/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>592357

>How do Protestants believe sins are forgiven after salvation/baptism without a confessor?

Firstly, our sins are punished in Jesus and His righteousness is imputed to us, so we cannot fall under His wrath again because in His eyes we are perfect and sinless. Secondly, Jesus as our High Priest is in a sense our "confessor", though without the concept of losing or decreasing the grace of justification.

>Do you just pray to God for him to forgive you?

Well certainly we should, but it is sufficient to repent and believe without re-asking forgiveness.

>I heard a Baptist say that a believer is automatically forgiven of their sins after their saved, they don't even need to pray for forgiveness

Kind of. We are instantly forgiven after sin but that doesn't mean we don't need forgiveness. If we didn't need forgiveness we wouldn't receive it.

>how do Protestants believe sins are forgiven after salvation/baptism without a confessor?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

>>592357

Christ is the one and sufficient sacrifice for sin. We do confess our sins and receive a general absolution in the service - of course, this wouldn't work if you didn't repent of the sin - and are encouraged to confess any particular sins that are bothering us to our priest - we maintain the sacrament of reconciliation. But the bottom line is that what forgives is the repentance and confession. We don't believe in the obligation to particular confession of sins to a priest, but it is offered and strongly encouraged. The general line is "None must, all may, some should."

>>592357

See this: >>592380

>Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

>protestants: no

>Christ gives authority to Apostles to convert and forgive sins

>protestants: there were no priests

in a nutshell

they say that Christ Himself is sufficient, yet deny the authority He placed in His apostles and their successors

and if you cannot believe in apostolic succession, how then can you believe in the Eucharist?

>>592420

OP here, don't worry, I know enough not to fall into the Protestant heresy. I just want to understand their viewpoints a little better.

Tbh Protestantism is the ultimate heresy though, probably worse than Gnosticism in some cases. It's ok, the Church has always been fighting heres, it's nothing new

>>592420

In John 20:23 the words "have been forgiven" is the single Greek word aphiami. It is the perfect passive. The perfect tense is "I have been." The pluperfect is "I had been." The perfect tense designates an action that occurs in the past and continues into the present, i.e., "I have been eating." The disciples were not doing the forgiving but pronouncing the sins that "have been" forgiven by God. We find that the Psalmist says, "Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; and deliver us, and forgive our sins, for Your name’s sake," (Psalm 79:9). Also, consider the following:

>"Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But there were some of the scribes sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’? 10 “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, rise, take up your pallet and go home.” 12 And he rose and immediately took up the pallet and went out in the sight of all; so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, “We have never seen anything like this,” (Mark 2:5-12).

Jesus forgave sins; and the Scribes, students of the Law, rightly stated that only God forgives sins. If they were wrong about that, then why didn't Jesus correct them? Instead, he affirms their claim, states he has the authority to forgive sins, and then heals the paralytic. It should be clear that only God forgives sins; and Christians, as representatives of Christ, pronounce to people what has already been forgiven them by God.

So, John 20:23 is not saying that Catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins. It is saying that Christian disciples have the authority to pronounce what sins "have been forgiven."

>>592467

>So, John 20:23 is saying that Catholic priests have the authority to pronounce what sins "have been forgiven."

fixed it for you

>>592467

oh actually, did you get it from this guy

"Commenting on John 20:23 in his book, Romanism—The Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! (White Horse Publications, Huntsville Alabama, 1995), p. 100, Protestant Apologist Robert Zins writes:

It is apparent that the commission to evangelize is tightly woven into the commission to proclaim forgiveness of sin through faith in Jesus Christ.

Mr. Zin's claim is that John 20:23 is not saying the apostles would forgive sins; rather, that they would merely proclaim the forgiveness of sins. The only problem with this theory is it runs head-on into the text of John 20. “If you forgive the sins of any… if you retain the sins of any.” The text cannot say it any clearer: this is more than a mere proclamation of the forgiveness of sins—this “commission” of the Lord communicates the power to actually forgive the sins themselves."

>>592467

Jesus also granted the Apostles the authority to withold sin. How do you suppose that works?

>>592470

it means baptists can tell you you're a reprobate

My understanding is protestants believe two things occur

1: Christs righteousness is imputed to the believer, but this does not change the believer, it's an external righteousness. It's just a mark, and this mark is what gets them into heaven.

2: Any sins committed after that point are not imputed to the person who commits them, but imputed to Christ(again this is external, not changing the person) where His sacrifice atoned for it.

So if a protestant commits a sin after being saved then they never have to pay account for it, because they never take responsibility for it. Somehow it's imputed enough to them that they might suffer temporal consequences, but it's never imputed enough to them that they suffer an eternal consequence.

The Westminster confession of faith states

>V. God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

The Lutheran opinion on this is less clear to me, and if any Lutheran would like to better explain their view I would be appreciative.

You ask God truthfully and earnestly to forgive you for whatever sin you've committed. That is how forgiveness occurs in Protestantism. You don't have to eat special bread or confess your sins to to other people.

When you get saved all of your past, present, and future sins are forgiven.

Romans 4

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord WILL NOT impute sin.

>>592420

That doesn't apply to people the apostles made disciples, your just making shit up now.

>>592469

>The only problem with this theory is it runs head-on into the text of John 20. “If you forgive the sins of any… if you retain the sins of any.” The text cannot say it any clearer: this is more than a mere proclamation of the forgiveness of sins—this “commission” of the Lord communicates the power to actually forgive the sins themselves."

<that non-argument

wew

>>592470

If you reject their message, the apostles may very well say "You are not forgiven"

>>592499

>Somehow it's imputed enough to them that they might suffer temporal consequences, but it's never imputed enough to them that they suffer an eternal consequence.

The imputation of sin is a legal thing. Christians under the covenant of grace do not relate to God as judge, but as father. The temporal consequence is not wrath, it's chastisement. That's why the Confession refers to this as fatherly displeasure

>>592554

So the authority Jesus placed in the Apostles would not be passed to the disciples and successors of the Apostles? Why?

I don't believe there's a part of sacred scripture where Jesus says " “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained"

…but, do not leave behind any successors, I want independent fundamentalist baptist preachers, and sacred scripture shall be compiled in about another hundred years, so hang tight after your own martyrdoms, so good luck!

>>592570

that's not a non-argument, it's pointing out the hilarity of singling out that one particular clause and claiming it doesn't mean what it obviously means in the context of scripture.

unfortunately, for all the biblical memorization protestants do, it normally ends up in just placing scripture out of its own context for the sake of argument.

>>592582

>that's not a non-argument

Yes it is, because it simply ignores the argument

>it normally ends up in just placing scripture out of its own context for the sake of argument.

The interpretation is based on context

<Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 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; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

The Catholic interpretation requires you to import a massive wall between "even so I send you" and "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven".

>>592579

1. It never o ce says there is so your just adding shit.

2. We don't see that today.

3. Either way anyone that believes on Jesus is saved, also I don't remeber the apostles ever doing that.

>>592643

1. Sacred Scriptures do not cover the lives of the Apostles up until their Martyrdom, we know that they left the apostolic succession in their wake because it was these very same successors that compiled Scripture.

Baptists have yet to provide a satisfactory answer for what exactly happened to the Church of Christ after the last Apostle died, and before Scripture was compiled.

>3. Either way anyone that believes on Jesus is saved, also I don't remeber the apostles ever doing that.

You believe in Jesus, but deny His authority. It does not follow.

>>592800

>after the last Apostle died, and before Scripture was compiled.

I never understood the significance here, and I still don't. The word of God didn't start spreading at the moment it was all copied into a single physical book. If you're saying it did, that also contradicts scripture. If you are not, then again what is the significance? It's just always been known, it was already said to be known then, and it is still known now. The only people who were struggling and failing to identify it were non-believers. That's the whole story.

>You believe in Jesus, but deny His authority.

His word is the final authority for faith and practice. As said in Acts 20:28-32, false prophets and false teachers will arise and Paul himself upon leaving commended his followers to God and to the word of his grace, not to those grievous wolves who will arise. A wolves who teach all manner of heresies including the claim to be somehow succeeding the apostles, as if the apostles perished and stopped being apostles. It's a non-scriptural lie friend. You won't find any basis for it there. May the Lord Jesus Christ open your understanding today.

>>592813

>false prophets and false teachers will arise and Paul himself upon leaving commended his followers to God and to the word of his grace, not to those grievous wolves who will arise.

Don't forget that there were imposter messiahs, false brethren, and false teachers even while the apostles lived and preached. All of Asia at one point rejected what Paul was teaching.

>>592813

>I never understood the significance here, and I still don't

OK. So Christ is crucified, but He is resurrected and charges the Apostles to spread the Word of God to all peoples of all nations.

For a good thousand+ years or so, it is understood that this was a charge He had left to the Apostles whom appointed successors in their place.

At a certain point, about a hundred years so after the Resurrection of Our Lord and the death of the last Apostle, Holy Scripture is compiled for our profit.

As a Protestant, you try to change history, and say that not only did the Apostles not leave successors, but that Christ did not charge them with His authority, So whatever happened after the Apostles died is just a big blank mystery where ????? happens until Constantine arrives and apparently the big evil bad Catholic Church is created to destroy all the independent fundamentalist baptist churches that Christ charged us with.

Does this make sense to you? It makes no sense to me either.

>as if the apostles perished and stopped being apostles

Do priests stop being priests after they die? Where do you come with all this magical thinking?

>>592817

and another major point Protestants must address in the context of history:

How then, could sola scriptura be valid without scriptura? Christ did not deliver scripture at the end of Matthew, neither did the Apostles deliver it in its Holy Spirit delivered totality before their martyrdom.

It was conceived and cared for by the Apostolic Church, the true Church of Christ.

…which you deny has apostolic succession! does this NOT call scripture ITSELF into question?

>>592817

>whom appointed successors in their place.

In their own version of history, not in reality.

>Christ did not deliver scripture at the end of Matthew,

Who said it had to be written? Did Christ fail to bring the word of God and it was only "conceived" later? John 17:8,14 tell us that God gave them his word. This is of course completely true, the whole word of God was given to them. And in Acts 12:24 and other places it is shown that the word of God was spreading mightily. It may not have even been in a single physical book like you seem to require, that didn't prevent this. So how can you say it was "conceived" a century or more later. Every saved person already knew exactly what it is. Only the blind are confused, which is why they can't get scripture right.

The blind didn't do anything.

>Do priests stop being priests after they die? Where do you come with all this magical thinking?

You're the one saying they need replacements. But I am only believing what came from them. it's really not that complicated. 2 Peter 1:21.

>>592827

>In their own version of history, not in reality.

OK, so where is your historical evidence?

>circular non-argument

OK, but what happened after the last Apostle was martyred and before sacred scripture was compiled? Still total silence from you here.

>But I am only believing what came from them.

And so you disavow the apostolic successors and holy tradition because????

>>592828

>OK, so where is your historical evidence?

Scripture is all the evidence that will ever be needed. It's the word of God. We're told to trust God and his word. So far I see you don't like certain facts I've mentioned, so we still need to iron that out before talking about what came after. Your version of events plainly contradicts scripture.

>before sacred scripture was compiled?

I just explained to you that the word of God was always known.

>And so you disavow the apostolic successors and holy tradition because????

I am believing what actually came from God, through his word. The New Testament is what we have from them, as God intended. And people saying the apostles were replaced by "successors" are simply one of the grievous wolves Paul mentioned. Given that, or given any other plain disqualification, there's no reason to think any of their claims are true either. They are simply taking credit for doing things that they never did and in fact even failed to do correctly (at council of Trent, apocrypha, before that, couldn't even decide.) Nobody had to wait for them to start existing, the word was already in the world working effectually in all them that believe, being received as truth and spreading mightily even during the time period of Acts of the Apostles, and continuing to the circulation of the Revelation of John, and still now. Doesn't matter what some government now claims it accomplished ex post facto, when all it really did was be confused for a really long time and then fail on multiple levels. They weren't at the forefront of any of this.