Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches mix truth with error. That church which is orthodox is that which confesses the Book of Concord. It does not mix truth with error but contains that faith handed down by the apostles and contained in Scripture (which is how I would define historic orthodoxy). Of course, where the RCC and the EO get it right, that should be praised (Rome and the East confess an orthodox Trinitarianism, Christology, eucharist, etc.).
I have never heard any Lutheran (speaking as a former Lutheran with family members who belong to the LC) claim that true and historic orthodoxy has been preserved in the Lutheran Church via the Book of Concord + sacred scripture? Wold you be bold enough to say that this is an infallible fact in view of the fact that you said: it does not does not mix truth with error, something that the CC does according to you?
To be honest, I just don’t think terms like infallible are all that helpful. I’ve yet to really figure out what the theological or epistemological benefits are by claiming it. It is sufficient to say that it is without error and leave it at that.
It is sufficient, as per the CC deposit of faith. The CC has never and will never teach anything else. :thumbsup:If you could show me otherwise then I would leave the CC.
This is a semantic issue which I think I can clear up right now: infallible simply means truth with no error, something you just said is found where you are. the two are synonymous…
From this you get the idea that the CC teaches that we can work our way into heaven, apart from Gods work on the cross?
Very clear, and in no way is James claiming that we can work our way into heaven.
Once we are justified it does not end there, according to James.
Scenario: We are saved through the grace of Justification once received. Once that is done can I now just continue to sin boldly, doing no good works at all, and still get beamed straightway to heaven once I die?
So once baptized, (Justification has been received) no matter what you do, sin-wise on this side of eternity, you still go right to heaven, upon your demise? Well, Hitler (he was baptized and confirmed as a child, in the CC) was baptized so I suppose he went right to heaven.
Is it possible, after receiving the grace of Justification, to lose it, in your opinion?
Mike Gendron seems to believe, once we are sealed with the holy Spirit, that we can never lose it i.e. once saved always saved…I could claim that I run the US Government.
The council of Trent happened AFTER the “reformation”.
So, St. James was not a true Christian?
As I suspected, you were not well-catechized at the Lutheran church you mentioned above. Lutherans are not proponents of OSAS. Don’t bring that straw man here. The Grace brought to us in baptism requires that we do good works -not of ourselves, but of te Holy Spirit working within us. There is not ‘cheap grace’ available to Lutherans.Scenario: We are saved through the grace of Justification once received. Once that is done can I now just continue to sin boldly, doing no good works at all, and still get beamed straightway to heaven once I die?
So once baptized, (Justification has been received) no matter what you do, sin-wise on this side of eternity, you still go right to heaven, upon your demise? Well, Hitler (he was baptized and confirmed as a child, in the CC) was baptized so I suppose he went right to heaven.
Is it possible, after receiving the grace of Justification, to lose it, in your opinion?
Except that you probably are running the US Government… nobody else seems to be doing it.
Did you year any Lutheran say St. James was not a true Christian? If not, then please don’t put those words into our mouths.
Well actually that scenario fails. You by yourself
Once saved always saved is a false doctrine, that much is true. However, when we are justified, we are fully justified. There is no process. One is either just or not. That is not to say that someone cannot reject their justification and lose it. But if you have it, you have it.Per Crucem, this we believe too obviously. We can merit absolutely nothing apart from Jesus’ atoning work on the cross. Our churches agree on this fact.
“Scripture says: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[a] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
Check this out when you get the time; it’s a debate. Which one do you agree with?
youtube.com/watch?v=KMFJo6AvwAE
No one said you were a Pelagian, which is what that canon from Trent condemnsSeen my sig line?
I think PC missed it
If our merit increases, completes, etc. our justification, then the merits of Christ alone are not sufficient. Nor is grace, since it requires our cooperation to be justified. No one is saying that the CC teaches that man can be saved apart from grace or apart from Christ. It is the sole sufficiency of both that is at question.It is sufficient, as per the CC deposit of faith. The CC has never and will never teach anything else. :thumbsup:If you could show me otherwise then I would leave the CC.
