Shared altar / pulpit

[Algernon]

This section is for discussing Lutheran things; thus your "faith journey" is off topic

 

[Bonnie]

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.

 

[Nic]

This is most certainly true.

 

[VDMA]

How do y'all feel about the communion / agreement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches?

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.

I mean sacred scripture and doctrine means nothing to these two groups. These two liberal groups are bleeding members so fast hopefully they’ll gone within 50 years. Anything associated with the “Lutheran World Federation” you can disregard, most of those church bodies are apostate and ordain women, endorse homosexuality, critical race theory, etc. I could care less if they have agreement with ultra liberal Anglicans.

Are confessional Lutheran and Confessional Anglicans in agreement? Lutheran are in closer agreement with Anglo-Catholics and not at all in agreement with low church Anglicans. When it comes to Anglicanism it needs to be defined because their confessions are loose and not narrowly define. They are either low church Evangelical Calvinistic “churchman” or high church Anglo Catholic “churchman”. There is a big difference between low church Calvinist Evangelical Anglicans (which are really just Presbyterians) and high church Anglo Catholics. Low church reject the corporal blood and body of Christ (which is in err), the other believes in the corporal blood and body Christ and rejects the errors of Calvinism. Anglicanism have a wider divergence of theological beliefs under the umbrella of the Anglican community. There is no such thing as a Calvinist/Zwigian Lutheran. When it comes to Anglicanism high church Anglo Catholics churches are the only viable churches within the Anglican community. An Anglican Church in the mold of J.I. Packer would not be a viable option because it would be Calvinist church. 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. The biggest weakness of Anglicanism is they tolerate the serious errs of Calvin and Zwingli. You will never find the false teachings of Zwingli and Calvin in confessional Lutheranism.

I do not see confessional Lutherans coming into a agreement with Altar fellowship with Anglicans as long as they tolerate the errors of Zwingli and Calvinist within her ranks. Confessional Lutherans and high church Anglicans are close in doctrine, low church Anglicans are not at all in agreement with confessional Lutherans.

 

[Mike McK]

I mean sacred scripture and doctrine means nothing to these two groups.

Good. Then you have something in common.

...the errors of Calvinism...

Says the heretic who believes children are to be baptized, and that baptism is a means of salvation.

An Anglican Church in the mold of J.I. Packer would not be a viable option because it would be Calvinist church.

aka A Bible believing church.

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 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.

 

[Abounds]

It's a bad Idea. ELCIC and ACC in Canada merged. ..then went even harder on the liberalism.

My cohort the LCC have Fellowship with LCMS. That's it hahaha

 

[BJ Bear]

Good. Then you have something in common.

And no one would know such things better than you, right?

Says the heretic who believes children are to be baptized, and that baptism is a means of salvation.

According to Scripture and common sense infants are necessarily a part of a people.

You do realize the risen Lord was speaking to His already baptized disciples in Matt 28:19ff and that the imperative was to them to disciple all peoples, that is, baptize and teach all peoples, right?

aka A Bible believing church.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Mike McK]

According to Scripture...

Cite the verses.

and common sense infants are necessarily a part of a people.

So, everybody has infants?

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

In your opinion. But you appear to be Catholic, so it really doesn't matter.

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.

edit per mod

That is a backwards and Christ despising interpretation.

No, it's literally what the Bible says.

Grace is the unmerited favor of God, especially in the person and work of Christ. Faith in Christ is a result of grace.

If you believed it was unmerited, you wouldn't believe you had to do works to get it.

 

[BJ Bear]

Cite the verses.

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

This is the religion and culture into which the incarnate Lord and His Apostles and disciples standind before Him in Matthew 28:19ff were born and in which they lived. If someone chooses to read and understand that passage or Scripture in general in an out of context manner then that is on him.

So, everybody has infants?

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.

In your opinion. But you appear to be Catholic, so it really doesn't matter.

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.

And, as usual, the dishonest Catholic takes this snippet of a verse out of context.


If you have to lie, you have no argument.

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.

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.

No, it's literally what the Bible says.

Says who? People are saved by grace through faith and this not of themselves, etc, Ephesians 2:8-10.

If you believed it was unmerited, you wouldn't believe you had to do works to get it.

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.

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

 

[Mike McK]

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

And how do these verses show that babies are included in Christ's command to baptize?

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.

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.

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.

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

Says who?

Paul.

People are saved by grace through faith and this not of themselves, etc, Ephesians 2:8-10.

Thus, not through works, such as baptism.

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.

EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATION

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

Thus, not through works such as baptism.

 

[BJ Bear]

And how do these verses show that babies are included in Christ's command to baptize?

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.

But you didn't cite the passage.
You didn't even cite the whole verse.

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.

You cited just a snippet of a verse in order to make it appear that baptism saves.

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 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.

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.

EDITED

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.

EDITEDto 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."

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

Paul.

At best that is a misinterpretation of Paul.

Thus, not through works, such as baptism.

EDITED

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.

Baptism is the work of God.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

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.

But 1 Peter 3 contradicts them. What they fail to realize is that the WORK done in baptism is the forgiveness of sins--and that alone Jesus Christ does, with the word working THROUGH the water. For only God can forgive sins. As Ephesians 5 says:

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 have had a couple of evangelicals try to tell me that this means being cleansed by being "washed" by the word, but that isn't what Paul wrote--he said "having cleansed her BY THE WASHING OF WATER WITH THE WORD." The water by itself is nothing, but the word of God spoken during baptism is what cleanses us through the water used in Holy Baptism. Why do they deny the clear words of Scripture?

 

[RiJoRi]

Why do they deny the clear words of Scripture?

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

 

[Bonnie]

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

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.

 

[Bonnie]

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.

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.

 

[Lutheranian]

How do y'all feel about the communion / agreement between the Lutheran and Anglican churches?

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.

 

[Nic]

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

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.

 

[RiJoRi]

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.

Nah. 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

 

[Nic]

Nah. 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

I'm from Chi-town 6'1" 245#s lol

 

[RiJoRi]

I'm from Chi-town 6'1" 245#s lol

Den it's gotta be da accent! Jus' tawk like Rocky, ya know? Hey, is dis off-subjec' or sumpin'?

--Rich