Confession

When one wants to make up with a neighbor one hurt or offended in the past, one usually asks for forgiveness and brings along a small gift, like a bottle of wine, as a token of one’s good will. If the offended neighbor accepts the apology, he typically invites the offender in, opens the bottle of wine, and shares it with the latter: showing a renewed friendship and that the latter is forgiven.

One may confess one’s sins to God and ask for forgiveness, but the problem is that God does not give any outward sign of whether he forgave the sinner or not: the result is that one never knows whether one is forgiven, which might be very disturbing at the moment of death. Needless to add, it’s nonsensical to forgive oneself.

Sacrifice

Let me first go back to the concept of sacrifice in the Old Testament. In a sacrifice, an animal was swiftly killed, its body (or part of it) was placed on an altar, and burned totally. The rising smoke gave the visual impression that God was receiving it as an reconciling gift for one’s sins. Still, it is ludicrous to think that the life, blood, and body of these animals were the ingredients that forgave one’s sins; it was a penitent’s disposition that forgave one’s sins: that is, being sorry for what he had done. A sacrifice, therefore, was only a visible sign that the invisible God has forgiven one’s sins. Presumably, therefore, God cannot forgive sins unless one is truly sorry for the harm one had caused others and is honestly willing to change one’s ways.

Auricular Confession

Of course, Christians no longer offer burnt sacrifices to God, like the Hebrews and Jews did. In particular, the Catholic Church has ‘auricular confession’ to an official of the Church (a priest) instead. Several other Christian Churches, like the Orthodox and a few other Protestant denominations, have some form of confession.

Many of us, especially the less educated, still feel more comfortable having an outward sign that the invisible God has forgiven our sins. However, this alone should be the object of confession. What is most important for God to be able to forgive us our sins is, first and foremost, that we are sorry for the wrong we have done, for the damage we have caused others—not to go to confession per se. The official act of going to confession to a priest can come later, and only if one wishes to do so: “to dot the i’s and cross the t’s,” so to speak; in other words, it should not be made indispensable or obligatory.

Yet, according to the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church,’ “Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of Penance: ‘All the mortal [grave] sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret.’” (p. 312, ¶ 1456, emphasis mine)

[Note: ‘Confession’ is also known as the ‘sacrament of Penance’ or the ‘sacrament of reconciliation.’]

Recalling that confession, like a sacrifice, is only an external sign of an inward disposition, such strict and unreasonable rules about confessing one’s sins, especially those of a sexual nature, usually end up depressing people and distancing them from God and one’s Church. To make confession of one’s mortal sins to a priest an absolute, compulsory requirement may end up imprisoning some, if not many, people in sin even more: especially when it comes to women, who may find real difficulty confessing acts of a sexual nature to a man (a priest) because of an understandable shyness they might experience. The least the Catholic Church can do is to revise its teachings and eliminate sexual misdemeanors, which are currently designated as mortal sins, like ogling and masturbation (see my article entitled ‘Masturbation’), from the mortal sin list. Given the background on the object of sacrifice and condition for forgiveness above, I think the position adopted by the Church simply boils down to a clerical power trip.

In support of my option, it is interesting to note that, apart from the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, most other Christian denominations leave the private (auricular) confession of sins to an official of the church optional. So again, Protestants, rather than Catholics and Orthodox, seem to have the concept of confession right. Although Protestants do recommend private confession, it is not made indispensable. I am of the same opinion: I think it helps to have something concrete, for one’s peace of mind especially on one’s deathbed, that God has indeed forgiven one’s sins; but it should not be mandatory.

Biblical Endorsement

Where I disagree with Protestants is their saying that confession is not a sacrament instituted by Christ or, even worse, that it is not biblically grounded. I think they are only trying their best to oppose the Catholic Church whichever way they can because John’s gospel portrays Jesus saying, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23, KJV) Moreover Matthew’s gospel portrays Jesus telling his leading apostle, Peter, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19, KJV) And Matthew’s gospel also portrays Jesus telling his disciples, “Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18, KJV) Furthermore, in the Letter of James, we read, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.” (James 5:16) So, there does seem to be ample biblical basis for confession being a sacrament instituted by Christ. Indeed, in its article ‘Confession (Lutheran Church),’ Wikipedia, points out that the Large Catechism of the Lutheran Church calls confession a “third sacrament”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(Lutheran_Church).

Nevertheless, as I point out in many places in my blog, the Bible is not God’s Word; it’s strictly of human origin, not of divine revelation. (See especially my two articles on ‘Bible Contradictions’ and my two articles on ‘Bible Prophecies.’) Consequently, Jesus did not necessarily say these words. Not to mention that, according to the biblical scholars of the New American Bible, John’s gospel—the gospel containing the clearest quote concerning confession—was written as late as the end of the first century (NAB, p. 144), and is therefore more prone to embellishment than the other three gospels, which were written earlier. (See my article entitled ‘Gospel.’)

False Doctrine

Now, according to the Catholic catechism, one does not really have to be sorry for what one has done or for the damage one has caused: that is, fear of going to hell, or regret of losing heaven, is enough for forgiveness, provided one confesses one’s sins to a priest.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “By itself … imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.” (p. 312, ¶ 1453, emphasis mine) In other words, ‘imperfect contrition’ is enough if accompanied by confession to a priest.

[Note: Perfect contrition consists of being sorry strictly for having offended God by one’s sins. Imperfect contrition consists of being sorry for one’s sins for any other ‘spiritual’ reason: it could be “the consideration of sin’s ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threating the sinner” (p. 312, ¶ 1453), but not temporary punishments like incarceration or fines. Notice especially the phrase “fear of eternal damnation.”]

In my opinion, if one confesses a sin for which one is not truly sorry for the harm done to others (i.e., one is only sorry for selfish reasons—like being scared of hell), despite the Church’s teaching, I do not think God can forgive that sin. Let us suppose, for example, a man kills his enemy and goes to confession because he is scared of going to hell, but he’s not sorry for killing him nor for the misery he caused his family. I do not think God can forgive his sin: being scared for one’s own skin is not contrition at all; I think this is false doctrine. The Church here has lost the essence of confession; what is most important is sincere contrition, not confessing one’s sins to a priest: confession, like Old Testament sacrifices, should be only an outward sign of an internal disposition—only for the peace of mind of the sinner. As I mentioned above, I think it’s a clerical power trip: to give priests more importance—similar to the Eucharist—see my article entitled ‘The Eucharist (Holy Communion)’.

Sin

Again, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Sin is before all else an offence against God.” (p. 309, ¶ 1440)

I tend to differ: I think sin is primarily an offence against one’s neighbor because God is so insulated from us. We cannot hurt him or his feelings as we can hurt our neighbor. This is like saying that when a murder is committed, it is the police or the law that are hurt most, not the individual or his family.

Should a good parent get too involved in the disagreements of one’s children? The parent should only try to help them sort out their differences: in any disagreement between siblings, the parent is not affected more than the siblings themselves—it’s ludicrous to think so. Sin devastates our lives and other people’s lives—not God’s. The only way we might hurt God’s feelings is because we hurt people he loves; but he loves us too: his primary concern is us—not himself. When two siblings hurt one another, a good parent feels sorry for and empathizes with both: the parent does not get upset at both. Consequently, contrary to the Church’s teaching, most of the time, sin is not an offence against God but against one’s neighbor: so, again against its teaching, sin is not of infinite magnitude, it’s strictly of finite magnitude.

One might possibly argue otherwise in the case of an offence directed at God personally, like blasphemy, say; though I doubt whether he takes it seriously either. Can you imagine an ant shaking its puny fist at you? It will probably make you laugh, not upset you. Does a parent get outraged if a toddler tells its parent “I hate you” and means it? Of course, one might still insist that we are adults not toddlers, but in fact we can never fully realize God’s majesty especially in anger: so our offence is always ever so mitigated.

Redemption

Now, exactly what made the Church insist that sin is primarily an offence against God redeemable only by a ‘God-man’—Jesus?

(1) The early Christians could not comprehend why Jesus ended up crucified—why he was taken away from them so abruptly. They honestly thought he was the ‘Messiah’ (in Hebrew) or the ‘Christ’ (in Greek) who would deliver the world of those days from Roman oppression. So, they devised the concept of a ‘suffering’ Messiah. In my article entitled ‘Bible Prophesies (Textual),’ under the heading “Christ’s Atonement,” I show clearly that, according to the Old Testament, the Messiah was not supposed to suffer.

(2) Early in the second century CE, Christians interpreted John’s gospel literally and made Jesus, a human, God. Toward the end of the fourth century, they declared God a Trinity. (See my article entitled ‘The Trinity.’)

(3) In the eleventh century, Anselm came along and opined that the alleged original sin committed by our so-called ‘first parents’ was an infinitely great offence against God, and therefore someone both human and divine (a ‘God-man’) was necessary to redeem humanity from the depths it had fallen into. I have also shown, in my article entitled ‘Adam and Eve—Original Sin,’ that the story of Adam and Eve is only a previous Sumerian myth—a fable—adapted to monotheism. The talking serpent (which belongs in the realm of fables) is an obvious giveaway. So, original sin never happened; consequently, Jesus did not really have to redeem us from any such sin.

(4) Christians seem to have forgotten that God simply forgives sin, and that forgiveness implies non-repayment. In other words, Jesus’s so-called ‘sacrifice’ was not required by God because God does forgive repented sin.

(5) They also forgot that a sacrifice does not really pay for a sin: it is only a token of a restored friendship—an external sign of an inward disposition. The life, blood, and flesh of the sacrificed animals were not the ingredients for restoring friendship with God; neither was the wine shared by the hypothetical neighbors in my parable at the introduction to this article. Likewise, neither was Jesus’s death on the cross.

(6) Moreover, suffering was not supposed to be part of a sacrifice; it was only collateral damage: in fact, the sacrificial animal was killed swiftly.

(7) Christians also seem to have missed the concept that God allowed Jesus to die a public death to make sure his followers believed he was truly resurrected. Had Jesus died a private death, most of his followers would have doubted whether he really rose from the dead.

Every direction one looks, the Church got things wrong.

Evangelical Pastor’s Opinion

Like most Christians, former pastor, conference speaker, relationship counselor, and Christian evangelist Darin Hufford believes that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from our sins. In his great book The Misunderstood God, he writes, however, that “God did not send His only Son to die because he was so offended by sin that he needed to whack someone in order to feel better.” (p. 97) He opines that “A ‘sin offering’ is not made to God. A sin offering is an offering made to sin. Sin is a beast that wants to devour us.” (p. 97) He continues, “The sacrifice on the cross was essentially Christ throwing himself in front of the beast on your behalf and allowing it to consume him while you escaped.” (pp. 97–98) In my opinion, his philosophy, or rather theology, as a whole, is a little incoherent, but he makes some very good points.

Here’s what he continues to write: “Jesus did not die on the cross to satisfy God’s moral rage at your sin. … The death He died, He died to sin, once and for all. … God’s loathing of sin has nothing to do with how it affects him. He despises sin because it destroys His children. … His forgiveness is not even the issue. (p. 98, emphasis mine)

Unless I am misunderstanding Hufford, therefore, it was not necessary for us to be redeemed from the original sin allegedly committed by our so-called ‘first parents’; in other words, God’s so called ‘infinite justice’ did not require satisfaction: he could simply forgive the sin.

In fact, Hufford adds that it’s probably much harder for us to forgive ourselves for the damage we have caused in our own lives and to our family than for God to forgive us our sins. So basically, Hufford agrees with me that Jesus did not die on the cross to repay the debt we supposedly owed God for our sins; and that forgiveness was not an issue for God.

But then, I am sorry, I cannot see how Jesus’s one-time death solved all the problems and heartaches, “once and for all,” our sins have caused the whole world throughout all the ages: it sounds rather presumptuous to me. Unfortunately, Jesus died a victim of church and state—as often happens. Besides, as we have seen above, a sin offering, or a sacrifice, is only a token gift to show what is presumably in our heart: an external sign of our desire to re-establish our relationship with an invisible God. It does not repair the damage done. In these two sideline respects I must disagree with Hufford.

Conclusion

I believe God conceived Jesus to show us, in human terms (i.e., by an actual example—his entire life), the best way to relate to others and to God himself. I also contend that God allowed Jesus to die a criminal’s but public death only to be able to convince everyone that he was an exceptional individual worthy of following his teachings by resurrecting him from a death everybody witnessed.

God simply forgives repented sins; besides, as mentioned above, if one really thinks about it, forgiveness implies non-repayment. If God exacts payment in the interest of ‘divine justice,’ then he does not forgive.

Moreover, I do not believe that Jesus was divine: he was conceived by God’s directly donating a special sperm, yes, but he was only human. How does miraculously creating a special sperm make it divine? A sperm is still a sperm: it is not a miniature god, not even an angel. God only had to make a small miracle to create a special sperm in his own image—par excellence. If one thinks about it, we were all indirectly created by God himself anyway—in his image too; but that does not make us all gods: there is only one God.

So, if sin were truly an offence of infinite magnitude, because it is supposedly perpetrated against God, there is no way a human could ever repay for it: not even Jesus because Jesus was human not divine; consequently, we are all still in our sins. Furthermore, as Hufford also points out above, sin is not a personal offence against God: it is mainly an offence against other humans. So, contrary to the Church’s teaching, it is not an infinitely great offence: in other words, we did not need a being of infinite power (a god, or rather God) to repay for it. Any way one looks at it, there are contradictions in the Church’s doctrine.

References

Hufford, Darin. The Misunderstood God: The Lies Religion Tells about God. Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2009. (ISBN: 9781935170051)

Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Concacan Inc. Ottawa, ON: Publications Services, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (ISBN: 0889972818)

New American Bible: Revised Edition. Translated from the original languages, authorized by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, and approved by the United States Confraternity of Catholic Bishops. Totowa, NJ: Catholic Book Publishing Corp., 2010. (ISBN: 9780899429519)

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Oxford, UK, 1769. (KJV)

Wikipedia s.v. ‘Confession (Lutheran Church)’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(Lutheran_Church), edited April 23, 2023.

Author’s Books

For those readers who might be interested in buying any of my books, following are the publisher’s (iUniverse’s) links. If you find the hard copies expensive, the soft copies are only US$3.99 each. Should you decide to buy any of my books, kindly also remember to leave a review after reading it (2 or 3 sentences would do).

(1) Is God a Reality?—A Scientific Investigation:

https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/740913-Is-God-a-Reality,

(2) Is the Bible Infallible?—A Rational, Scientific, and Historical Evaluation:

https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/792987-is-the-bible-infallible, and

(3) Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines:https://www.iuniverse.com/en/bookstore/bookdetails/812598-faith-and-reason. My books are also available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Indigo-Chapters, etc.