LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 222

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

222

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

and work and breathe under the absolution of his Lord?
From the closest circle of the Lord’s disciples, like Peter
and John, to His most violent opponents, like Paul, the
men who followed and the men who led, the households
who repented and believed, those who had been chosen
and those who were once far off, all lived in the grace
of the absolution of the One who loved them and gave
Himself for them.

‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom
of heaven’
And what about believers since then? What about those
who cannot take the Baby Jesus into their arms, who
cannot sit with Him by the sea or walk with Him toward
Jerusalem, who cannot stand at the foot of the cross or run
to the empty tomb or meet with Him in the upper room?
What about us? To whom do we make our confession?
Where can we hear the absolving voice of our Lord?
Even during His earthly ministry, Jesus used His
followers to extend the proclamation of the Gospel. On
more than one occasion, specially designated representatives were sent forth with the message of peace. To
His apostles, our Lord said: “The one who hears you
hears me” (Luke 10:16). This representative authority, this
speaking of Jesus through the mouths of His chosen
servants, is especially focused on the word of forgiveness
when Jesus gives to His Church the keys of His kingdom:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”
(Matt. 16:18–19).
“Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them
and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you
forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if
you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld’”
(John 20:22–23).

and with God’s gracious promises of forgiveness and
life and salvation in His Son. In His Word, God urges
us: “Confess your sins to one another and pray for one
another, that you may be healed” (James 5:16). Who can
deny that we, too, need healing — in our hearts and
homes and in our communities and congregations? Who
can offer a reason to “neglect such a great salvation”
(Heb. 2:3)? God desires to grant repentance. God offers
wholeness and healing in forgiveness. The whole thrust
of Scripture’s teaching is that God’s people should seek
out every possible way to live in confession and absolution individually and together, to bear fruits in our lives
worthy of the precious gift of repentance, to live entire
lives of repentance.

Confessional Witness
The Lutheran Confessions interpret and apply this biblical
foundation of confession and absolution. In recovering
the biblical perspective, the Book of Concord examined the
medieval institution of the sacrament of penance (pages
12–14 below) and reformed it. The Confessions emphasize
that at the heart of private confession is absolution.
Thus, article XI of the Augsburg Confession, “On Private
Confession,” says: “Concerning confession it is taught that
private absolution should be retained and not abolished.
However, it is not necessary to enumerate all misdeeds
and sins, since it is not possible to do so. Psalm 19[:12]:
‘But who can detect their errors?’”19
The point of private absolution is the communication
of the Gospel to those who are troubled by the Law. The
Lutheran reformers changed Roman practices that obscured or vitiated the absolution. Enumeration of all sins
in confession, as was required by the Roman Church, is
neither commanded nor possible. It shifts the focus from
the Gospel as the Word of God to the work of man. Additionally, the Lutheran church did away with the Roman
requirement that every Christian had to go to confession
at least once a year, since such a requirement also undermines the Gospel-character of confession and absolution
and, as noted earlier, there is no specific divine requirement of private confession and absolution.20 Most importantly, the Lutheran Confessions rejected “satisfaction,”
which is the work of the penitent, imposed by the priest,

‘That you may be healed’
Once again, we must admit that we find in the pages of
the Bible no command to practice a specific order or rite
of confession and absolution. What we can now add,
however, is that the pages of both Testaments overflow
with expressions of God’s gracious will that all repent

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

History
As indicated earlier, the Book of Concord’s teachings
about confession did not emerge in a vacuum, but within
a historical context. The theology and practice of private
confession and absolution developed over the course of
the church’s life.28 The Early Church tended to stress “the
absolute requirement to live a life of holiness, without
blame, after Baptism.”29 As a result of the concern for
restoration on account of sin committed after Baptism, penance became a kind of “second baptism.”30 Its
integrity therefore had to be ensured and so the process
of restoration was institutionalized as made evident by
Tertullian (third century).31

27
KW 479. “A Brief Exhortation to Confession,” an appendix to the
1529 revised edition of the Large Catechism that was not included in
the Book of Concord of 1580 and subsequent editions.
28
For a more sufficient treatment of confession and absolution in this
period, see Thomas Tentler, “Confession,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of
the Reformation, Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996), I:402. Fred L. Precht, “Confession and Absolution: Sin and
Forgiveness,” in Lutheran Worship: History and Practice, Fred L. Precht,
ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993), 322.; Fred L. Precht,
“Changing Theologies of Private and Public Confession and Absolution,” Th.D. thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1965; and Thomas
Sluberski, “Absolution: An Historical Overview,” Seminarian 54 (May
1963): 38–42.
29
John A. Guerrieri, “Penance: A Brief Survey of a Problematic History,” Lutheran Forum (Fall 1997): 26.

Guerrieri, “Penance,” 26.

31
“Yet the development of the doctrine of the death of Christ was to be
shaped by another term, ‘satisfaction,’ which Tertullian seems to have
introduced into Christian language but which was to find its normative
exposition only in the Middle Ages. Tertullian’s doctrine of ‘satisfaction’ may have come from Roman private law, where it referred to the
amends one made to another for failing to discharge on obligation,
or from Roman public law, which enabled the term to be interpreted
as a form of punishment. In the language of the church, ‘satisfaction’
was a term for the reparation made necessary by sins after baptism,
within the context of the developing doctrine of penance. Tertullian’s treatise on repentance spoke of God as ‘one to whom you may
make satisfaction’ and of confession as motivated by a desire to make
satisfaction. One who repented was ‘making satisfaction to the Lord,’
one who lapsed after repentance was ‘making satisfaction to the devil.’
The momentous consequences of the introduction of ‘satisfaction’
into Christian vocabulary did not become evident until later.” Jaroslav
Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100‐600 (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1971): 147.

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

AC XI, KW 44.

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

2019 Convention Workbook

The recovery of biblical teaching informed these
changes. A proper understanding of confession and
absolution depends on a proper understanding of
repentance. The preaching of the Law causes contrition,
or sorrow, over sin. The sinner who experiences this
“terror over sin” is to be comforted by absolution, which
is received in faith. True repentance consists therefore
in contrition and faith.22 A person cannot make himself
contrite; this is a condition in which a person who is
affected by the Law finds himself and from which he
seeks help.

7

A number of theological and practical developments
characterized the practice of the medieval Roman
Catholic Church. Among these, Canon 21, “Omnis utriusque sexus,” of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) made
yearly confession obligatory by ecclesiastical law for all
males and females who attained “the age of reason” (age
7 for a normally developing child). Further, the idea of
a “treasury of merit,” where penitent sinners could draw
upon the merits of Jesus and the saints (through works
of supererogation) for the forgiveness of their own sins,
became increasingly popular.32
Along with these developments came the threefold
understanding of “penance” in the Roman tradition.
Penance had three parts: confession, absolution, satisfaction (or four parts if contrition is included before
confession). The absolution pronounced in the indicative was still conditioned on the works of satisfaction
outlined by the priest — your sins are forgiven, but
you must still do the works demanded of you to avoid
penalties in purgatory. This served as the launching pad
for confession and absolution to be viewed as something
related to making amends. In the period leading up to
the Reformation, Rome officially formulated its position
at the Council of Florence in 1439 that established what
poenitentia (penance) consisted of: contritio (contrition/
sorrow over sin), confessio (confession necessarily made
to a priest) and satisfactio (the satisfaction or works of
penance adjudicated by the priest).33
Luther believed this was a fundamental
misunderstanding of the gift of absolution and strove to
bring it back to its biblical foundations. For Luther and
the other confessors, the keys convey the Gospel (in the
broad sense as both Law and Gospel), by condemning,
in God’s name, self-assured people of their sin and by
assuring the contrite of their forgiveness. The binding
key, however, is for Luther only a means to an end. The
ultimate aim of the keys is the forgiveness of sins. The
loosing key, absolution, like Baptism, creates new life.
Absolution is efficacious because Christ works through
it. “For Christ has not ordained authorities or powers or

Confession has not been abolished by the preachers on our side. For the custom has been retained
among us of not administering the sacrament to
those who have not previously been examined
and absolved. At the same time, the people are
diligently instructed how comforting the word of
absolution is and how highly and dearly absolution is to be esteemed. For it is not the voice or
word of the person speaking it, but it is the Word
of God, who forgives sin. For it is spoken in God’s
stead and by God’s command. Great diligence is
used to teach about this command and power of
the keys, and how comforting and necessary it
is for terrified consciences. It is also taught how
God requires us to believe this absolution as much
as if it were God’s voice resounding from heaven
and that we should joyfully find comfort in the
absolution, knowing that through such faith we
obtain forgiveness of sin. In former times, the
preachers, while teaching much about confession, never mentioned a single word about these
necessary matters but instead only tormented
consciences with long enumerations of sins, with
satisfactions, with indulgences, with pilgrimages,
21
“Satisfaction is truly the most intricate of the three because no one
could know how much should be done for each individual sin, to say
nothing of all sins. Here they came up with the following solution:
they imposed a few satisfactions that a person could easily fulfill, such
as saying the Lord’s Prayer five times, fasting for a day, etc. For the
penance that remained people were directed to purgatory” (SA II 3,21,
KW 315).

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

lordships in his church, but ministries, … For in [baptism
and penance] there is a like ministry, a similar promise,
and the same kind of sacrament.”34 Thus, the application
of the loosing key is the act of God, which delivers the lifegiving forgiveness of sins won by Christ. Assurance stems
from the application of the loosing key.35
The Roman Catholics responded strongly. Between
1545 and 1563, the long-awaited general council of the
church began to meet at Trent, but without the presence
of any reformers. The Roman doctrine of penance, one
of the Council of Trent’s key issues, was addressed in the
14th session, held in 1551. The council condemned the
Reformation’s teaching that the preached Gospel was a
means of forgiveness for the baptized person who had
fallen into sin. Instead, auricular confession of all sins
before a priest was required, with absolution to follow if
the priest was satisfied with the contrition of the subject,
who then was to make satisfaction.36
Nevertheless, Lutherans maintained the practice
of private confession and absolution. For example, the
Church Order for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (Braunschweigische Kirchenordnung) of 1569 states, “Confession is
to be maintained, so that private absolution be sought
from the Lord Christ in the word through true confession and faith and from Christ through the medium of
the servant of the word.”37
34
Martin Luther, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Three
Treatises (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 208; translation from
AE 36:82.

36
Session the Fourteenth, Chapter I. Note also Chapter III (emphasis
added): “The holy council teaches furthermore, that the form of the
sacrament of penance, in which its efficacy chiefly consists, are those
words of the minister: I absolve thee, etc., to which are indeed laudably
added certain prayers according to the custom of holy Church, which,
however, do not by any means belong to the essence of the form nor
are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament. But the acts
of the penitent himself, namely, contrition, confession and satisfaction,
constitute the matter of this sacrament, which acts, inasmuch as they are
by God’s institution equired in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament and for the full and complete remission of sins, are for this reason
called the parts of penance.” Heinrich Denzinger, Peter Hunermann,
Enchiridion Symbolorum: A Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and
Declarations of the Catholic Church, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius
Press, 2012).

33
P.H.D. Lang, “Private Confession and Absolution in the Lutheran
Church: A Doctrinal, Historical, and Critical Study,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 56: 4 (1992): 243. See also Williston Walker, A History
of the Christian Church, 4th Edition (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1985): 346‐347.

9

Though there is no explicit divine command for
auricular confession, confession and absolution is more
than a mere human practice. The absolution has a divine
mandate since the Church has the power and duty (in
the Office of the Keys) to forgive the sins of those who
are troubled by their sins:
It is well known that we have so explained and
extolled the benefit of absolution and the power
of the keys that many troubled consciences have
received consolation from our teaching. They have
heard that it is a command of God — indeed, the
very voice of the Gospel — so that we may believe
the absolution and regard as certain that the
forgiveness of sins is given to us freely on account
of Christ and that we should maintain that we are
truly reconciled to God by this faith.24

37
Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andreae, Church Order for Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel: How Doctrine, Ceremonies, and Other Church-Related Matters Shall (by God’s Grace) Be Conducted Henceforth, trans. Jacob
Corzine, Matthew C. Harrison, and Andrew Smith (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2015), 51. The Braunschweigische Kirchenordnung of 1569 is found in Die Evangelischen Kirchenordnungen des XVI
Jahrhunderts, VI:I (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1955), 120,
compiled by Emil Sehling, cited in Lange, “Private Confession and
Absolution,” 246.

CONFESSION AND ABSOLUTION

|

The Confessions do not foresee a time in which
Christians will not be troubled by their sins and therefore
will not need to hear the word of absolution. Even more
so, a despising of absolution would be a despising of the
Gospel itself and thus a sign of the absence of faith.25
Since the Gospel is only received in faith, absolution
also is only received in faith. It must be remembered
here, however, that faith is not a work that a person
brings to confession and absolution, but rather a work
of the Holy Spirit. Absolution has its place in the life of
the baptized Christian who confesses Christ, confesses
that he is a sinner, and seeks consolation and assurance.
The absolution as the word of the Gospel strengthens the
faith of the one absolved.26 Thus, in confession and absolution we find the basic structure of what it means to be
23

AC XXV1–6, KW 72.

24

Ap XI 2, KW 186.

“Therefore it would be unconscionable to remove private absolution
from the church. Moreover, those who despise private absolution
know neither the forgiveness of sins nor the power of the key.” (Ap XII,
100–101, KW 204).
25

26
“The power of the keys administers and offers the gospel through
absolution, which is the true voice of the gospel. Thus, we also include
absolution when we talk about faith, because ‘faith comes from what
is heard,’ as Paul says [Rom. 10:17]. For when the gospel is heard, when
absolution is heard, the conscience is uplifted and receives consolation.
Because God truly makes alive through the Word, the keys truly forgive
sins before God according to [Luke 10:16], ‘Whoever listens to you
listens to me.’ … Thus faith is formed and strengthened through absolution, through hearing the gospel, and through use of the sacraments,
so that it might not succumb in its struggle against the terrors of sin
and death” (SA III,8, KW 321).

8

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

35
Luther, “The Keys,” 375. Luther’s themes found their way into the
Lutheran Confessions. Melanchthon captured the Lutheran emphasis
in Article XI of the Augsburg Confession and in Luther’s Smalcald
Articles of 1537.

32
See references in footnote 26. “Works of supererogation” is the term
used in Roman Catholic doctrine to refer to righteous acts that are
considered to go beyond what God requires. These acts on the part
of those canonized as saints are then considered to form a treasury
of merit that ordinary people can apply against their sins when they
purchase or otherwise receive an indulgence.

and the like. Moreover, many of our opponents
themselves confess that our side has written about
and dealt with true Christian repentance more
appropriately than had been done in a long time.23

Private confession and absolution is one way in which
the troubled conscience is to be comforted and the
Christian is to be assured that he is forgiven.

22
“Now properly speaking, true repentance is nothing else than to have
contrition and sorrow, or terror about sin, and yet at the same time to
believe in the gospel and absolution that sin is forgiven and grace is
obtained through Christ. Such faith, in turn, comforts the heart and
puts it at peace” (AC XII 3–4, KW 44).

20
“The marginal note in the Decretum Concerning Confession dist. 5,
also teaches that confession is not commanded in Scripture, but was
instituted by the church” (AC XXV 12, KW 74). The Catechism of the
Catholic Church says: “Confession to a priest is an essential part of the
Sacrament of Penance” (§ 1456).

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

a Christian: to confess oneself to be a sinner before God
and thus to believe the condemning word of God, to
receive the comforting word of forgiveness and put one’s
trust in these words which give what Christ has gained
on the cross. This is the reason why Luther can say in
“A Brief Exhortation to Confession”: “Therefore, when I
exhort you to go to confession, I am doing nothing but
exhorting you to be a Christian.”27

30

19

in which he makes up for the sins he has committed.21

PART ONE: FOUNDATIONS

Chemnitz maintained the theological basis for
the practice:
Moreover, just as the doctrine which rebukes
sins and proclaims the wrath of God to the
impenitent is to be set forth not only in general
but, as pastoral care demands (Ezek. 34:1–10),
to individuals privately where necessity calls
for it, and sins are to be retained and bound by
annunciation of the judgment of God on the basis
of the Word, so also the promise of the Gospel
is efficacious not only when it is announced in
general and when it is apprehended in faith in
the general proclamation, but it is the duty of
the shepherd, if he knows that some sheep is
sick or broken, that he bind it up and heal it by
applying the ministry of Word and sacrament
privately. Therefore private absolution remits
the sins of the contrite who seek consolation
by faith in no other way than that it privately
or to individuals announces the remission of
sins through the Word of the Gospel, which
also Christ Himself shows by His own example
(Matt. 9:2; Luke 7:48). This proclamation, whether
it is called either particular, individual, special
or private, is efficacious for the forgiving of sins
because it is a ministry of the Spirit, through
which God strengthens faith and forgives sins. For
it is the same Gospel, and its efficacy is the same,
whether it is proclaimed generally to many, or
privately, either to one or a few. And on account
of the weakness of faith, for fuller and stronger
consolation, God wants the promise of grace set
forth not only in general, but to be applied also
privately to individuals who seek it, not by the
sacraments only but also through proclamation
of the Gospel, as Christ shows in Matthew 9:2
and Luke 7:48, in order that my faith may be
able to state all the more firmly that the general
promise of the Gospel applies to me in particular
the benefits of the suffering Christ. Thus the
statement of Christ (John 20:23) about remitting
sins, whether it be understood of public or
general proclamation of the Gospel, or of private
absolution, says nothing else than this, that the
ministry remits and retains sins by the voice or
proclamation of the Word of God.38
38
Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, (Part II),
trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978)
2:561–62.

10