Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  Don,
Why do you keep calling Dr. McMahon out? If he wanted to answer you, he would by now.
Why do you care if Dr. McMahon considers parts of Lutheran theology to be defective or even heretical? Why do you want him to either label or not label Martin Luther himself a heretic? Calvin, for instance, showed deference to Luther by disagreeing with some things that Luther taught but didn't mention him by name out of respect.
In the end, Dr. McMahon is not a Synod or a Council to declare a man inside or outside the visible Church and he is not Christ to declare who He is/isn't in union with. As a Confessional Presbyterian, he rejects the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as profoundly deficient. If you don't like that then take it up with the writers of the Westminster Confession of Faith when you get to heaven. |
Rich,
I think an author ought to clarify what he wrote. It is good for both the readers and the author who wishes to make his views clear.
It's not a matter of disagreeing with Luther's position because he and I both disagree with Luther's position on baptism. The question is whether Luther's view is heretical.
In this case, McMahon wrote what appeared to say that baptismal regeneration is a heresy. He wrote:
Quote:
| The New Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant does not teach baptismal regeneration. That is heresy. Reformed Theology teaches that the benefits of the covenant of grace are only efficaciously conferred by the Holy Spirit to the elect. End of story.
|
From his response, McMahon has said that baptismal regeneration in of itself is not heresy, but it is heretical when coupled with the FV view of justification. From what I know of his views, this is what I had thought he believed, which is why I wanted him to clarify. I don't want McMahon to be seen as believing Luther (or Lutherans) was a heretic if that is not his view.