Rev. Brandon Warr

FREE EBOOK AVAILABLE Sign up to the email list on @bcwarr" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Substack.com/@bcwarr for your free copy!

“You have the teachings of these men? Ha! We have something better - their bones. You say you don’t care? Surely you must care. Everyone cares about bones. My faith is founded on dead bones. Yours isn’t?”

@LutheranSage Based Gerberding.

"Here is a surprise, a wonder! The original Protestant Church, the greatest Protestant Church, the Church that more than one prominent Reformed writer has called “The Church of Theologians,” the Lutheran Church in America, has no schism on Fundamentals! She believes more. Her theology is deeper and clearer on the Person and Work of Christ than that of any other Church. She not only believes and teaches the sovereignty of grace, but she has, as no other Church has, a precious, helpful, and comforting explanation of how divine grace is brought to needy man." - Rev. Dr. George H. Gerberding

I still can't believe you don't know what Protestants teach. I eat Christ's true body and drink his true blood every Sunday in His Supper.

Except for Pope Francis...he frequently asked for the help of a Lutheran pastor to perform exorcisms in South America

For in sin did my mother conceive me. No one is innocent at birth. And John the Baptist had faith in the womb.

While Luther did initially hold with many Marian dogmas, he slowly rejected more and more, as he found they lacked scriptural basis. In so doing, he struck at something core to Roman idolatry: That Mary had been turned into a sinless figure of forgiveness because Rome had turned Jesus into a tyrant.

Clearly, you can't read a bio since I am Lutheran. Which verse says that an infant cannot be baptized until they reached of age?

Papist: Muh, all the countries that embraced the Reformation are now godless. Muh. Me: You mean, unlike Spain, a country that just executed a gang rape victim and sold her organs?

I appreciate you answering from that perspective. One dividing point may be, not whether it is healing medicine, but whether that medicine cures us fully or not? The Scriptures and the Fathers seem to be on the side of it being a full cure, which would, if that is the case, still lead to Sola Fide.

If you see it as healing medicine, it makes more sense. Rather than a one time forensic justification, it’s a lifelong healing process of theosis beginning with baptism, even for infants who cannot think, choose, or act. The parents and godparents bring the child in faith, but Christ freely offers the sacraments as divine medicine that actually regenerates the infant and begins the healing right then, not an empty ritual. I know we probably disagree but I’m just trying to answer your question from an Orthodox perspective.

If justification is not by faith alone, then baptizing infants becomes unclear and even contradictory. What is Baptism in this scenario? If justification relies in any way on human choice, understanding, or effort, then an infant, who cannot think, choose, or act, would be excluded by definition. Baptism would either become an empty ritual, just a sign waiting for future significance, or it would be delayed until the child can meet the supposed requirements for justification. Infant Baptism only makes sense when justification is fully God’s work, where grace is not a reaction to human action but the source of faith itself. In this perspective, Baptism is not a symbolic act based on human qualifications, but a way for God to act: forgiving sins, giving the Holy Spirit, and creating faith when and where He chooses; even in infants. If you deny justification by faith alone, Baptism must change from being a divine gift to a human statement. Once that change occurs, infants no longer fit. However, if justification is truly by grace alone through faith alone, then infant Baptism is not just reasonable, it is a necessary and consistent affirmation that salvation belongs entirely to God, who gives His gifts freely, even to those who cannot contribute anything of their own.

By that logic, a wife doesn't need Communion since she is under the head of her Husband, according to 1 Corinthians 11. 👍

Nowhere in the New Testament is a Woman given Holy Communion. 👍

Oh, you’d definitely be the expert on double-speak—being a Baptist and all.

I'm not kidding.

That's a trick question.

Well. They're (cosplaying as) Roman Catholic. Those who accede to the imagined efficacy of works-based or ceremonial salvation will often find it better expressed in Islam. Luther called this 500 years ago.

"Bishop - Presbyter (Pastor) - Deacon" all operating under the divinely instituted office of the ministry. (See screenshot) This sure looks like a much simpler and biblically-sound structure than all the bickering and infighting and headaches we've brought on because of... 👇 Traditional Residential Route (RR) Pastor vs. Residential Alternative Route (RAR) Pastor vs. Special Ministry Pastor (SMP) Pastor vs. General Pastor Certificate (GPC) Pastor vs. Colloquy Pastor vs. Ethnic Immigrant Institute of Theology (EIIT) Pastor vs. Specific Ministry Pastor Español/English (SMP-EsE) Pastor vs. Cross-cultural Ministry (CMC) Pastor, plus...all the confusion over the exact duties, roles and authority bestowed upon not just the wide variety of Pastors but concerning our Elders and Deacons and Deaconesses and "lay leaders". 🫠🥴