This is most certainly true.Might as well do the same with Roman Catholics, but there are reasons why we don't. For those who uphold the confession of faith we don't massage terms until all distinctiveness is lost just so we can agree.
😉This is most certainly true.
How do I feel about ultra liberal heretical apostate “Lutherans” LINO’s (Lutheran in name only) and ultra liberal apostate Anglicans signing an agreement? I don’t care.How do y'all feel about the communion / agreement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches?
Good. Then you have something in common.I mean sacred scripture and doctrine means nothing to these two groups.
Says the heretic who believes children are to be baptized, and that baptism is a means of salvation....the errors of Calvinism...
aka A Bible believing church.An Anglican Church in the mold of J.I. Packer would not be a viable option because it would be Calvinist church.
And we don't believe you have a real church if you believe you reject the BIble's teaching that grace is the result of faith, and not of external means.At the end of the day if the church rejects Sacraments (e.g. if they reject baptismal regeneration, corporeal blood and body of Christ, private confession Absolution, and adhere to the false teachings of Calvin and Zwingli, etc.) they are not church. You do not have a real church without sacraments.
And no one would know such things better than you, right?Good. Then you have something in common.
According to Scripture and common sense infants are necessarily a part of a people.Says the heretic who believes children are to be baptized, and that baptism is a means of salvation.
They may believe some of the Bible but it is clear that they err greatly on numerous topics, for example, the Gospel, Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, etc. One example of this is that they deny the clear teaching of Scripture which says baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ, 1 Peter 3:21-22.aka A Bible believing church.
That is a backwards and Christ despising interpretation. Grace is the unmerited favor of God, especially in the person and work of Christ. Faith in Christ is a result of grace.And we don't believe you have a real church if you believe you reject the BIble's teaching that grace is the result of faith, and not of external means.
Cite the verses.According to Scripture...
and common sense infants are necessarily a part of a people.
In your opinion. But you appear to be Catholic, so it really doesn't matter.They may believe some of the Bible but it is clear that they err greatly on numerous topics, for example, the Gospel, Holy Baptism, Holy Communion, etc
edit per modOne example of this is that they deny the clear teaching of Scripture which says baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ, 1 Peter 3:21-22.
No, it's literally what the Bible says.That is a backwards and Christ despising interpretation.
If you believed it was unmerited, you wouldn't believe you had to do works to get it.Grace is the unmerited favor of God, especially in the person and work of Christ. Faith in Christ is a result of grace.
Here are two, one with regard to a Gentile people and the second with regard to the people of God, that is, the congregation or church of God. They are from Biblegateway.com.Cite the verses.
According to Scripture a person did not become a people without having infants, little people. A sure way for a people to stop being a people is to cease having infants, little people.So, everybody has infants?
An honest person not trying to defend a defenseless tradition of men that is contrary to Scripture need only read Scripture to see the truth of the matter with regard to those topics.In your opinion. But you appear to be Catholic, so it really doesn't matter.
Citing the passage so that anyone can look it up in context in the translation of his choice is neither being dishonest or a lie.And, as usual, the dishonest Catholic takes this snippet of a verse out of context.
If you have to lie, you have no argument.
Says who? People are saved by grace through faith and this not of themselves, etc, Ephesians 2:8-10.No, it's literally what the Bible says.
Read 1 Peter 3:21-22 again. The person being baptized is the passive object in baptism so it can't be his work. The unstated person who is baptizing is not the acting substantive so it can't be his work. The only thing left is baptism, the acting substantive, therefore it is just as Scripture says, baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.If you believed it was unmerited, you wouldn't believe you had to do works to get it.
And how do these verses show that babies are included in Christ's command to baptize?Here are two, one with regard to a Gentile people and the second with regard to the people of God, that is, the congregation or church of God. They are from Biblegateway.com.
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’"" 1 Sam. 15:3 - NKJV
"Gather the people,
Sanctify the congregation,
Assemble the elders,
Gather the children and nursing babes;
Let the bridegroom go out from his chamber,
And the bride from her dressing room." Joel 2:16, -NKJV
But you didn't cite the passage. You didn't even cite the whole verse. You cited just a snippet of a verse in order to make it appear that baptism saves.Citing the passage so that anyone can look it up in context in the translation of his choice is neither being dishonest or a lie.
You keep saying the verse just says "baptism now saves you". It doesn't. It says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".If someone were to lookup 1 Peter 3:21-22 then he would find that the substantive acting is baptism, the verb is save, and the passive object being saved is you (or us depending on the text being translated). According to Scripture then baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
Paul.Says who?
Thus, not through works, such as baptism.People are saved by grace through faith and this not of themselves, etc, Ephesians 2:8-10.
EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATIONRead 1 Peter 3:21-22 again. The person being baptized is the passive object in baptism so it can't be his work. The unstated person who is baptizing is not the acting substantive so it can't be his work. The only thing left is baptism, the acting substantive, therefore it is just as Scripture says, baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
Thus, not through works such as baptism.Baptism into Christ is from God, freely given for all men, it is a means of His unmerited favor. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:8-10 NKJV
The infants are necessarily included as suitable objects of the person and work of Christ, the promise of Christ, baptism into Christ, and the teaching of Christ since they are people and the ones being baptized and taught are passive.And how do these verses show that babies are included in Christ's command to baptize?
My first reply to you is post #27, if you read it again you will see that it plainly refers to 1 Peter 3:21-22. Citing that passage for you to look up in the translation of your choice for the context makes it superfluous to quote the entire passage.But you didn't cite the passage.
You didn't even cite the whole verse.
That is what the passage says. Quoting that entire section of Scripture doesn't change the substantive acting, baptism; the verb, save; the passive object being baptized, you (or us depending on the text being translated); or that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.You cited just a snippet of a verse in order to make it appear that baptism saves.
Great, if this is your translation of choice then please note that the translator's choice, "corresponds to this," is referring to baptism as the antitype. In this case like in Romans 5, Christ the antitype, the antitype is greater than the type. (In Romans 5 that would be Adam.)You keep saying the verse just says "baptism now saves you". It doesn't. It says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
"Corresponds to this" should have told you he's giving you the context.
Again, the antitype referred to in 1 Peter 3:21 is baptism. Quoting that entire section of Scripture doesn't change that in 1 Peter 3:21-22 the substantive acting is baptism; the verb is save; the passive object being saved is you; or that it saves through the resurrection of Christ.EDITED
If I didn't want anyone to see that then I wouldn't have cited the passage beginning in my first reply to you. EDITEDEDITEDto quote the following verse because you don't want anyone to see that it says that baptism is, "...not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
At best that is a misinterpretation of Paul.Paul.
EDITED Since the passive person being baptized is excluded as the one working and the unstated person administering the baptism is also excluded as the one working then it is not a work of men.Thus, not through works, such as baptism.
EDITED
Baptism is the work of God.Thus, not through works such as baptism.
Some churches think Baptism is a work WE do, since we perform the rite, along with quoting "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." WE are the ones who pour water or dip folks in it while quoting that. Ergo, they think it is a work WE do, so we know works don't save, ergo, Baptism doesn't save, either.The infants are necessarily included as suitable objects of the person and work of Christ, the promise of Christ, baptism into Christ, and the teaching of Christ since they are people and the ones being baptized and taught are passive.
My first reply to you is post #27, if you read it again you will see that it plainly refers to 1 Peter 3:21-22. Citing that passage for you to look up in the translation of your choice for the context makes it superfluous to quote the entire passage.
That is what the passage says. Quoting that entire section of Scripture doesn't change the substantive acting, baptism; the verb, save; the passive object being baptized, you (or us depending on the text being translated); or that baptism does now save you through the resurrection of Christ.
Great, if this is your translation of choice then please note that the translator's choice, "corresponds to this," is referring to baptism as the antitype. In this case like in Romans 5, Christ the antitype, the antitype is greater than the type. (In Romans 5 that would be Adam.)
A second thing that should be noted is that the string of nouns sometimes translated as a parenthetical thought refer to the substantive acting, baptism, rather than the passive object being baptized. In other words, it is baptism that is, "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience," rather than those words telling us about the passive object being baptized.
Again, the antitype referred to in 1 Peter 3:21 is baptism. Quoting that entire section of Scripture doesn't change that in 1 Peter 3:21-22 the substantive acting is baptism; the verb is save; the passive object being saved is you; or that it saves through the resurrection of Christ.
If I didn't want anyone to see that then I wouldn't have cited the passage beginning in my first reply to you. EDITED
At best that is a misinterpretation of Paul.
EDITED Since the passive person being baptized is excluded as the one working and the unstated person administering the baptism is also excluded as the one working then it is not a work of men.
Baptism is the work of God.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word...
I think it may be like the 5 blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each one knew his description was correct, and the others' were wrong.Why do they deny the clear words of Scripture?
All of Scripture is the "elephant", but one thing Lutherans are not prone to do, when studying the Bible, is to isolate verses, and take them out of their immediate, God-given context, as Beej would say. We see ALL of the Bible as a harmonious whole.I think it may be like the 5 blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each one knew his description was correct, and the others' were wrong.
Of course, this is my opinion, and not really something I'd want to argue.
--Rich
Baptism is the work of God, the forgiveness of sins He gives us,, through the washing of water WITH the word of God. Only God in Christ Jesus can forgive sins, and He can so do so through Holy Baptism. Ergo, it is the work of God, not a work of ours.And how do these verses show that babies are included in Christ's command to baptize?
But you didn't cite the passage. You didn't even cite the whole verse. You cited just a snippet of a verse in order to make it appear that baptism saves.
You keep saying the verse just says "baptism now saves you". It doesn't. It says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATIONS
Paul.
Thus, not through works, such as baptism.
EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATION
Thus, not through works such as baptism.
I have spoken to Anglicans who consider themselves "Augsburg Anglicans" that is they believe in the Augsburg Confession. Unfortunately there could never be full communion and fellowship as long as Anglicans tolerates error like rejection of the real presence and ordination of women and the like.How do y'all feel about the communion / agreement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches?
Rich your so nice, has anyone ever called you a good humanitarian and an affront to the gospel? That's what I was called for being nice. 😆I think it may be like the 5 blind men trying to describe an elephant. Each one knew his description was correct, and the others' were wrong.
Of course, this is my opinion, and not really something I'd want to argue.
--Rich
Nah. As a 6'3" 280 lb Noo Yawkah, they wouldn't dare. ('Specially when I "toin on da Brooklyn accent, ya know?" 😱)Rich your so nice, has anyone ever called you a good humanitarian and an affront to the gospel? That's what I was called for being nice. 😆
I'm from Chi-town 6'1" 245#s lolNah. As a 6'3" 280 lb Noo Yawkah, they wouldn't dare. ('Specially when I "toin on da Brooklyn accent, ya know?" 😱)
"T' anks!"
--Rich
Den it's gotta be da accent! Jus' tawk like Rocky, ya know? Hey, is dis off-subjec' or sumpin'?I'm from Chi-town 6'1" 245#s lol