction between vengeance, which Christ bore,
38:16
and chastisement, which believers experience for
38:18
correction, seems absolutely vital for the sources whole
38:21
argument against needing human satisfaction.
38:23
It is. It's the capstone in a way, the
38:25
source argues. Since God Forgives sins
38:28
completely through Christ's sacrifice, he remits all the
38:32
penalty of vengeance. Therefore, since vengeance is
38:35
totally removed for the believer, any afflictions they
38:38
experience cannot be a payment to God's justice for their sin.
38:42
They must be something else. They must be chastisement.
38:44
Exactly. They are chastisement from a
38:47
loving father designed for correction, instruction and
38:49
growth, not a demand for satisfaction from a judge who
38:52
has already been fully and finally satisfied by the work of
38:55
his son. The two judgments, vengeance and
38:58
chastisement, have entirely different objects, enemies
39:01
versus children, and entirely different purposes, Destruction
39:05
payment versus correction instruction.
39:06
OK, so let's try to bring all these threads together now.
39:10
We've looked at the sources critique of the scholastic views
39:12
on contrition, confession and satisfaction.
39:15
Plus it's take on the power of the keys in God's judgments.
39:18
It really does paint 2 starkly different pictures of how a
39:21
Sinner relates to God and finds forgiveness, doesn't it?
39:24
It really does. On the one hand, you have the
39:26
scholastic system as presented and critiqued in the source.
39:30
It places this tremendous heavy burden on human performance.
39:34
You have to achieve a certain required level of sorrow.
39:37
You have to meticulously recount every single sin to a priest,
39:41
and then you have to perform works to satisfy some kind of
39:44
remaining temporal penalty. And according to the source,
39:47
this system inevitably leads to inner torment, constant anxiety,
39:51
and profound uncertainty for the conscience.
39:54
The requirements are portrayed as basically impossible to
39:57
verify or fulfill completely, and your assurance of pardon
40:00
ends up depending on your own shaky performance and the
40:03
ultimately uncertain judgement of another human being, the
40:06
priest. That's one picture, and the
40:08
contrasting picture, the one the source presents, is being rooted
40:11
in Christ and Scripture. That view, according to the
40:14
source, grounds forgiveness entirely and solely in God's
40:17
mercy alone, a mercy that is received freely as a gift,
40:22
entirely through Christ's finished completes sacrifice.
40:25
Christ is presented unequivocally as the soul
40:28
priest, the soul offering, the soul expiation, the soul
40:31
satisfaction, the one who bore the full penalty for our sins,
40:35
leaving absolutely no remaining debt for us to try and pay off.
40:39
In this view, confession is primarily directed to God
40:42
Himself, flowing naturally from an awareness of sin and
40:45
prompting A sincere seeking of His mercy.
40:48
Other forms of confession, whether public or private, serve
40:51
important but secondary purposes like mutual support among
40:54
believers, seeking godly counsel from pastors or others,
40:57
restoring broken relationships, or maintaining good order and
41:00
witness within the church community.
41:02
But they are never presented as conditions you must meet to earn
41:04
pardon from God. And the power of the keys, in
41:08
this view, isn't a judicial power held by priests, but it is
41:11
the ministry of the Gospel itself.
41:14
Ministers act as heralds, proclaiming God's free pardon
41:17
based on His trustworthy promise in the Word, and that pardon is
41:21
received and made certain to the individual conscience simply by
41:24
faith. It definitely sounds like the
41:26
source argues that this second view offers what I called that
41:29
haven for the troubled conscience.
41:31
Yes, that phrase comes up again. By directing your hope, your
41:34
gaze entirely away from yourself and your own impossible efforts,
41:38
and fixing it solely on God's finished work in Christ and His
41:41
free, reliable promise. It contrasts that sharply with
41:45
the anxiety and uncertainty it sees inherent and the demands of
41:48
the scholastic system's focus on human performance.
41:50
That is absolutely the argument the source makes.
41:53
It contends that placing your reliance solely and completely
41:57
on Christ's satisfaction ensures that your conscience can be
42:00
truly assured of pardon for sin. You can have genuine peace with
42:05
God. And it presents this as a stark
42:07
contrast to the scholastic system, which, in the sources
42:11
view, inevitably leaves individuals trapped in perpetual
42:14
doubt about the sufficiency of their own performance and
42:16
questioning whether they truly have a merciful God or one still
42:20
demanding payment. OK, so we really dug into the
42:23
critique presented in these sources.
42:25
We've seen how the scholastic doctrine of penance, with its
42:28
specific requirements for contrition, the mandatory or
42:31
regular confession of all sins, and the need for satisfaction
42:34
through works, is presented by this source as a system that
42:36
burdens the conscience fundamentally undermines the
42:39
sufficiency of Christ's work, and ultimately deviates from the
42:43
freedom of forgiveness offered in the Gospel.
42:45
That sums up the critique well. And then, in sharp contrast, the
42:49
sources highlight this alternative view, one rooted
42:52
entirely in God's free mercy alone, applied completely
42:56
through Christ's sacrifice, received simply by faith.
43:00
In this view, confession is primarily to God, and ministers
43:03
act as heralds proclaiming this certain pardon based on God's
43:06
unfailing promise. Yeah, this deep dive into the
43:09
source material definitely lays out a very specific theological
43:12
perspective, and it's detailed critique of another viewpoint.
43:16
It gives you a lot to think about regarding the foundations
43:19
of forgiveness and assurance. It really does does, and it
43:22
leaves you with something to consider, doesn't it?
43:24
If this source is correct, if forgiveness through Christ
43:26
genuinely includes the remission of all penalty, not just the
43:29
guilt but the penalty too, then how does understanding the
43:33
difficulties, the hardships, the consequences you inevitably face
43:36
in this life as being God's chastisement, his fatherly
43:39
correction for your growth, rather than as some kind of
43:42
payment for sin you still owe? Yeah.
43:44
How might that change your perspective on His justice and
43:47
maybe even more so, his mercy, when you go through those hard
43:49
times? That is certainly something
43:51
worth mulling over, a very practical implication from these
43:54
theological distinctions. Indeed.
43:56
Well, thanks for joining us for this deep dive into these
43:59
important sources today. It was my pleasure.
44:01
Until next time, yeah.