Featured Luther Was Error Free In Every Religious Doctrine

He also denied that a sinner has to be made good enough by sacraments in order to merit eternal life, as Jesus alone saves us!

 

Neither does the Bible!

 

Luther opposed Galileo's heliocentric cosmology, and rebutted with Scripture that the earth was stationary, and that all other heavenly bodies circled the earth.

Do you believe that?

 

He also held with infants getting saved when baptized....

 

Are you claiming that Luther was infallible?

 

This is their position. You might also check out what the Westminster Confession says about infant baptism:

What Do Lutherans Believe about Baptism

Y'all seem to think that Catholic, Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, et al believe that once a baby has been baptized that we believe nothing more is required. Baptismal Regeneration is a work of God, not a work of man. When the child reaches the age of accountability they must put their trust in Christ.

 

Would you point out the age of accountability verse for me? I think it's a man-made concept so if you can show it in scripture I would appreciate it.

 

I know of no passage that specifically speaks of an age of accountability even in an abstract way. However, as with other doctrines like the trinity that are not specifically spelled out, theologians and Bible students have come to the conclusion that there is an age of accountability, though it undoubtedly varies with individuals. Since “Accountability” is not a term explicitly found in Scripture, it is an implicit and abstract concept that is, of course, biblical. This is obvious because of the many references to the various judgments and because of passages like Acts 17:31 and Romans 14:12.

 

Could it be that God simply chooses to be gracious to whom He wills, regardless of age? Could it be that we have to trust our children into God's hands and pray that God is gracious when He chooses to end their lives earlier than ours?

I see no benefit in creating an age of accountability as a person who trusts in God's grace. I can see it as a needful thing for those who believe that free-will is the cause agent of salvation. I cannot see it as needful for those who see God's will as the cause agent. God will either extend grace or he won't. That is for God to decide at any age.

 

Luther was also a virulent anti-Semitic. He agitated anti-Semitism in several German provinces, & published On The Jews And Their Lies in 1543. Hitler made use of his anti-Semitism, along with other such sources.

 

Ah hah! So you agree then with infant baptism, that God is giving his grace to the new born soul through this particular sacrament. That is wonderful.

 

Not at all. There is no external ceremony needed for God to choose to give His grace to anyone. The Sovereign King can point to anyone He so desires and grant a pardon of their sins by his atoning work.

Why are you adding works to the equation? As soon as you add works, it no longer is grace.

Adonia, it seems you have an incorrect understanding of grace.

 

Grace is the work of God in our lives. Baptism, that beautiful sacrament, is the work of God in our lives and is thoroughly consistent with my first statement. In this case grace is freely given and is the byproduct of the action.

I know, I know, if something is proclaimed by the Catholic Church it is always wrong to you. Who died and made you the Grand Poobah on what grace is? I think YOU are the one who has the incorrect understanding of it, not me.

 

Your idea of grace is really works with no grace at all.

Grace is unmerited favor. God giving us what we do not deserve.

Baptism is an act of obedience expressing to others what God has already done in regard to saving us by virtue of pardon for our sins.

Baptism, therefore, is the byproduct of God's grace. Grace is not the byproduct of baptism. If baptism is required then grace ceases to be grace. Instead salvation is accomplished by good works apart from grace.

Adonia, you clearly misunderstand grace. This is because your church fails to understand grace and substitutes works as the cause agent for salvation. It is a heretical position that has lead to millions of people dying in their sins and spending eternity in hell. I encourage you to flee from such a heresy.

 

Very well stated! This is consistent with what Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox and the vast majority of Christians believe. And, it is consistent with the teaching of the Early Church and those who sat at the feet of the Apostles, like Ignatious of Antioch. I, like the believers in the denominations I mentioned, will always believe what was taught about baptism by those who KNEW the Apostles and not a man made doctrine that has no historical evidence in the writings of the Early Church and came many years later.

There was NO controversy over infant baptism in the Early Church.
The only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision!

Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Although some of the Early Church Fathers errored on certain doctrines of the Church, they did not disagree on Baptism, the Eucharist which you 'lean on your own understanding' of scripture. Wouldn't you think that SOMEONE would have disagreed and written about it? Or did the evil Catholics destroy all the evidence of your beliefs??? If so, why would they not have destroyed the writings of the Gnostics and other heretics as well? You can produce not ONE iota of historical evidence that ANY one in the Early Church or those that sat at the disciples feet believed as you do!

 

Churh rof rome and the Lutherans though BOTH hold that God indeed has regenerated and saved the baby in the water Baptism, while those others see it more as seeing the babe in with the community of faith, but still needs to come to a point of saving faith!

 

Neither infant regeneration, nor the Mass van be found in sacred scriptures, so it matters NONE how many church fathers one can list and quote!

 

No, they ALL believe repentance and turning to Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation. But, you say the 'others see it more as seeing the babe in with the community of faith'?

Let's look at what the Westminister Confession says:
The following quotes concerning baptism are taken from chapter 28 of the Westminster Confessions...

"Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.'

Wesley also supported the notion of baptismal regeneration. 'Since infants are born with original sin, baptism is not only appropriate when it comes to children, but necessary. Baptism is thus a cleansing sacrament.'

Do you really think Anglicans do not believe in baptismal regeneration??? Check this link out:

Ask an Anglican: Baptismal Regeneration

Doesn't sound like what you said!
Yes, the act of repentance is also indispensable for salvation, and all the denominations I mentioned believe that.

 

They do, but that would not be in agreement with the Scriptures!

Please check the 1689 Baptist Confession on this!

 

Any historical evidence that

I was a Baptist for many years,, I know what it says. But, thanks!