Search results

Given that I partly attend an evangelical Anglican church, you're not even close...

Yep. That fits in with Scripture.

Yes, I know (and I think they're wrong to do that). But what do you mean by 'faith'?

By interpolating the word 'alone' (which isn't there), one is adding to Scripture. Sorry, mate, but that won't wash: if the Bible teaches faith alone then I find it very odd that it doesn't say faith alone. Very very odd indeed....

One has to define what one means by 'faith alone' though. It is that definition which has been expanded by the Joint Declaration; it is clear here that the Lutheran definition of 'faith alone' does not fall under that Tridentine anathema - does yours?

It has refined its views on justification - see the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This doesn't rescind the Tridentine anathema on the subject but rather explains it more fulsomely.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Thanks for the more fulsome response. I have to say that I disagree with the interpretation put forward by the article cited by you (surprise!) and I could cite any number of articles by covenant-baptisers, paedo-baptisers and baptismal regenerationists in support of the contrary interpretation...

In that case it is a Bad Thing. Can the one not be separated from the other? Or would that be too sensible for government hacks?

Free contraception means fewer abortions which for me is a Good Thing.

Care to substantiate that bald assertion (particularly in the light of Col 2:11-12)?

But baptism under the New Covenant corresponds to circumcision under the Old - see Col 2:11-12

OK, that's the chapter and verse; my point is that that drives a coach and horses through the anti-paedo-covenanters' (whether that be circumcision under the Old Covenant or baptism under the New) argument that reason and faith of the recipient is necessary. An 8-day old does not have any faith...

Then why circumcise baby boys under the Old Covenant?

The New fulfils the Old, it doesn't replace it.

Inaugurated, not crowned - I think +++John XXIII dispensed with the triple tiara in 1958 and I would be flabbergasted if +++Francis reinstated it; he's gone for a cheap papal ring. PS I wonder if he allowed Joe Biden to receive communion?

As usual, your knowledge of church history is wonky; B-G has graciously corrected your errors, as all good Catholics do these days :smilewinkgrin:

He is on record as saying he's named after Francis of Assisi not Francis Xavier

According to one Joseph Ratzinger (haven't heard from him in the last 8 years or so...?) it doesn't - see the Augsburg Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification which he co-authored. That effectively rescinds that particular Trent anathema without actually saying so.

Neither could a Catholic - see the Council of Orange of 589