There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reformed
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do you reject the sufficiency of Scripture and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ?
I never said I rejected anything, I merely challenge your opinion. What I said was your claim to knowing what the word of God is is one of traditions that you reject. And yet your entire theology rests upon knowing that you actually have the word of God. Your position is self refuting. You need to go backward in order to go forward.
Because if you received the truth of the sufficiency of the Scriptures and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ…then the Roman Catholic Church loses it’s claim as being the One True Church.
I cant even be certain what you mean by the “sufficiency” of Scripture and the “sufficiency” of Christ. I am quite certain, however, that you havent actually taken much time to learn what the Catholic teaches because you have demonstrated remarkable ignorance in that respect.
Rome is just another Christian denomination with an exclusive claim based on her own self appointed authority
Rome is a city BTW. The Catholic Church has much more to back her claim than merely self-appointed authority. You remain dismissive and/or ignorant of the history of Christianity (including Scripture). One self appointed authority I unhesitatingly reject is you in declaring the Church another Christian denomination.
 
Be honest, Mormon Christians have more in common with Catholic Christians. I don’t think TriuneUnity or Catholics have the right to tell Mormons they are not Christians. It is quite insulting. Mormons follow their understanding and view of Christ according to their apostolic succession.
You cannot be serious here? Denial of the Trinity and stating that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan, that he had to "work his way up to Godhood’’ that Mary was physically impregnated by God etc, doesn’t make them non-Christian? Everyone follows their own understanding of Jesus? Relativistic drivel!

Does that mean you think Muslims are Christians, too?
 
You are the one’s who reject the sufficiency of Christ because you don’t think the faith he established is good enough. Instead you choose to follow the traditions of men. You religion makes you all out to be your own little popes reading the scriptures as you see fit. You blind yourself to the truth when you do this. Protestantism is based upon the pride of man.
Very good, that is what Martin Luther said when various sects sprung up and started arguing with each other - Calvin, Zwingli, et al. He said “I have not pulled down one Pope to set up many popes.” As for sufficiency of the Bible, did the Apostles have the Bible? No, they taught what Christ gave to them and put in written form. The very first catechism is the Didach: “The Teachings of the Lord to the Nations by the Twelve Apostles.”
 
You cannot be serious here? Denial of the Trinity and stating that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan, that he had to "work his way up to Godhood’’ that Mary was physically impregnated by God etc, doesn’t make them non-Christian? Everyone follows their own understanding of Jesus? Relativistic drivel!

Does that mean you think Muslims are Christians, too?
How many LDS Christians do you know? And, how successful have you been in sharing the biblical Christ with LDS Christians? I don’t think you will get very far with them if you tell them they are not Christians.

I don’t think Muslims consider themselves to be Christians.
 
How many LDS Christians do you know? And, how successful have you been in sharing the biblical Christ with LDS Christians? I don’t think you will get very far with them if you tell them they are not Christians.

I don’t think Muslims consider themselves to be Christians.
It is because they are not Christians that we must share the gospel with them. Do we tell unbelievers they are not unbelievers to soothe their conscience?
 
Wait a minute…you compare Catholics with Mormons and then ask us to get back on topic? LOL
Well… do a Google search and you will find many Christians see the similarities.

Do you believe in a different gospel than Roman Catholicism? Can you believe in the same Christ and believe in a different gospel? Do you believe in a different gospel than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Again, can you believe in the same Christ and believe in mutually exclusive gospels?

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us … Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31). - Martin Luther

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
 
There is no dancing here. The point is that you claim that when Jesus says to the apostles" If you forgive the sins of any," he is merely talking about the preaching or proclamation of forgiveness. Jesus does not say that. He says if you forgive, not if you preach forgiveness. If Jesus meant mere preaching forgiveness, he would have said that. And if that is what Jesus meant, what he said would absolutely make no sense:

23 If you preach the forgiveness of sins , they are forgiven them…
Catholics constantly accuse Protestants on this forum of “cherry picking” the Scriptures to back up their positions. I contend that this is exactly what you do with Jn. 20:23. But you don’t just reference this verse among many, you build your whole claim to authority and your sacrament of penance/reconciliation/forgiveness on this solitary verse. And yet none of it is to be found in that verse, nor in its immediate context (or the whole N.T., for that matter).

In the Book of Acts we get an historical account of the Apostolic message delivered to the world:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,"It also records the words of Christ to Paul regarding his commission and message to the Gentiles to whom He was sending him:Acts 26:16-18 ‘But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; rescuing you from the {Jewish} people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’"He (and the others) was commissioned to take the word of Christ to the world proclaiming forgiveness of sins upon belief in Him. And he confirmed that same message in the letters he wrote to the churches he planted.

In the Book of Acts and the Epistles forgiveness of sins is always a stated FACT and connected with belief in Christ. There is no redemption apart from forgiveness of sins and Paul states that the true believer has both.

Three Greek words are used in Scripture to describe Christ’s work of redemption on the cross; all interpreted in English simply as "redeemed."Agorazo: To buy in a market; from agora, market. Man is viewed as a slave, sold to sin, under the sentence of death, but subject to redemption by the purchase price of the blood of the Redeemer (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:4).

Exagorazo: To buy out of the market, that is, to purchase and remove from further sale (Gal. 3:13; 4:5; Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5).

Lutroo: To loose and set free, never to return again (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:18).

The noun form, lutrosis is used in Heb. 9:12 where it states: "But when Christ appeared {as} a high priest of the good things to come, {He entered} through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.The Apostolic message to the world was faith in Christ, and the one who believed in Him was forever redeemed from the slave market of sin, never to return, and set free. As Paul wrote to the believers at Rome: “for he who has died (i.e., with Christ) is freed from sin,” (Rom. 6:7). And to the believers at Colossea: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”

They preached Christ, not themselves. Faith in Him, not confession to them. It’s nowhere to be found. John 20;23 must be understood in light of what’s been revealed in respect to the Apostolic message. Hence, their forgiving or retaining sins could only be connected to one’s belief or unbelief in their message concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ. If believed they could say with authority, “your sins have been forgiven you.” If they did not, they could say as Christ Himself said; "John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins.”

The Apostles proclaimed the forgiveness of sins. And the basis for this judicial forgiveness was the sacrificial, shed blood of Christ. The divine means of appropriating this grace was through FAITH in Him - confession as the appropriating means was never taught or recorded.
 
40.png
Mikeledes:
Besides, what Jesus says here is related to what he told the apostles earlier:Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
In context this has to do with discipline in a local church because of sin. We see an example of this in the church at Corinth and the man who had his father’s wife. It has nothing to do with the idea of sacramental confession and the forgiveness of sins.
Regarding retaining sins, a confessor withholds absolution when there is good reason to believe the person is not truly repentant.
Good reason to believe???” Like in “adequate enough” reason??? It’s not enough for a man to just “believe” something about another man (good or bad), he must KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt if he is going to have the responsibility of that man’s eternal welfare on his shoulders. Such knowledge would require the divine attribute of omniscience. As Paul asked, “For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?” No men, not even the Apostles, had/have such knowledge. Nor can any man (save the Son of Man) contain such knowledge. It is the possession of Divinity only. Such things separate the creature from the Creator. No creature could handle such an awesome attribute.

For this reason alone the idea of confessing to men for the Divine, judicial forgiveness of sins is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures.
 
Well… do a Google search and you will find many Christians see the similarities.

Do you believe in a different gospel than Roman Catholicism? Can you believe in the same Christ and believe in a different gospel? Do you believe in a different gospel than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Again, can you believe in the same Christ and believe in mutually exclusive gospels?
No; I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a pure gospel. What do you define as the gospel, Reformed? The gospel is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Do Roman Catholics believe this? Yes. They possess the Scriptures, and the sacraments… therefore, saving trust in Christ alone will be created through those means. There is absolutely NO comparison between what Rome teaches and what the LDS teach. The LDS teach heresy; they deny every article of the ecumenical creeds in one form or another.

I would say there is much in Roman Catholic teaching that may be injurious to faith, but that doesn’t disqualify it.

Despite our differences with Rome on justification, it is insulting to compare good, Christian people, who may be off base on theology, to those who deny the Trinity, the Christological doctrines, and just about every other article of faith necessary to be saved.

We are saved by faith in Christ, Reformed, not by strictly adhering to Sola Fide. Should we change the U in your TULIP to Unconditional Election on the Condition You are Not Roman Catholic?
 
There is absolutely NO comparison between what Rome teaches and what the LDS teach. The LDS teach heresy; they deny every article of the ecumenical creeds in one form or another.

I would say there is much in Roman Catholic teaching that may be injurious to faith, but that doesn’t disqualify it.

Despite our differences with Rome on justification, it is insulting to compare good, Christian people, who may be off base on theology, to those who deny the Trinity, the Christological doctrines, and just about every other article of faith necessary to be saved.

We are saved by faith in Christ, Reformed, not by strictly adhering to Sola Fide. Should we change the U in your TULIP to Unconditional Election on the Condition You are Not Roman Catholic?
I agree!! Reformed, you went too far!!
 
No; I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church teaches a pure gospel. What do you define as the gospel, Reformed? The gospel is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Do Roman Catholics believe this? Yes. They possess the Scriptures, and the sacraments… therefore, saving trust in Christ alone will be created through those means. There is absolutely NO comparison between what Rome teaches and what the LDS teach. The LDS teach heresy; they deny every article of the ecumenical creeds in one form or another.

I would say there is much in Roman Catholic teaching that may be injurious to faith, but that doesn’t disqualify it.

Despite our differences with Rome on justification, it is insulting to compare good, Christian people, who may be off base on theology, to those who deny the Trinity, the Christological doctrines, and just about every other article of faith necessary to be saved.

We are saved by faith in Christ, Reformed, not by strictly adhering to Sola Fide. Should we change the U in your TULIP to Unconditional Election on the Condition You are Not Roman Catholic?
Why did you state you agreed with the Cambridge Declaration when you obvious do not? I think you unintentionally deceived me. You also stated that you agreed with the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals. It does not seem you agree with Martin Luther either. I written in many posts that I believe that there are converted Roman Catholics (remnant) in-spite of the offfical teaching of Rome. I also wrote that Rome is a false church which contains a remnant inside of her walls.

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us … Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31). - Martin Luther

Call To Repentance And Reformation

The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ’s kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the “gospels” of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure adequately to tell others about God’s saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God’s Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism. For Christ’s sake. Amen.
 
I agree!! Reformed, you went too far!!
I know many LDS Christians. They profess to be Christians. There are many Protestants and Roman Catholics who profess to be Christians too, and are not united to Christ. Even within Evangelical circles, Unitarians are quite received in our days. I cannot know who are the elect, nor can any man. But, there is also a remnant inside the Mormon Church. The evidence is shown when they struggle with official Mormon Doctrine, and eventually come out of Mormonism. How do you know some of the Mormons who struggle were not converted while still being a member of the Mormon Church. Do you think Martin Luther could have been born from above and united to Christ while being a member of the Catholic Church? Are you guys familiar with the historic Protestant Confessions and what is written about the Roman Catholic Church? Do you know what Martin Luther wrote about the Catholic Church? Do you know what the Reformers wrote about the Catholic Church. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed since the Protestant Reformation on the major issues like authority and the gospel?

I will not tell someone they are not a Christian if they claim to follow Christ. If they profess and are converted, God will cause them to grow and hear the voice of the living Jesus Christ. We all know in part, and believe some things that are not true. Our perfect knowledge is not required to be united to Christ. Contending for the Faith has great tension, and it is best to judge official teachings and not individuals.

Here is what I see as the central discerning question. Can you reject our understanding of justification and still believe in the gospel that Paul proclaimed (Gal, Rom)?
 
The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism. For Christ’s sake. Amen.
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html

alliancenet.org/

Here is the unifying Creeds and Confessions that unites the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. The confessions that I am familiar with have official statements about the Roman Catholic Church.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

The Abstract of Principals

The Belgic Confession

The Book of Concord

The Canons of Dort

The Heidelberg Catechism

The New Hampshire Confession of Faith

The Philadelphia Confession of Faith

The Second Helvetic Confession

The Thirty-Nine Articles

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Shorter Catechism
 
Why did you state you agreed with the Cambridge Declaration when you obvious do not? I think you unintentionally deceived me. You also stated that you agreed with the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals. It does not seem you agree with Martin Luther either. I written in many posts that I believe that there are converted Roman Catholics (remnant) in-spite of the offfical teaching of Rome. I also wrote that Rome is a false church which contains a remnant inside of her walls.
I agree with the Solas of the Reformation, hence, I agree with the Cambridge Declaration. That does not mean I agree with Calvinism or support it in any way.

Define false church?
 
Reformed;4199764:
Why did you state you agreed with the Cambridge Declaration when you obvious do not? I think you unintentionally deceived me. You also stated that you agreed with the Alliance of Confessional Evangelicals. It does not seem you agree with Martin Luther either. I written in many posts that I believe that there are converted Roman Catholics (remnant) in-spite of the offfical teaching of Rome. I also wrote that Rome is a false church which contains a remnant inside of her walls.
I agree with the Solas of the Reformation, hence, I agree with the Cambridge Declaration. That does not mean I agree with Calvinism or support it in any way.

Thanks for the statement. Calvinism is not significant in regards to the essentials. It is only an imperfect attempt to understand an infinite God in what has been written. Let’s focus and unite around the solas as a definition of what we have in common. Since the moderators are gracious and have not banned my participation, it seems we should be united. Is this acceptable from your perspective?
 
I agree with the Solas of the Reformation, hence, I agree with the Cambridge Declaration. That does not mean I agree with Calvinism or support it in any way.

Define false church?
One of the signs of a true church is the proclamation of the gospel. Can you separate justification from the good news? If you answer yes, you cannot be part of the Alliance of Confession Evangelicals. You would fit better with the Lutherans who signed the Joint Declaration on justification with the Roman Catholics.

I believe the heart of the gospel is the doctrine of justification by faith. We both know Luther believed that this is the line in the sand created by God. I did not create the line, but I believe it is the biblical line which requires us to contend for (Jude 3). We are called to proclaim and defend the gospel which saves sinners.
 
I know many LDS Christians. They profess to be Christians. There are many Protestants and Roman Catholics who profess to be Christians too, and are not united to Christ. Even within Evangelical circles, Unitarians are quite received in our days. I cannot know who are the elect, nor can any man.
The elect do not deny the true divinity of Christ, His co-equality and co-eternity with the Father; nor do they deny monotheism.
But, there is also a remnant inside the Mormon Church. The evidence is shown when they struggle with official Mormon Doctrine, and eventually come out of Mormonism. How do you know some of the Mormons who struggle were not converted while still being a member of the Mormon Church.
If they don’t agree with Mormon teaching, by definition, they are not Mormon.
Do you think Martin Luther could have been born from above and united to Christ while being a member of the Catholic Church?
You’re comparing apples to oranges again. The errors of Rome are not even in the same universe as the LDS.
Are you guys familiar with the historic Protestant Confessions and what is written about the Roman Catholic Church? Do you know what Martin Luther wrote about the Catholic Church? Do you know what the Reformers wrote about the Catholic Church. Has the Roman Catholic Church changed since the Protestant Reformation on the major issues like authority and the gospel?
Do you know what Luther wrote about the early Reformed theologians?

Luther to Bucer: “Our spirit is different from yours; it is clear that we do not possess the same spirit, for it cannot be the same spirit when in one place the words of Christ are simply believed and in another place the same faith is censured, resisted, regarded as false and attacked with all kinds of malicious and blasphemous words. Therefore, as I have previously stated, we commend you to the judgment of God. Teach, as you can account for it before God.”

“I testify on my part that I regard Zwingli as unchristian, with all his teachings, for he holds and teaches no part of the Christian faith rightly. He is seven times worse than when he was a papist, according to the declaration in Matthew 9 [12:45], “The last state of that man becomes worse than the first.” I make this testimony in order that I may stand blameless before God and the world as
one who never partook of Zwingli’s teaching, nor will I ever do so.”

About the Swiss reformers: “There is all too much in the one [article of the real presence] . . . for therein all the other articles become impure, as James [2:10] says, “Whoever offends in one point becomes guilty of all.” Whoever denies a single article is no less an un-Christian than Arius or one of his kind.”

“We earnestly believe that the Zwinglians and all sacramentarians who deny that the body and blood of Christ are taken with the bodily mouth in the venerable eucharist are heretics and estranged (alienos) from the church of God.”
 
TriuneUnity;4199851:
Thanks for the statement. Calvinism is not significant in regards to the essentials. It is only an imperfect attempt to understand an infinite God in what has been written. Let’s focus and unite around the solas as a definition of what we have in common. Since the moderators are gracious and have not banned my participation, it seems we should be united. Is this acceptable from your perspective?
Being united around the solas of the Reformation is not the same as carte blanche condemning Roman Catholics or their Church. I must, am forced, to condemn the errors of Rome when they are present; in the same way I must condemn the errors of Reformed Christianity and unite with Catholics and Orthodox in stating that Christ is present in the Eucharist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top