# Assurance of Pardon vrs. Absolution



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

I'm interested in getting some perspectives from you all about this issue:

What is the reformed understanding of "the office of the keys"? I know Calvinists are really emphatic about the church and its ministers and officers executing the offices of prophet, priest and king (word, sacrament, discipline) on behalf of Christ, who alone _is_ prophet, priest and king.

Something I've wondered is why it seems reformed churches so often opt for an "assurance of pardon" rather than an "absolution" after confession of sin---if indeed this is even part of the liturgy. On the surface it seems like the minister is willing to robustly execute the King office - discipline - holding members accountable for unconfessed sin, and even excommunicating them. 

They're also, it seems to me, much more lenient about the Lord's Supper---or, _in_communicating folks -- who otherwise are not under church discipline. 

Why then does it seem like there's such a qualifier in the assurance of pardon, that says "if indeed you trust Christ, hear these words..."? I can understand if the minister is praying the prayer of confession _for_ the congergation, but this is even the format for many churches who do a verbal, corporate confession. Does there need to be an "if indeed you really did repent..." qualification when the minister has just heard the confession out loud, from the mouths of the people?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 8, 2005)

The difference is in where the congregations faith is pointed to. ONly Christ can "absolve" sins. The minister is a messenger who points the congregation to Christ for pardon. That is why he can only give an assurance of pardon based on faith. To absolve someones sin would be to overstep his boundaries.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Doesn't it seem like Christ gives ministers the commision to forgive sins? The minister stands as Christ's mouthpiece, right?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 8, 2005)

> On the surface it seems like the minister is willing to robustly execute the King office - discipline - holding members accountable for unconfessed sin, and even excommunicating them.



The minister cannot do this alone.



> Does there need to be an "if indeed you really did repent..." qualification when the minister has just heard the confession out loud, from the mouths of the people?



Our pastor does indeed say something similar.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

You're right---the minister can't excommunicate alone. But consider the Supper: he invites and fences the table alone--altough with the elders gathered. 



> ...he can only give an assurance of pardon based on faith.



But didn't the congergation just confess their faith over and over again during the service? The Creed? The corporate confession of sin? Every time they sing "Amen" at the end of a hymn? 

The argument here would have to be one of the minister's role as being different from that of the apostles. The apostles were clearly given the authority to forgive sin in Jesus name.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

The thing I'm concerned with is the "if indeed..." clause. 

That leaves the question dangling for the penitent sinner: "...gee....do I really believe...do I believe enough?" 

If we believe that the wheat and tares grow up together---that there's a visible and invisible church, then why aren't we pronouncing forgiveness to all, and letting God sort them out? Isn't that what happens at the Lord's Talbe? Baptism?


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 8, 2005)

Forgiveness is pronounced to all. All who repent and believe. God does sort that out. Sorry if I am confused.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> But didn't the congergation just confess their faith over and over again during the service? The Creed? The corporate confession of sin? Every time they sing "Amen" at the end of a hymn?


Unfortunately we humans are prone to forget. Hence the constant reminding. You see this in deuteronomy as well "Remember.... remember... remember...."



> The argument here would have to be one of the minister's role as being different from that of the apostles. The apostles were clearly given the authority to forgive sin in Jesus name.


The ministers role is not the same as the apostles. That was a specific ministry set apart by Christ for the founding of the NT church. The minister continues along with the elders, to govern the visible church. The minister does not do this alone. It is in conjuntion with the elders and deacons. The minister may comfort those who believe with the promises of Christ but ultimately, his words fall on deaf ears if the congregation does not believe.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 8, 2005)

I commend this article for a good analysis of the distinctions between 'absolution' and 'assurance of pardon':

http://protestant-truth.org/protestantism/definitions1.htm


----------



## ARStager (Jan 10, 2005)

Andrew, 

Still haven't had time to read that site---but thanks for the link---I'll get to it soon and get back to you.


----------



## Scott (Jan 11, 2005)

Some Reformed churches have historically applied abolsution and some today still do. Check out this order of service for a PCA church in Austin:
http://www.redeemerpres.org/docs/thedivineservice/thedivineservice01.02.05.pdf

On page 3 you will find a "declaration of absolution" instead of a pardon for sin. You will note that the declaration differs from a pardon for assurance. 

There is significant precedent for absolution in the Reformed tradition. Ch. 23.2 of the Westminster Confession of Faith reads: "To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require."

Note that church officers have the "keys of the kingdom" which include the "authority to retain and remit sins" and to open and shut the kingdom by censure. Interestingly two of the proof texts the Confession uses are these:



Matthew 18:17-18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. 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. 

John 20:21-23. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 
 
These passages regarding the apostles are applied to contemporary church officers. You will note also of the ability to absolve of censures.

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Scott]


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

Scott:

Thanks for bringing these notes to my attention. I'll post Oceanside United Reformed Church's liturgy at some point, which includes absolution as well.

What does YOUR church do? 

The LCMS says "Upon this your confession, in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I as a called and ordained servant of the word, forgive you all your sins in the name of..."


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

Also, I know that there was a Modern Reformation article co-authored (I think) by Horton at one point on absolution, but it's not available online, to my knowledge


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

Scott:

I like that liturgy a lot. The prayer of confession is verbatim what the LCMS uses. 

The absolution is different. It's a declaration that sins are obsolved if folks are looking to Christ, rather than saying "I, as a called and ordained servant of the word...forgive you..."

What I don't get is why there needs to be a section after the confession that says something like ..."let each of you really and truly repent in THIS WAY...and if you do...really...really...do...then I announce your sins to be absolved."

The people were just called upon to really and truly confess their sins!

"If we say we have no sin, we decieve ourselves...but if we confess..."

And then they confess...with their very lips! 

Why the need for yet ANOTHER qualifier?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm all for the kind of absolution that the WCF talks about and Mike Horton rightly in my opinion defends. I prefer absolution to assurance of pardon.

Andrew R.S.,

I think the reason why qualifiers are heaped on is because of fear.


----------



## Scott (Jan 12, 2005)

My church has assurance of pardon, which involves reading a scripture verse on forgiveness of sins. This is within the Reformed tradition. I see value in forms such as the Austin PCA church uses too. 

Check out the 05.26.2004 essay on this blog for a good discussion of confession and absolution in the Reformed tradition:
http://sacradoctrina.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_sacradoctrina_archive.html

Also, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer may interst you. The 1928 version has this form of absolution in the liturgy.



> Â¶ Then shall this General Confession be made, by the Priest and all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion, humbly kneeling.
> 
> ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ´s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
> 
> ...



The 1979 BCP has this statement: "The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you absolution and remission of all your sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit. Amen."

Scott

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Scott]

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jan 12, 2005)

> What I don't get is why there needs to be a section after the confession that says something like ..."let each of you really and truly repent in THIS WAY...and if you do...really...really...do...then I announce your sins to be absolved."



I know what you mean. I suspect it is an attempt to find a middle ground between the high church focus on the objectivity of the sacraments and the evangelical emphasis on interior subjectivity.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

> The 1979 BCP has this statement: "The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you absolution and remission of all your sins, true repentance, amendment of life, and the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit. Amen."



This is "getting there"...but it's still essentially a hopeful prayer, rather than a declaration. I'm tend to lean toward what ya'll call "high church" objectivity, I suppose. Internal subjectivity just spooks me out a bit. What my terror-stricken (by the law) conscience needs is for Christ, through his ministers, to say to me: "absolved. forgiven. as far as east from west....oh, and by the way, you are my possession. there is no condemnation for you, for you are IN me."

Thanks for your varying perspectives on this, though. I'd like to approach this matter in a teachable way, rather than as a mere advocate. Keep them coming.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

> From the blog Scott linked to above...
> 
> <<According to Calvin, when confession is made, whether generally as a congregation in worship or privately to a pastor, the absolution which the pastor declares is "pronounced in the name of his Master and by his authority" and that "private absolution is no less efficacious or beneficial." Absolution is, therefore, part of the preaching of the Gospel to be received in faith from the mouth of God's ministers. By this means, "the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed on the minds of believers by means of those whom the Lord has appointed."
> 
> Or, as Calvin writes elsewhere, we should "not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven," because "pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation" so that we "must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust" (Commentary on John 20:23).>>


----------



## Scott (Jan 12, 2005)

I think Calvin is making real sense of the passage. I think many people in reformed churches in America would have problems, as it would appear too Romish to them. For many in my region, any practice that is not essentially what you would find in a Southern baptist church is Romish. That is unfortunate, because confessional churches have historically been close to the high church mark. But reformed have been influenced by the egalitarianism of the culture (which naturally tends toward low church views) and the low church views of evangelicalism.


----------

