Christian/Muslim ThreadsOpen to Ideas from All Faiths :: Re: Truth Seeker-Joshua, Seeker of Truth, AineoRe: Truth Seeker-Joshua, Seeker of Truth, Aineo
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:LuckyStrike: a) Lutheranism believes in Infant Baptism, where one's child or children can be saved as babies by Baptism. Most mainline denominations generally believe in this type of Baptism except Baptists, who only practice "Believer's Baptism." Who is doctrinally correct?
Wrong.
First, Martin Luther endorsed Infant Baptism. For example, he says:
Martin Luther wrote:So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Mt. 19:13-15: Mk. 10:13-16; Lk 18:15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God" etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, he bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture.
This is undoubtedly written of natural children. The interpretation of Christ's words, as if he had meant only spiritual children, who are small in humility, will not stand. For they were small children as to their bodies, which Luke calls infants. His blessing is placed upon these, and of these he says that the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Will we say they were without faith of their own? Then the passages quoted above are untrue: "He that disbelieveth shall be condemned." Then Christ also speaks falsely or feigns, when he says the kingdom of heaven is theirs, and is not really speaking of the true kingdom of heaven. Interpret these words of Christ as you please, we have it that children are to be brought to Christ and not to be forbidden to be brought: and when they are brought to Christ, he here compels us to believe that he blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven, as he does with these children. And it is in no way proper for us to act and believe otherwise as long as the words stand: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." Not less is it proper for us to believe that when they are brought to him he embraces them, blesses them, and bestows upon them heaven, as long as the text stands that he blessed the children which were brought to him and gave heaven to them. Who can ignore this text? Who will be so bold as not to suffer little children to come to baptism, or not to believe that Christ blesses them when they come?
He is just as present in baptism now as he was then: this we Christians know for certain. Therefore we dare not forbid baptism to children. Nor dare we doubt that he blesses all who come thither, as he did those children. So then there is nothing left here but the piety and faith of those who brought the little children to him. By bringing them, they effect and aid that the little children are blessed and obtain the kingdom of heaven; which cannot be the case unless they themselves have their own faith, as has been said. So we also say here, that children are brought to baptism by the faith and work of others; but when they get there and the pastor or baptizer deals with them in Christ's stead, he blesses them and grants to them the faith and the kingdom of heaven: for the word and deed of the pastor are the word and work of Christ himself.
Source: III. THE DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF
PERSONAL FAITH AND THE FAITH OF OTHERS; ALSO, OF FAITH AND THE BAPTISM OF CHILDREN.
Second, the Book of Concord, which is considered to be an authoritative text by all Lutherans, contains a defense of Infant Baptism. For instance:
Book of Concord wrote:That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost; and that there are yet many even to-day in whom we perceive that they have the Holy Ghost both because of their doctrine and life; as it is also given to us by the grace of God that we can explain the Scriptures and come to the knowledge of Christ, which is impossible without the Holy Ghost. But if God did not accept the baptism of infants, He would not give the Holy Ghost nor any of His gifts to any of them; in short, during this long time unto this day no man upon earth could have been a Christian. Now, since God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God. For He can never be opposed to Himself, or support falsehood and wickedness, or for its promotion impart His grace and Spirit. This is indeed the best and strongest proof for the simple-minded and unlearned. For they shall not take from us or overthrow this article: I believe a holy Christian Church, the communion of saints.
Source: XIIIA. Part Fourth, Of Infant Baptism.
While the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) does not view this text as binding, the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod (LCMS) does. However, the ELCA does accept Infant Baptism:
elca.org wrote:In Baptism, and it can be seen more clearly in infant Baptism, God freely offers his grace and lovingly establishes a new community. It is in Baptism that people become members of Christ's Body on earth, the Church. In Holy Communion -- often called the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist -- those who come to the table receive in bread and wine the body and blood of their Lord. This gift is itself the real presence of God's forgiveness and mercy, nourishing believers in union with their Lord and with each other.
Source: Essential Questions - Christianity and Lutheranism
Thus, the question arises:
Which position truly represents Lutheranism? Yours (anti-Infant Baptism) or theirs (pro-Infant Baptism)? Or do Lutherans believe in doctrinal relativism?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:I have been with my church for 30 years. Never once has any pastor baptised a child into salvation.
That may be the case for your particular church, but not for others. Thus, this point is irrelevant.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Children are baptised into the Christian faith. But that doesn't save them, they are already saved as children; whether their baptised or not. Then we believe in the baptisism from the Holy Spirit. This is the baptism you received once you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Salvation, and take Him into your heart.
Your comments here prove my original point. Infant Baptism is an issue that effects salvation, for it can lead to the belief that one can receive the regeneration of the Spirit apart from personal belief in Christ. This can deceive people into thinking they are saved when they are not, thereby potentially getting them into hell.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Where are you getting this crap? Are you making it up as you go?
Please refrain from ad hominem emotional outbursts on this thread.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:None of the sects you mention above, believe that sacraments "channel" grace. God's grace is the same for all man kind; Christians and non-Christians alike. It is not "channelled, it already has been given.
The Book of Concord, which is considered to be an authoritative text by all Lutherans, says the following:
Book of Concord wrote:That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ's sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake.
Source: Article V: Of the Ministry
Is not providing continual justification a form of giving continual grace?
The official website of the ELCA says:
elca.org wrote:Lutherans accept two Sacraments as God-given means for penetrating the lives of people with his grace. Although they are not the only means of God's self-revelation, Baptism and Holy Communion are visible acts of God's love.
Source: Essential Questions - Christianity and Lutheranism
How can penetrating peoples' lives with grace be a continued process if they already have it?
Martin Luther, in the Large Catechism, which is part of the Book of Concord, said:
Martin Luther wrote:Thus we have briefly the first point which relates to the essence of this Sacrament. Now examine further the efficacy and benefits on account of which really the Sacrament was instituted; which is also its most necessary part, that we may know what we should seek and obtain there. Now this is plain and clear from the words just mentioned: This is My body and blood, given and shed FOR YOU, for the remission of sins. Briefly that is as much as to say: For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. Why so? Because the words stand here and give us this; for on this account He bids me eat and drink, that it may be my own and may benefit me, as a sure pledge and token, yea, the very same treasure that is appointed for me against my sins, death, and every calamity.
Source: OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR.
Here Luther says that by the sacrament of Communion, people get forgiveness of their sins. This qualifies as a continual dispensing of grace through a specific means.
Within the Large Catechism, Luther also wrote:
Book of Concord wrote:We have now finished the three chief parts of the common Christian doctrine. Besides these we have yet to speak of our two Sacraments instituted by Christ, of which also every Christian ought to have at least an ordinary, brief instruction, because without them there can be no Christian; although, alas! hitherto no instruction concerning them has been given.
Book of Concord wrote:From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added.
Source: XIII. Part Fourth, Of Baptism.
Here Luther states that water Baptism and Communion are necessary for salvation.
Thus, the question arises:
Which position truly represents Lutheranism? Yours (sacraments do not channel grace) or theirs (sacraments do channel grace)? Or do Lutherans believe in doctrinal relativism?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Don't assume, stereotype, or make up doctrine to try and make your point. I could bring both a long time Methodist and Presbyterian to this forum, to tell you how your "generalization" of salvation is 100% wrong.
With regards to Methodism, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught that Communion is the way to receive the blood of Christ, or the spiritual grace of God. For instance:
John Wesley wrote:12. And that this is also an ordinary, stated means of receiving the grace of God, is evident from those words of the Apostle, which occur in the preceding chapter: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion," or communication, "of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16.) Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible means, whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were purchased by the body of Christ once broken and the blood of Christ once shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Source" SERMON SIXTEEN - The Means of Grace (May-June 1746)
Wesley also taught that Communion is the way in which sins are forgiven, otherwise we do not go to heaven. For instance:
John Wesley wrote:2. A Second reason why every Christian should do this as often as he can, is, because the benefits of doing it are so great to all that do it in obedience to him; viz., the forgiveness of our past sins and the present strengthening and refreshing of our souls. In this world we are never free from temptations. Whatever way of life we are in, whatever our condition be, whether we are sick or well, in trouble or at ease, the enemies of our souls are watching to lead us into sin. And too often they prevail over us. Now, when we are convinced of having sinned against God, what surer way have we of procuring pardon from him, than the "showing forth the Lord's death;" and beseeching him, for the sake of his Son's sufferings, to blot out all our sins?
3. The grace of God given herein confirms to us the pardon of our sins, by enabling us to leave them. As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord's Supper; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our Lord has prepared for us. We must neglect no occasion which the good providence of God affords us for this purpose. This is the true rule: So often are we to receive as God gives us opportunity. Whoever, therefore, does not receive, but goes from the holy table, when all things are prepared, either does not understand his duty, or does not care for the dying command of his Saviour, the forgiveness of his sins, the strengthening of his soul, and the refreshing it with the hope of glory.
John Wesley wrote:3. Perhaps you will say, "God does not command me to do this as often as I can:" That is, the words "as often as you can," are not added in this particular place. What then? Are we not to obey every command of God as often as we can? Are not all the promises of God made to those, and those only, who "give all diligence;" that is, to those who do all they can to obey his commandments? Our power is the one rule of our duty. Whatever we can do, that we ought. With respect either to this or any other command, he that, when he may obey it if he will, does not, will have no place in the kingdom of heaven.
Source: SERMON ONE HUNDRED ONE; The Duty of Constant Communion (Feb. 19, 1732)
And this thinking is reflected in Methodism's 25 Articles of Religion. For instance, these articles say that the sacraments are necessary signs of grace by which God works in people:
25 Articles of Religion wrote:[16.] Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Source: Methodist Articles of Religion
- - - - - - - - - -
With regards to the Presbyterian Church of USA, the Book of Order states the following:
"The Reformed tradition understands Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be Sacraments, instituted by God and commended by Christ. Sacraments are signs of the real presence and power of Christ in the Church, symbols of God's action. Through the Sacraments, God seals believers in redemption, renews their identity as the people of God, and marks them for service." (Book of Order W-1.3033.2)
"The early Church, following Jesus, took three primary material elements of life--water, bread, and wine--to become basic symbols of offering life to God as Jesus had offered his life. Being washed with the water of Baptism, Christians received new life in Christ and presented their bodies to be living sacrifices to God. Eating bread and drinking wine they received the sustaining presence of Christ, remembered God's covenant promise, and pledged their obedience anew." (Book of Order W-1.3033.1)
"In Baptism, the Holy Spirit binds the Church in covenant to its Creator and Lord. The water of Baptism symbolizes the waters of creation, of the flood, and of the Exodus from Egypt. Thus, the water of Baptism links us to the goodness of God's creation and to the grace of God's covenants with Noah and Israel. Prophets of Israel, amidst the failure of their own generation to honor God's covenant, called for justice to roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream. (Amos 5:24) They envisioned a fresh expression of God's grace and of creation's goodness -- a new covenant accompanied by the sprinkling of cleansing water. In his ministry, Jesus offered the gift of living water. So, Baptism is the sign and seal of God's grace and covenant in Christ." (Book of Order W-2.3003)
" The Lord's Supper is the sign and seal of eating and drinking in communion with the crucified and risen Lord. During his earthly ministry Jesus shared meals with his followers as a sign of community and acceptance and as an occasion for his own ministry." (Book of Order W-2.4001a)
John Calvin, the "father" of Presbyterianism and Reformed theology, taught that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper communicates all spiritual grace. For instance:
John Calvin wrote:10. ALL THE TREASURES OF SPIRITUAL GRACE PRESENTED IN THE SUPPER.
We can therefore say, that in it the Lord displays to us all the treasures of his spiritual grace, inasmuch as he associates us in all the blessings and riches of our Lord Jesus. Let us recollect, then, that the Supper is given us as a mirror in which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order to deliver us from condemnation, and raised again in. order to procure for us righteousness and eternal life. It is indeed true that this same grace is offered us by the gospel, yet as in the Supper we have more ample certainty, and fuller enjoyment of it, with good cause do we recognise this fruit as coming from it.
11. JESUS CHRIST IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But as the blessings of Jesus Christ do not belong to us at all, unless he be previously ours, it is necessary, first of all, that he be given us in the Supper, in order that the things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them the graces and blessings which we have by his means. Now the efficacy of the Supper is to confirm to us the reconciliation which we have with God through our Saviour's death and passion; the washing of our souls which we have in the shedding of his blood; the righteousness which we have in his obedience; in short, the hope of salvation which we have in all' that he has done for us. It is necessary, then, that the substance should be conjoined with these, otherwise nothing would be firm or certain. Hence we conclude that two things are presented to us in the Supper, viz., Jesus Christ as the source and substance of all good; and, secondly, the fruit and efficacy of his death and passion. This is implied in the words which were used. For after commanding us to eat his body and drink his blood, he adds that his body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. Hereby he intimates, first, that we ought not simply to communicate in his body and blood, without any other consideration, but in order to receive the fruit derived to us from his death and passion; secondly, that we can attain the enjoyment of such fruit only by participating in his body and blood, from which it is derived.
12. HOW THE BREAD IS CALLED THE BODY, AND THE WINE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
We begin now to enter on the question so much debated, both anciently and at the present time—how we are to understand the words in which the `bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine his blood. This may be disposed of without much difficulty, if we carefully observe the principle which I lately laid down, viz., that all the benefit which we should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all. That being fixed, we will confess, without doubt, that to deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless—an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to.
Source: Short Treatise on the Supper of Our Lord
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Wrong again.
Let me give you the actual doctrine from Evangelical Lutheran Belief. (page 48 ).
I said "represents," not "becomes." This means a literal spiritual presence within the bread and wine, not a literal physical transformation of the bread and wine.
The Book of Concord states:
Book of Concord wrote:Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.
Source: Article X: Of the Lord's Supper
Martin Luther, in the Large Catechism, said:
Martin Luther wrote:Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar!
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.
Source: OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTER
And according to the website of the ELCA:
elca.org wrote:In Baptism, and it can be seen more clearly in infant Baptism, God freely offers his grace and lovingly establishes a new community. It is in Baptism that people become members of Christ's Body on earth, the Church. In Holy Communion -- often called the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist -- those who come to the table receive in bread and wine the body and blood of their Lord. This gift is itself the real presence of God's forgiveness and mercy, nourishing believers in union with their Lord and with each other.
Source: Essential Questions - Christianity and Lutheranism
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:The other doctrine used to debunk you and others that adhere to the "cannabalism" theory.
You assume incorrectly. I do not believe that the Lord's Supper or Eucharist is an ordinance or sacrament instituted by Christ. So I do not take part in it.
Regardless of if you agree or not, this is besides the point.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Notice how it says[...]
Your Scriptural refutation of the doctrine of Transubstantiation proves my point. One should be guided by what Scripture says, not the official doctrinal declarations of denominations.
Now let me ask you a follow up question: Why should not one test all denominational doctrine with what Scripture says? If this was done, would not all denominational divisions be irrelevant?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Could you point out the Biblical verse that says "speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of salvation"?
I will speak to a Pentecost member and ask them. If they speak in tongues, I'm quite sure that it is not a requirment for salvation; and you have only made a broad generalization. I will get back to you on this.
These are the verses I recite in regards to you question:
1 Corinthians 12:27-31 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.
According to the United Pentecostal Church Internation's website:
upci.org wrote:Another reason why God chose other tongues as the initial sign of receiving the Spirit is that speaking in tongues is a uniform evidence. It applies to everyone, regardless of race, culture, or language.
Some people quote I Corinthians 12:30 in an attempt to prove that not all speak in tongues when they are filled with the Spirit: "Do all speak with tongues?" However, this verse refers to the gift of tongues, that is, speaking a public message in tongues to be interpreted for the congregation, which is a spiritual gift that a person may exercise subsequent to the infilling of the Spirit. Though both tongues as the inital evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost and tongues as a later spiritual gift are the same in essence, they are different in administration and operation. For example, the regulations regarding the gift of tongues in I Corinthians 14:27-28 did not apply to the conversion accounts in Acts, where many people spoke in tongues simultaneously, without interpretation, as the sign of being filled with the Spirit.
Source: Why Did God Choose Tongues?
Here the United Pentecostal Church clearly says that speaking in tongues is a uniform evidence of salvation.
That aside, your Scriptural refutation of this Pentecostal doctrine proves my point. One should be guided by what Scripture says, not the official doctrinal declarations of denominations.
Now let me ask you a follow up question: Why should not one test all denominational doctrine with what Scripture says? If this was done, would not all denominational divisions be irrelevant?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Again, your making things up. Lutherans, as I, believe that God's will applies to every one of His childeran; saved and un-saved, Christian and non-Christian alike. God has a plan for each one of His childeran; saved and un-saved, Christian and non-Christian alike.
You misunderstood what I said. By "single predestination," I mean God predestined certain people to be saved, as opposed to "double predestination" or Total Predestination, where God predestines certain people to be saved and certain people to be damned.
In his Preface to the Epistle to the Romans, Martin Luther says the following:
Martin Luther wrote:The apostle's teaching in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters is concerning the eternal predestination of God, whence it originally flows, whether a person is to believe it or not, become rid of his sins or not, in order that our becoming godly may be taken entirely out of our own hands and placed in the hands of God. And this is of the very highest importance. For we are so feeble and full of uncertainty that, if it depended on us, not a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower all. But God being reliable so that His predestination does not fail, and no one can defeat His purpose, we have still reason for hope over against sin.
However, at this point a limit has to be staked off against presumptuous and arrogant spirits, who lead their reason to this point first, start from the top, undertake to explore before everything else the abyss of divine predestination, and worry to no purpose over the question whether they are predestinated. These people become the cause of their own downfall; they either despair of their salvation or abandon themselves to recklessness.
Source: Martin Luther's Preface to the Epistle to the Romans
Further, in The Bondage of the Will, Luther also says:
Martin Luther wrote:First, God has promised certainly His grace to the humbled: that is, to the self-deploring and despairing. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and work of another, that is, of God only. For if, as long as he has any persuasion that he can do even the least thing himself towards his own salvation, he retain a confidence in himself and do not utterly despair in himself, so long he is not humbled before God; but he proposes to himself some place, some time, or some work, whereby he may at length attain unto salvation. But he who hesitates not to depend wholly upon the good-will of God, he totally despairs in himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such an one, is the nearest unto grace, that he might be saved.
Source: The Bondage of the Will; The Sovereignty of God
Martin Luther wrote:How can God invite to repentance who is the author of the reason why it cannot repent, while it leaves, or does not give grace to, that, which cannot of itself will good?
Source: The Bondage of the Will; Discussion, Part 1
Martin Luther wrote:But just listen to your own conclusions. - The Scripture commends the grace of God: therefore, it proves "Free-will." - It exalts the assistance of the grace of God: therefore, it establishes "Free-will." By what kind of logic did you learn such conclusions as these? On the contrary, why not conclude thus? - Grace is preached: therefore, "Free-will" has no existence. The assistance of grace is exalted: therefore, "Free-will" is abolished. For, to what intent is grace given? Is it for this: that "Freewill," as being of sufficient power itself, might proudly display and sport grace on fair-days, as a superfluous ornament!
Source: The Bondage of the Will, Discussion, Part 2
Martin Luther wrote:Again:- If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!
Source: The Bondage of the Will; Conclusion
It is clear that Martin Luther believed in the doctrine of Total Depravity and its logical consequence, the doctrine of Irresistable Grace.
The Book of Concord reflects Luther's endorsement of Total Depravity:
Book of Concord wrote:Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
They Condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.
Source: Article 2: Of Original Sin
And finally, the website of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod says:
lcms.org wrote:Q. Would you explain the LCMS position on "predestined" in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1? If one is predestined to be adopted as a redeemed child of God, then does it follow that another is predestined to not be adopted and therefore damned?
A. The LCMS believes that Scripture clearly teaches (in passages such as those mentioned in your question) a predestination to salvation by God's grace in Jesus Christ alone. The LCMS does not believe that Scripture teaches a predestination to damnation: God desires all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3). Like so many teachings of Scripture (e.g., the Trinity, eternity, the two natures of Christ, the love of a holy God for rebellious sinners), this teaching seems contradictory and is incomprehensible to human reason. We believe it not because it "makes sense" to human reason, but because this is what we find taught in the pages of God's holy Word.
Source: Predestination
Unfortunately, ELCA.org does not have an official online statement on this issue.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Jehovah's, Christian scientists, and Mormons are cults by Christian standards. The best person to show you evidence regarding this would be Aineo or Omega. (I can't remember which one of them showed proof on a previous post. Ask them both.)
That is the point. They are considered Christian denominations, but yet their denominational doctrine contains critical errors, thereby making them cults. Therefore, not all Christian denominations are "equal" in validity.
Now here is my follow up question: Who or what determines what Christian denominations are valid? Popular notions or Biblical truth?
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Hardly
"Because I said so" rhetoric proves nothing.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:You are totally lost and wrong here. All Christian denominations have the same faith in Jesus Christ. That He was the Son of God, He was sent to die for our sins, and God the Father rose Him from the dead to become our Lord and Savior.
Your confusing and judging based on the difference of doctrinal traditions. And traditions are not faith.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:No, salvation is the same, just as I have said before. You would want to make a person believe that a difference in doctrine means a difference in salvation.
No, the doctrinal traditions of each denomination do define the faith differently. Specifically, they reshape the faith in different ways through disagreements over critical doctrinal issues. For instance:
a) The concept of salvic Infant Baptism challenges the fundamental idea that one must believe in Jesus Christ themself in order to be saved.
b) The concept of different sacraments represents a fundamental disagreement over how God justifies one or how one actually receives God's grace.
c) The concept of speaking in tongues being an evidence of salvation undermines the reliability and reality of the Gospel.
d) The concept of the Lord's Supper or Eucharist being the manner in which Christ communicates his body and blood, literally or spiritually, undermines (1) spiritual regeneration by the Spirit and (2) the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.
e) The concepts of (1) "one-way" predestination and (2) Total Predestination challenge the fundamental idea that one is personally responsible for "coming to Christ," as in listening to the Word of God, repenting from their sins, and believing in Christ.
f) The arbitrary altering of the canon of Scripture can result in a significant modification of what Scripture says, thereby potientionally effecting all core doctrines.
g) The denial of Christ's divine identity is synonymous with denying that Christ is the Savior of all men.
Thus, these issues, in these specific ways, split Christianity at its core. They undermine the process of "coming to Christ" and arbitrarily alter the workings of the Gospel.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:And trust me, I know the differences between denominations. I could go to a member of each and every Christian denomination (excluding catholics), and ask them; "what saves you"? And I will get the same answer from each and every one of them. Because it is a simple answer.
You are attempting to use social contacts to engage in an appeal to popularity logical fallacy. Having numerous friends that agree with your position does not prove that your position correct.
The answer is not simple, as demonstrated above, for "the devil is in the details." And you are attempting to use broad terminology and general assertions to circumvent these details.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Again a false statement, since their is only 1 Jesus, 1 gospel, and 1 way to salvation.
You are engaging in non sequitur reasoning. Just because all Christian denominations claim to observe Biblical truth does not mean that they actually do.
Many people simply declare otherwise, in spirit of "New Ecumenalism," but such claims prove nothing. Such people define "unity" by feel-good emotions or political correctness, not by Biblical truth or sound doctrine. And it is Biblical truth or sound doctrine, not worldly notions of "unity," that truly defines the faith.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:So tell me, how often do you see Lutherans picketing outside a catholic church during mass? How many Methodists do you see driving with bumper stickers that say, "Methodists are right, the rest are wrong"?
There is no substance to this argument. Regardless of if you are appealing to personal experience or simply engaging in sensationalism, this argument proves nothing.
The fact is that the doctrinal differences between denominations represent different positions on different core doctrines. However, there is only one Biblical truth. How do you reconcile this? You only have two options: (a) admit that denominations are teaching critical errors or (b) accept doctrinal relativism. And to circumvent this dilemma, you are trying to distract the issue with petty quibbling.
I have seen heated disagreements between Christians over denominational doctrines. Just search the Internet and you find some. And to start your search, I suggest you take a look at the Apologetics section of Fresh-Hope.com's main forum.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:As I said before; the only "splits of Christianity at its core", are cause by people like you. That would point out differences in one's belief, then try to use those differences to pin once against another.
All you are doing here is engaging in an ad hominem attack, which proves nothing.
If you consider me an enemy because I value Biblical truth above subjective notions of "unity," then that reflects badly on you.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Lucky: Who is doctrinally correct?
Well, you have asked this 7 times.
1st, I would say: If you fry your steak in a skillet on the stove top, and I broil mine in the oven, is one of us wrong? No, we achieved the same goal.
Your analogy is flawed. You are using a definition of "goal" that is too broad.
People do not cook steaks simply to cook them. They cook them with different results in mind. For instance, one may use "moist heat" to cook a steak as part of a stew, while another will use "dry heat" to cook a steak as a whole. And as a whole, one person may marinade or braise their steak to tenderize it, while another person may simply use rubs and grill it to provide a more firm texture. And, of course, one cannot forget the quintessential decision of what color they want their steak cooked to.
And this is ignoring the fact that one can buy different cuts of steak, which also determines how you need to cook it.
Likewise, different denominations do not have different doctrines and practices simply to be different. They have different doctrines and practices because they have different interpretations of Scripture and Biblical reality in mind.
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:2nd, I would ask: If a Lutheran or Baptist has Jesus Christ in their hearts as their Lord and Savior, loved the Lord Almighty with all their heart and soul, and believed that they are saved by the grace of God alone. Just because their denomination has different doctrines then each other, and you, can you stand and tell them to their face that their salvation is different from each others and yours?
You are conceptually equivocating individual salvation with denominational doctrine and practice. While the latter may cause the former, the former does not come from the latter. However, as the latter can cause the former, so can it also inhibit the former.
Therefore, this objection is irrelevant.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Seeker of Truth wrote:The orginal thread was about a red herring in our midst saying how appealing Islam is. A poster with a similar name doing the same thing at Faithfreedom.org was at least found out and named as such by the astute that deal with this stuff daily.
Yes, and notice that I asked Peace2God'sPeople some questions, which he or she has not been back to answer. So no, I was not ignoring what he or she said.
That aside, I noticed that your entire post simply contains relativistic arguments that support denominationalism. In other words, you argue that there are far worse problems than denominationalism, therefore denominationalism is not so bad.
But "not so bad" according to whose standards?
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Truth Seeker-Joshua wrote:Seeker, I agree with you 110%.
Everyone on this thread was trying to help Peace2God'sPeople. Then after the thread was dead, luckystrike came along to criticise other Christians trying to help someone come back to Christianity.
In my opinion, when someone would choose to criticise other Christians, rather than helping and witnessing to non-Christians; I find that anti-Christal.
What is truly anti-Christian is when you ignore doctrinal disagreements surrounding the core doctrines of Christianity, but then turn around and attempt to lecture others about witnessing to non-Christians. How can you expect skeptical non-Christians to convert to Christianity if Christians themselves cannot get their beliefs right? By simply attempting to cover this reality up with politically correct rhetoric?
You even admitted that this thread was dead before I posted on it. So you nullified your own objection.
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Aineo wrote:Actually you have proven my point by focusing on what one denomination teaches verses what other denominations teach.
All you are doing here is declaring victory without even considering the substance of my replies. This proves nothing and is intellectually dishonest on your part.
Aineo wrote:You posted generalities, some of which are incorrect.
How do you know this? Because Truth Seeker-Joshua said so?
Aineo wrote:Not all pentecostals believe that tongues are necessary for salvation and as Truth Seeker-Joshua posted not all Lutherans believe what you posted as common to Lutherans.
Here you are erecting a strawman issue and knocking it down. I never claimed my list expressed exacting details. To the contrary, I used generalistic language and noted that it was not complete by any means.
Generalities are generalities. You cannot acknowledge that one spoke in generalities, but then argue that exceptions refute those generalities. This represents a failure to distinguish between generalizations and generalities. The former is broad but encompassing general statement(s), while the latter is loosely made general statement(s). And my list was made of the latter, not the former.
Aineo wrote:I know Southern Baptists who reject OSAS, a pre-trib rapture, and accept all the gifts of the Spirit as being available today. I also know Catholics who reject all the heretical teachings found in Catholicism. What determines our eternal destiny is our relationship with Jesus Christ not what "church" we belong to.
Agreed. Individual beliefs, not official denominational doctrines and practices, determine who is saved and who is not saved.
The fact is that denominationalism creates a "hit and miss reality." While many people do decide what their personal beliefs are, many others let their church clergy or denominational affiliation dictate what they believe. And if you emphasize the former while ignoring the latter, then you are guilty of "counting the hits and ignoring the misses."
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |