Do Lutherans save themselves?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is RC doctrine or dogma that the priest sacrifices the living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Father?
 
GKMotley said:
It is RC doctrine or dogma that the priest sacrifices the living Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to the Father?
Click to expand...
The Eternal High Priest offers His living Body and Blood to the Eternal Father in, through, and with the priest on earth. Yes, of course.
 
Jesus made it very simple. To be justified one must “believe Jesus is the Christ.”
 
JonNC said:
So, history is irreverence?
Click to expand...
What makes you think that statement was historical? It sounds like somebody made something up and threw into the mix.

Perhaps a bit of proof would go a long way to show that it was historical.
Do you have evidence that Don is wrong?
Click to expand...
The Catholic explanation, which I believe predates his by a longshot.
He wasn’t making a joke. He was making a historical reference. He further followed up by explaining that Lutherans have always used the term Mass.
Click to expand...
I guess you’ll have to provide the proof for him, if he doesn’t provide his.
Don says that the mass is the pinnacle of Lutheran worship, and while the liturgy of the word, including homiletics is important, he is correct.
Click to expand...
I guess that is what it says in the B of C, is that right? Or should we simply go by what Don says from now on?
 
De_Maria said:
What makes you think that statement was historical? It sounds like somebody made something up and threw into the mix.

Perhaps a bit of proof would go a long way to show that it was historical.

The Catholic explanation, which I believe predates his by a longshot.
Click to expand...
You’re the one doubting it. Come up with evidence of the "Catholic explanation ".
De_Maria said:
I guess that is what it says in the B of C, is that right? Or should we simply go by what Don says from now on?
Click to expand...
Well, he’s a far more reliable source on Lutheranism than you’ve proven to be
 
JonNC said:
40.png
De_Maria:
What makes you think that statement was historical? It sounds like somebody made something up and threw into the mix.

Perhaps a bit of proof would go a long way to show that it was historical.

The Catholic explanation, which I believe predates his by a longshot.
Click to expand...
You’re the one doubting it. Come up with evidence of the "Catholic explanation ".
Click to expand...
The Catholic explanation is in the Catechism along with the historical references. He is merely writing something, I suppose based upon his own ideas. I see no historical references.

Yet, you want us to accept it as gospel. What is your agenda?
De_Maria said:
I guess that is what it says in the B of C, is that right? Or should we simply go by what Don says from now on?
Click to expand...
Well, he’s a far more reliable source on Lutheranism than you’ve proven to be
Click to expand...
Since I’ve proven my points from the B of C and from actual Lutheran sources and you haven’t. If he’s better than me, then he’s far superior to you.

Anyway, your straw man has again been exposed. You want people to accept what you believe without any evidence to support it.

g’day
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
At least two popes allowed for presbyter ordination. Hence, one cannot say that ordinations not done by bishops are necessarily invalid, unless one is willing to argue that those popes were wrong.

Whether or not they gave permission to Lutherans is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, the fact that there is no such authorization proves that they are invalid.
 
De_Maria said:
The Catholic explanation is in the Catechism along with the historical references. He is merely writing something, I suppose based upon his own ideas. I see no historical references.

Yet, you want us to accept it as gospel. What is your agenda?
Click to expand...
Please reference the Catechism then.
Actually, I never said you should accept his word for it. I said bring evidence to the table that proves him wrong.
De_Maria said:
Since I’ve proven my points from the B of C and from actual Lutheran sources and you haven’t. If he’s better than me, then he’s far superior to you.
Click to expand...
You’ve never proven anything from Lutheran sources except your ability to misrepresent
 
Yes He did,… but did he say it in order to be eternally saved?.. or did he say it BECAUSE you are eternally saved?
 
If you are arguing that one must keep the commandments in order to be eternally saved, I rebuttal that by saving that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, and apart from WORKS. however, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments.
 
tgGodsway said:
If you are arguing that one must keep the commandments in order to be eternally saved, I rebuttal that by saving that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, and apart from WORKS. however, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments.
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying that repeated and unrepented sin either leads to or is evidence of a loss of saving faith, a rejection of the grace by which we are saved through faith.
 
tgGodsway said:
If you are arguing that one must keep the commandments in order to be eternally saved, I rebuttal that by saving that we are saved by God’s grace through faith, and apart from WORKS. however, if we love Him, we will keep his commandments
Click to expand...
"And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” - Luke 18:18-20 ESV

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?..You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. - James 2:14,24 ESV
 
A justified believer who shows repeated and un-repented acts of sin DOES lead to, or evidence of, a loss of FAITH! Agreed!.

It is his loss of faith that has brought him to the place of rejecting the very grace of God by which he was saved in the first place. This is why Paul said “ABOVE ALL, taking the shield of faith, where with you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.” Eph. 6:16.

A believer who’s shield of faith has been yanked out of his spiritual hand by Satan, is one who is now being sucker punched (by Satan) and who wants him to forget that he was washed in New Covenant blood. 1Cor. 6:11; 2Pet. 1:9.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top