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

[Reformed]

The elect do not deny the true divinity of Christ, His co-equality and co-eternity with the Father; nor do they deny monotheism.

If they don’t agree with Mormon teaching, by definition, they are not Mormon.

You’re comparing apples to oranges again. The errors of Rome are not even in the same universe as the LDS.

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.”

I believe the Mormon Church does not proclaim the gospel; therefore it is a false church. Please answer my specific questions about the gospel and the Roman Catholic Church. I noticed you were not willing to answer the difficult questions. I think you put too much emphasis on Martin Luther because he knew in part like all other men.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed;4199888:

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.

Since when have the sacraments been a gospel issue? Does a person’s view on the Eucharist change the gospel of God’s grace?

1 Corinthians 1:17

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

 

[cazayoux]

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).

This is not the only verse to give us the light of the scripture regarding confession, but it’s a starting point which we have not gotten past.

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.

agreed

They preached Christ, not themselves.

nobody is arguing otherwise.

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.

agreed … and you cannot change what it actually says to fit your ‘revealed’, incorrect theology.

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.

Belief in Christ is of course necessary, but you are still stretching here … what you state below is not in the text.

If believed they could say with authority, “your sins have been forgiven you.”

The Apostles proclaimed the forgiveness of sins.

The text DOES NOT SAY THIS! You are ADDING to scripture!

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

agreed

• confession as the appropriating means was never taught or recorded.

wrong

“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.

EXACTLY CORRECT !!!
The apostles do not have omniscience … so if they are to forgive or retain sins … HOW will they know the sins … unless somebody tells them.

michel

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We divide justification into two categories; objective and subjective. Objective justification was accomplished on the cross. Christ reconciled mankind to God the Father. In this sense, it is a proclamation of sins already given. However, it is not of subjective value to the individual until faith in that proclamation is given through the means of grace (which would include absolution). The means of grace create faith in the subjective individual, thus applying the objective to them.

Proclamation = Christ has died for the sins of the world, repent and believe (objective).

Absolution = Christ has paid for your sins and forgiven YOU (subjective).

This is a problematic and even illogical position to take. The sins of all men cannot logically already be forgiven under the Lutheran (Penal Substitution) system because that would mean nobody would be damned. Calvinists recognize this and that is why they “Limit” the extent of the Atonement (they say Christ did not die for all men). This likewise plays into the inconsistency of the Lutheran position when it comes to the possibility of losing salvation. If, under the Protestant system of Penal-Substitution, you deserved the death penalty for your sins, and Jesus took the death penalty in your place, you could never be subject to the death penalty again without a severe injustice on God’s part. God would be engaging in double jeopardy, punishing the same sin twice.

Thus, you are in a bind in Lutheranism whether you are a Christian or not. If you are not a Christian in Lutheranism, you logically cannot get punished because Jesus already took the punishment. This is NOT like a pardon which can be refused (similar to Catholicism), the punishment has already taken place and there is no undoing it. If you are a Christian in Lutheranism, and you don’t persevere, then you would end up “damned” but since Jesus already took your punishment you cannot logically be damned.

 

[moondweller]

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)?No!

What I disagree with is putting Catholicism in the same theological camp as Mormonism. Where are you going to go with that apologetically? The issue then is no longer the Pauline doctrine of divine justification but the nature of God and the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.

In the heat of passion it’s easy to cross the line.

 

[moondweller]

EXACTLY CORRECT !!!
The apostles do not have omniscience … so if they are to forgive or retain sins … HOW will they know the sins … unless somebody tells them.

michel

You missed the whole point. In order to judicially forgive sins based on confession, one must possess the attribute of omniscience. Paul himself said that 'we know in part" and “we see in a mirror dimly.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

This is a problematic and even illogical position to take. The sins of all men cannot logically already be forgiven under the Lutheran (Penal Substitution) system because that would mean nobody would be damned. Calvinists recognize this and that is why they “Limit” the extent of the Atonement (they say Christ did not die for all men). This likewise plays into the inconsistency of the Lutheran position when it comes to the possibility of losing salvation. If, under the Protestant system of Penal-Substitution, you deserved the death penalty for your sins, and Jesus took the death penalty in your place, you could never be subject to the death penalty again without a severe injustice on God’s part. God would be engaging in double jeopardy, punishing the same sin twice.

The problem with your statements here is that we do not base our positions on what is logical to human reason. We must subject our reason to the clear statements of Scripture. Scripture proclaims that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; that Christ is the propitiation and atonement for the sins of the world; that Christ, upon His ascension is drawing all men to Himself. It states that the record of debt to the Law owed by humanity was nailed to the cross.

It also states that unless we believe that Jesus is the Son of God we will die in our sins. It also states that we can reject faith and fall away, and that when we believe, we are justified.

The two are paradoxically in tension and we realize this. But this doesn’t mean we ignore the clear statements of Scripture and try to logically fit them into our minds. This is what Calvin and Calvinism tries to do. Anytime the question is asked why are some saved and others not, if you try to base your answers on logic rather than the word, it will always be in error.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Since when have the sacraments been a gospel issue? Does a person’s view on the Eucharist change the gospel of God’s grace?

Yes it does.

If you say baptism does not give the grace of God, you have changed the gospel of God’s grace.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I believe the Mormon Church does not proclaim the gospel; therefore it is a false church. Please answer my specific questions about the gospel and the Roman Catholic Church. I noticed you were not willing to answer the difficult questions. I think you put too much emphasis on Martin Luther because he knew in part like all other men.

The LDS “church” is a false church not only because it teaches a different gospel. It’s a false church because it worships a false god(s).

Which questions of yours didnt I answer?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The problem with your statements here is that we do not base our positions on what is logical to human reason.

This is very similar to the response I got from the very conservative Wisconsin Lutheran Synod ‘Question and Answer’ email that I sent them on this same issue.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that in this situation a contradiction is stated but it is allowed to slide. Theology, which depends on both Revelation and clear and consistent reasoning, cannot be built like this.

We must subject our reason to the clear statements of Scripture.

This merely demonstrates the error of Sola Scriptura because Lutherans are sacrificing logical consistency for Scripture, while Calvinists are sacrificing Scripture for logical consistency. Catholics dont fall into the ditch on either side of the road in this case, and this is because we do not accept the Protestant understanding of the atonement.

Scripture proclaims that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; that Christ is the propitiation and atonement for the sins of the world; that Christ, upon His ascension is drawing all men to Himself. It states that the record of debt to the Law owed by humanity was nailed to the cross.

It also states that unless we believe that Jesus is the Son of God we will die in our sins. It also states that we can reject faith and fall away, and that when we believe, we are justified.

And my point is that all of this can be reconciled if you realize that Penal-Substitution is wrong, that it is not what the Atonement was about.

The problem here is that Luther started backwards, he invented Sola Fide and built up theology from there and either ignored or rejected any inconsistencies. That is what is going on here as well, Sola Fide cannot stand if doctrines like Pen-Sub are rejected, so Sola Fide is driving the interpretation of Scripture rather than letting Scripture speak.

The two are paradoxically in tension and we realize this. But this doesn’t mean we ignore the clear statements of Scripture and try to logically fit them into our minds. This is what Calvin and Calvinism tries to do. Anytime the question is asked why are some saved and others not, if you try to base your answers on logic rather than the word, it will always be in error.

But this isn’t paradox, it is downright contradiction. If Jesus took the death penalty in place of one Christian Lutheran and one non Christian Lutheran, then neither of those two can be justly sentenced to death in the future. Calvinism, though erroneous, is in its essence a logically consistent Lutheranism.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But this isn’t paradox, it is downright contradiction. If Jesus took the death penalty in place of one Christian Lutheran and one non Christian Lutheran, then neither of those two can be justly sentenced to death in the future. Calvinism, though erroneous, is in its essence a logically consistent Lutheranism.

If my goal were logical consistency, I would agree with you. We’ve already debated this topic, Dude. I have no desire to rehash it

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If my goal were logical consistency, I would agree with you. We’ve already debated this topic, Dude. I have no desire to rehash it

So your goal is not logical consistency?

Let me ask you a question: If a system existed which was built on logical consistency and adherence to Revelation (via Scripture) would you accept it over a system which gave only adherence to Revelation?

 

[TriuneUnity]

So your goal is not logical consistency?

No. It is Scriptural consistency.

Let me ask you a question: If a system existed which was built on logical consistency and adherence to Revelation (via Scripture) would you accept it over a system which gave only adherence to Revelation?

Sure. The question would be adherence to revelation.

 

[Reformed]

This is a problematic and even illogical position to take. The sins of all men cannot logically already be forgiven under the Lutheran (Penal Substitution) system because that would mean nobody would be damned. Calvinists recognize this and that is why they “Limit” the extent of the Atonement (they say Christ did not die for all men). This likewise plays into the inconsistency of the Lutheran position when it comes to the possibility of losing salvation. If, under the Protestant system of Penal-Substitution, you deserved the death penalty for your sins, and Jesus took the death penalty in your place, you could never be subject to the death penalty again without a severe injustice on God’s part. God would be engaging in double jeopardy, punishing the same sin twice.

Thus, you are in a bind in Lutheranism whether you are a Christian or not. If you are not a Christian in Lutheranism, you logically cannot get punished because Jesus already took the punishment. This is NOT like a pardon which can be refused (similar to Catholicism), the punishment has already taken place and there is no undoing it. If you are a Christian in Lutheranism, and you don’t persevere, then you would end up “damned” but since Jesus already took your punishment you cannot logically be damned.

That’s very insightful.

 

[Reformed]

No!

What I disagree with is putting Catholicism in the same theological camp as Mormonism. Where are you going to go with that apologetically? The issue then is no longer the Pauline doctrine of divine justification but the nature of God and the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.

In the heat of passion it’s easy to cross the line.

I’m not sure it’s about apologetics. I think the person and work of Christ is the important issue, but can we make His work less important than who He is? The Protestant Reformers seemed to think the work of Christ was important to divide over. Have you read the writings of the Reformers, and Christians throughout the ages in regards to Roman Catholicism? What I wrote is extremely mild as compared to what has been written historically. Do you believe that the official Roman Catholic gospel is different than the one you proclaim?

 

[Reformed]

Yes it does.

If you say baptism does not give the grace of God, you have changed the gospel of God’s grace.

Which do you proclaim, baptismal regeneration or by hearing the proclamation of the gospel? Are you saying that Protestants proclaim a false gospel because they reject baptismal regeneration?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Which do you proclaim, baptismal regeneration or by hearing the proclamation of the gospel? Are you saying that Protestants proclaim a false gospel because they reject baptismal regeneration?

I proclaim both. Baptism is the visible gospel.

No; I would say they proclaim a false view of baptism.

 

[Reformed]

I proclaim both. Baptism is the visible gospel.

No; I would say they proclaim a false view of baptism.

Have you heard the we should preach the gospel to ourselves each and every day? The gospel should be proclaimed to Christians and non-Christians alike. Consider 1 Cor 15. Think about it, Paul writes the Epistles to Christians.

 

[Pax]

No!

What I disagree with is putting Catholicism in the same theological camp as Mormonism. Where are you going to go with that apologetically? The issue then is no longer the Pauline doctrine of divine justification but the nature of God and the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.

In the heat of passion it’s easy to cross the line.

md,

I hoped the day would come when you and I agreed on something without having to quibble. Well stated.

 

[cazayoux]

You missed the whole point. In order to judicially forgive sins based on confession, one must possess the attribute of omniscience. Paul himself said that 'we know in part" and “we see in a mirror dimly.”

This is a requirement that you put on it, which does not come from scripture or history.

The priest very well knows that he will face the maker and answer for his actions and decisions … just as we all will.

I only used your comment to bring light to the fact that John 20:21-23 does not give the apostles omniscience, either, yet they can forgive or retain sins. Since the apostles are not omniscient, then how will they know the sins for which they are to forgive or retain?

michel