Replies

You are pointing out the danger of doctrinal error in a heterodox church. That's why I included the sentence, "This is not to excuse or condone error, though." For a person in such a church may, by God's grace, be saved *in spite of* the errors, not because of them. But those errors are still dangerous.

In dogmatics we call this a "felicitous inconsistency." For example, a person's church may deny the efficacy of infant baptism and turn the Sacrament of Holy Baptism into Law (our obedience) instead of Gospel (God's gift). But in spite of that error, if the Word of God is preached in that church, and people cling to the cross of Christ as their only hope, they will be saved. That still does not excuse their error on baptism, which robs Christians of the comfort God has for them in that sacrament. And if that error would mislead people into thinking they are saved because of their "obedience" or their "giving their heart to Jesus" (decision theology), that could indeed endanger their salvation.

For example, a person's church may deny the efficacy of infant baptism and turn the Sacrament of Holy Baptism into Law (our obedience) instead of Gospel (God's gift). But in spite of that error, if the Word of God is preached in that church, and people cling to the cross of Christ as their only hope, they will be saved.

This is interesting. When did the Lutheran church take this stance on doctrine?

Because in times past the Lutherans were so intolerable of doctrinal descent, heresy was punishable by death. As I recall from history, tens of thousands of Ana-Baptists were executed by the Lutheran church for simply believing that infant baptism was wrong.

As I recall the Augsburg confession of 1530 condemns the Ana-Baptist to hell. So why the shift? I mean, wouldn't it take an actual revelation from God to change the church's doctrine so radically?

Oh, btw, forgive me for changing the subject, but I enjoy reading your DUmmie FUnnies. :-)