Former President Jimmy Carter has written an op-ed piece in which he announces that he has severed his ties with the Southern Baptist convention due to that church-body’s teaching that women should not be pastors and should be submissive to their husbands. But the thing is, as Joe Carter (no relation) reports, the ex-president took this step eight years ago. And he still attends the same Baptist church in Plains, Georgia, where he serves as a deacon and teaches Sunday School. (Could one of you Baptists explain how someone can quit the denomination while still being a member of a congregation in that denomination? What exactly did Mr. Carter do eight years ago to sever those ties?)
At any rate, is a church convention’s decision on the role of women a good reason to leave a church? What IS a good reason to leave a church?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 204 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting. I see that Maranatha Baptist is still in the SBC. Of course, there are about as many Baptist denominations as there are Presbyterians, slightly more than there are Lutheran synods. Maybe he will step down and no longer be a deacon or a member of the church but continue to teach there?
I’d personally leave a church that decided to ordain women. It’s a good enough reason, as it warps the gender roles which God has ordained for his servants in pastoral ministry. Now leaving a church over a doctrine in which they actually get it right…
Here’s how it works; Baptist churches technically form “associations,” not denominations, and individuals are not members of a Baptist association. Churches are. So by claiming at least twice to “leave the Southern Baptist Convention,” Jimmuh is more or less conceding that he’s never really learned the distinctives of Baptist theology to begin with. So whether he was ever truly a Southern Baptist is debateable.
And of course, by playing the same publicity stunt twice, well, we know that Jimmuh is one who likes to pull publicity stunts to keep his name in the papers. But we knew that already, didn’t we?
Pray for him; whatever our differences about the key issues of theology, the man is revealing a lack of respect for the Scriptures.
Sort of like what Dave mentioned – the SBC is VERY loose compared to some denominations when it comes to control over day-to-day running of local churches.
I’m not SBC myself, but from what I understand, the SBC is a coherent denomination joined together around missions and theology, not specific practice. The larger denomination doesn’t step in on local church decisions about who is or isn’t a member or deacon.
To me, it seems that someone who renounces the larger denomination to which a specific church belongs ought not be a deacon in that church. But that’s my POV from a thousand miles away and knowing next to nothing of the situation. Who knows what the actual situation is on the ground with all the tied up inter-personal relations and the politics of having an ex-President as a member. Most denominations I know of have done similarly odd things. The SBC certainly isn’t alone in this.
I left the American Lutheran Church over women’s ordination.
But I was on the other side.
Southern Baptist churches are autonomous, freely associating for the purpose of missions. Jimmy Carter can be a member of any SBC church that will have him, and as the other commenter said his resignation from the SBC as an individual is meaningless. If he wants his church to withdraw from the SBC, the church would have to vote to withdraw.
The SBC also has little or no authority over the local church. If JC’s church wanted to ordain a woman as a pastor, then they could do so. Some SBC churches have. Then, the association (local group of churches) could withdraw fellowship from that church. This has happened a handful of times, usually when a church was clearly out of step with the consensus of SBC theology and practice. And that’s all a resolution like the one about female ordination and position in the family is, anyway, an expression of the consensus among Southern Baptists attending a particular convention. Resolutions are not binding on the churches.
I think you should leave a church for the following reasons.
The pastor starts practicing closed communion.
The pastor chastises your kids for shacking up.
The pastor tries to teach your kids Lutheran doctrine.
The pastor has the gall to believe that what he teaches is actually right, and that the baptists down the street are wrong in what they teach.
O.K enough sarcasm.
Truth be told though if you do not agree with your churches doctrinal position, you ought to investigate it first, find out why they teach what they teach, and why others teach something different. If you still don’t agree with your church, then leave. You do no one any favors staying.
I think what the SBCers are saying here, is that Southern Baptist membership is a lot like Missouri Synod membership. Pastors and congregations are official members, individual congregants are technically not members of the Synod or denomination.
By the way denominations are rarely formed on purpose. Being a denomination is not about forming legal ties to one another or anything of the like. Being a denomination is about sharing a common doctrine, and practice. Which is why Calvary Chapel is a denomination, despite their insistence to the contrary.
Bror, I agree with you on points 1 and 3. Any pastor who goes around teaching Lutheran doctrines ought to be rode out of town covered in tar and fe….
Oh, wait, you were joking.
Technically among Baptists, not even pastors are members, just churches. And yes, there are problems among Baptists (of all associations) often treating their church like a social club with no doctrinal requirements. It’s pretty sad, and the Carter family sadly appears to be an example of this.
Conservative Congregationalists face the same problem, unlike Carter, from the left. The association has gone mainstream leftist in theology and social issues, though most congregations range from moderate to conservative.
At our church during the summer, the congregation gets to choose the first stanza of favorite hymns. On July fifth, I chose the Battle Hymn of the Republic and a friend chose Onward Christian Soldiers, much to the chagrin of the handful of leftists in the congregation.
Bike, it’s not limited to Baptists.
I can personally attest to similar issues in Presbyterian and Methodist churches, and I have heard the same church-as-a-social-cultural-club problem from people of all denominations I’ve spoken with.
That’s actually a common topic in the inter-church pastor get-togethers we have around here. We’ve got Presbyterian, AG, Baptist, CofC, and Nazarene – all have said the same thing.
Oh, Catholic too. I don’t want to forget him.
Good for Jimmy Carter. You can judge a man sometimes by his enemies, and the fact that First Things is mocking Carter elevates him in my eyes.
WebMonk; you’re right, although I certainly WISH that it were only a problem with “my” group. :^)
Good grief, J, what do you have against First Things? It’s not exactly a right wing fundamentalist political rag, is it?
Oh Jimmy Carter, how much more respect you’d get, how much more people would trumpet your faith, if only you’d had an R after your name. But politics so often trumpets everything, and as it is, one of the more overtly Christian Presidents in recent memory — even with his errors, as seen here — gets mocked, while the faith of men like Reagan (for which just about anything will suffice as evidence, say, a mention of “God”) is lauded.
Would Bubba (@2) have been so bold to judge a Republican President by accusing him of being “one who likes to pull publicity stunts to keep his name in the papers”? Doubtful.
Did Carter even “claim at least twice to ‘leave the Southern Baptist Convention’”? No. If Bubba — and others here — had read the article, he’d read that Carter mentions his “decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention”, which, as has been noted, does not refer to his leaving his local church, but merely declaring openly that he disagrees with the SBC.
Did Carter claim that he did this recently, or again, in this article? No, here’s what he said: “So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult.” No timeframe given, so one would assume he’s referring to that action several years ago, as his sentence is in the past tense.
Of course, why bother with close reading — he’s a Democrat. Say something bad about him (publicity stunts and egotism) and move on.
Many Baptist churches are entirely independent of any larger association. And, as those above have noted, even those associated with a denomination, such as SBC, are governed congregationally.
Years ago, Jimmy and Bill Clinton were involved in the formation of the Cooperative Baptist Convention (not totally positive that this is the exact name), because they didn’t like the conservative turn the SBC was taking. So he clearly separated himself from the SBC at that time. He was never an SBC member, as again, those above have noted.
You should definitely leave a church if you don’t agree doctrinally with that church, particularly if it is an important enough issue to you to cause you personal grief, affect your relationship with the Lord, your pastor, or your fellow congregants, or it is in any way causing you to be a source of dissension or contention in the church. This is not to say that, if your church has adopted a new doctrinal position that is unbiblical, you shouldn’t fight it. But, eventually, absent success in turning things around, you should leave. Of course, in this case, the SBC is maintaining a wholly biblical doctrinal position and Carter is the unbiblical one. Should he have decided to persist inside the church with unbiblical contentions and teachings, depending upon the circumstances, he could/should be subject to church discipline and removal from the Body.
Since the SBC and its affiliates have such a limited understanding of the Lord’s Supper, there’s no need for a member to agree with the SBC. A pastor in a SBC church doesn’t have to go to one of it’s seminaries, if any seminary at all. The teachings vary from church to church and most pastors disagree with the SBC and will do so from their pulpit. The only thing they really have in common is a weak basis in decision theology and as other commentators have said a strong emphasis on missions. And if it wasn’t for a desire to have missions, SBC churches wouldn’t feel the need to be organized with other churches at all. And they feel just as comfortable doing things with other denominations as they do with other SBC churches. So Jimmy Carter has offended few in the SBC and probably pleased most of whom affiliate themselves with the SBC.
Esther – that’s the whole point of the “Convention” – very loose ties. I think they qualify as a denomination even if a few of them eschew the term, but the definitions can get a little fuzzy. Perhaps “Convention” is a more accurate term – they specifically do not tie themselves into a united polity, but rather form a cooperative group.
I’m not sure it’s something to bash the SBC about. There have been a few arguments on here about the extent denominations ought to control local churches, opinions ranging from zero to near total. SBC comes in on the “slight” side of the spectrum.
Since it came up earlier, I don’t think he’s re-severing his relationship with the SBC, he’s just talking about his past severance as an introduction to the rest of his topic.
Maybe the entire op-ed is for publicity, (I suspect that most op-eds by famous people are more about gathering attention than truly about trying to convince others) but I don’t think that he’s trying to pull a stunt by re-announcing his separation from the SBC. It looks like he is just referring to his past decision to begin the article.
I think Joe Carter misread the op-ed.
Esther @ 18: How does your comment edify the Body? It’s obvious that you know little or nothing about Baptist theology or the SBC, or the distinction between biblical doctrinal differences, and those doctrinal differences which are based on denominational traditions. It’s great that you found your home in the Lutheran faith, but why do you feel it necessary to bash those who found their home as Baptists?
tODD, when GW Bush does the same kind of things that Jimmuh does routinely, you will hear about it from me as well. Thankfully, however, W has the decency to do many things discreetly, and Mr. Carter would do well to follow his example in this regard.
See my blog if you want examples of me criticizing conservatives. There are plenty.
And Esther, there are actually fairly significant statements of faith in the SBC, and churches can and are expelled from Baptist associations for failure to adhere to these. The SBC is conservative evangelical (similar to LCMS, really), the GARB is fundamental and tends to some Reformed distinctives, and so on.
(you can visit on the web and find this out for yourself)
And the seminary thing? Well….none of the apostles were trained in seminary, either, as far as we know, and almost all pastors of liberal churches are. I’m not going to attempt a regression and assign R^2 here, but the correlation between seminary training and understanding of the true faith (like the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper) is unfortunately weaker than it ought to be.
Seminary can be useful, but it’s no guarantee that a man is fit to lead a church, sadly.
Because Baptists are wrong and apostate! They deny the very fundamentals of the Faith – they deny the Real Presence! They are decision theology heretics! They reject the grace of Christ and have a religion based on works! They drag millions of people into despair or false hope as they reject Christ! Thousands of children are eternally damned by their actions as they refuse to allow the forgiveness of sins be made available to infants through Baptism! People like that are worse than unbelievers as they teach a false gospel and deceive millions!
Need I go on Don?
Bubba (@21), when Duhbya “does the same kind of things that Jimmuh does routinely,” I’ll hear about it from you?
What things does Carter do “routinely” that rankle you so? Support and work in Habitat for Humanity? Conduct peace negotiations? Work for human rights? Work to prevent and eradicate disease? Is it your contention that he should not speak out for these things, then? And who else is to remain silent on these issues, in your opinion?
WebMonk (@22), what exactly is the point of your comment? To claim that there is no legitimate difference between denominations? That they shouldn’t be discussed? That there is no right and wrong, at least in some areas?
No, Webmonk, I think that would about sum it up.
That is definitely the sense I get from some Lutherans.
tODD, certainly there are great doctrinal distinctions between even those denominations which, at bottom, are filled with people who are saved solely through faith in Christ’s redemptive sacrifice. And these distinctions are well worth discussing. It’s just that such discussions are not always handled respectfully or reasonably, and I think Webmonk was pointing that out in response to my prior comment to Esther on that issue.
DonS @ 20: I was raised in the SBC. My father is a pastor in the SBC and everything I’ve said I’ve seen happen in the SBC. I’m Lutheran because Christ is at the center of their doctrine. The Lutheran church doesn’t deviate from Scripture to make their doctrine “reasoned and logical”. My mother would fully support the SBC missions and most of their statements, but would also agree w/ Jimmy Carter that women should be allowed in the clergy.
BikeBubba @ 21: True, many men graduate from seminaries and are not fit for the ministry. However, when a convention doesn’t require it then it means their pastors have varying views on key doctrinal issues. Though the SBC does have statements of faith–many of their churches don’t follow them.
And sometimes the SBC does remove churches from its convention, but only if they’re making a public stink, causing embarrassment. The small churches that don’t get public attention can get away with much.
Esther @ 25: Well, then, given your background it is clear that you have allowed personal bitterness to color your view of the SBC. Sure, just like any other denomination, if you are sufficiently involved, you will see just about anything. But, it’s not fair to project individual shortcomings on the whole organization and every church in it. To imply that Christ is not at the center of Baptist doctrine is preposterous. To imply that Baptists “deviate from Scripture” is debatable at best. And I strongly disagree that most SBC churches would be pleased by Jimmy Carter’s liberal stance with regard to women in the pastorate.
Look, again, my point is not to condemn your move to Lutheranism. There is nothing wrong with studying Scripture, coming to your own conclusions about the thorny doctrinal issues, and associating with a church that holds views similar to your’s. But, regardless of your own feelings or bitterness toward your father’s church and denomination, both you and the Body will be better off if you are circumspect about exposing them in a public forum, particularly when you are likely to needlessly offend fellow believers for no good purpose.
tODD #23, nope, just pointing out that some people (no, I’m not hinting at Esther here, she’s downright calm compared to some of the statements that have been aired around here) get overly exercised about the differences.
Not that there aren’t differences, but that the differences are over-exaggerated and those on the opposite side of the differences can be treated as out and out villains.
I attended various churches over the years, before I became Lutheran. But the only time I left a Church, so-to-speak (ie as in shake the dust off my feet), was because of heresy, and because my view on Baptism changed. The “church” was pelagian, (holiness movement on steriods, with a plethora of added laws), and they practiced a weird form of Adult Baptism (ie, live a holy life for a time to prove that you are serious, then you might get to be baptised).
DonS @ 26: The SBC most definitely deviates from Scripture in its doctrine–their understanding of the Lord’s Supper and baptism prove that. The SBC puts the individual at the center of their doctrine–thus the decision theology.
And I’m not Lutheran because they had the views that aligned with my personal beliefs. I don’t put my personal beliefs above the doctrine of the church. There’s no way as an individual I could have a clear and better understanding of doctrine than centuries of theologians before me.
To suggest that we shouldn’t point out the differences–ultimately leads down dangerous roads of Post-Modernism.
I didn’t read all the comments, so some one may have already said this:
I’d leave a church that put Jimmy Carter in the office of deacon.
Good grief.
Esther, are you saying that you believe that how one understands and practices the Lord’s Supper and baptism is essential for salvation? Do you believe this to be a genuine test of gospel fellowship?
I’m not familiar with the phrase gospel fellowship.
However, I do think how a church’s doctrine approaches the Lord’s Supper and Baptism is what many of the differences come down to in doctrine/practice.
I’m not saying that members of the SBC or other denominations have no hope for salvation. However, some of their doctrines can lead to risky beliefs.
The LCMS is the one and only church that has it all right. The LCMS is the true holder of all the right understanding of scripture. Everything revolves around the Real Presence. All other denominations are decision theology and works based. The LCMS is the only denom that doesn’t put man at the center of everything.
Have I covered all the standard statements yet? I’m just trying to save some time here by getting the stock phrases out of the way.
Esther: We’re just going to have to disagree that the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper and baptism is a deviation from Scripture. I don’t want to get into that debate because it is not the point of this thread, but most adherents of both Lutheran and Baptist doctrine would acknowledge that the other view is within the mainstream of Christian thought, and well within the scope of reasonable interpretation of Scripture. The idea that Baptists (and other evangelicals) put the individual in the center of their doctrine — I’m not sure what that means. Most mainstream evangelicals, including Baptists believe that it is the working of the Holy Spirit which draws a person to the foot of the cross, and that we are completely powerless even to accept the free gift of salvation absent that working. The only thing in our power is the decision to refuse Christ. So, I think you are viewing this “decisional” thing backwards, and that might be why you are so confused. A great commonality between Baptists and Lutherans is the understanding that we are only saved through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. This is the heart of the doctrine of Scripture — the Gospel.
Let us rejoice together in that great truth and in Christ’s magnificant gift on the cross, and leave bitterness behind.
Oh, and Esther 29, “There’s no way as an individual I could have a clear and better understanding of doctrine than centuries of theologians before me.”
In that case you need to convert to Catholicism. Eastern Orthodox is also a valid choice with that standard of denomination choice. All the other denoms are based on someone coming along and deciding that the centuries of theologians who came before were wrong.
I think some old guy named Luther did exactly that. Maybe you’ve heard of him?
Webmonk: I’m no Luther. And it’s not like Luther dismissed everything before him. He just dug thru the crap.
Webmonk and others seem insecure in their doctrine. Why mock and criticize one for believing that Scripture is clear and their denomination is correct? We should all believe that about our denomination. Some here seem to believe that it’s folly to claim an understanding of scripture.
Many evangelicals have embraced post-modernism’s rejection of a Truth and preferred the false comfort that comes with the creation of our own individual truth. That is Bad Doctrine. Jesus is the Truth, and that includes everything he taught. He didn’t tell us to make up our own way and then just agree to disagree.
Bad doctrine is dangerous. Works righteousness and decision theology lead people to rely on their own works or wisdom rather than Christ’s promises. That is fatal, as our works and wisdom lead to hell. Either despair sets in, or Christ is ignored.
The LCMS does have it right. Its confessions have stood for almost 500 years and are in accordance with scripture and are faithful to the early church practice. Nothing from comments threads will convince you, or replace careful study and meditation on the centrality of Christ and his Word (both in preaching and in the sacraments).
Lutherans are the most faithful to church fathers; Luther did not believe or intend to innovate anything. The Catholic church in the middle ages took a few very wrong turns because of scholasticism and its hunger for worldly powre. Luther saw that much of medieval Catholicism contradicted the Gospel and backed the bus back up, and as a result of the debate, the doctrine of justification was further developed. The EO bus hasn’t left the garage for centuries. It is still figuring out how to deal with the theologies that have been raised and debated in the West for the past 1000 years.
Precisely Esther! There’s a lot of crap out there that you need to wade through. How do you know what the crap is? Is it the Lutheran formulation of the Real Presence? Is it the Baptist doctrine of Baptism? Is it the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement? Is it the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy?
You’ve got to make up your mind for yourself. You can’t just say “I agree with the opinion that has the most theological history and most theologians behind it.” Even if you try that, you have to judge which theologians you’re going to consider trustworthy because most of those centuries of famous theologians disagreed with each other. Which one to follow?
What one can say is “I believe Luther/Calvin/Wesley/Aquinas/whoever rightly understands scripture as I understand, and the centuries of other theologians (including Luther/Calvin/Aquinas/etc) are incorrect.”
That’s not a bad thing; it’s an unavoidable thing. Everyone has to do that, and it’s pointless to claim otherwise. No matter where you go, you have to say certain geniuses of Christian history, and even significant histories of Christians, are wrong in some way. We each have to make that choice.
ROTFLOL! Boaz, you’re priceless! Looks like you got a few more stock phrases out of the way: everyone has swallowed the post-modernism kool-aid of no fundamental truth. Everyone else is merely making up their own truth. I’m sorry I didn’t think of those sooner.
But! No fair bringing up “works religion” and “decision theology” again – those phrases have already been used. Find some new phrases.
speaking as a pastor serving in the SBC, I am glad that Jimmy Carter owned up to the truth that he is out of step with the beliefs of the Southern Baptist Convention as a whole. I am tired of people like him being representative of Baptists when he has embraced universalism and the egalitarian rather than a complimentarian role of women–both of which are ruled out by God’s Word, the Bible.
WebMonk #22
We Baptists would say that the Lutheran church is making some false converts by assuring people of a salvation that they may not in fact possess because they are putting hope in their infant baptism. Jesus says in John 3 that unless one is “born again” (or “born from above”) he will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
My friend Cory Davis sums up the Baptist position well by saying, “The Bible clearly teaches that repentance of sin and acceptance of Christ are prerequisites to baptism, and since infants can do neither, they are not valid candidates for baptism.” Jesus’ words in Mark 1:15 “repent and believe in the gospel.”
I probably ought to respond with a bit of substance – I’m not poking fun at belief that anyone’s denomination is correct. As you stated, everyone believes that their denomination is at least substantively correct, or possibly completely correct.
I’m making fun of the stance that seems to be so strongly demonstrated here that all other denominations are just barely shy of rejecting Christ altogether, if indeed they haven’t started already.
Those Baptists! Oh! They reject with the Real Presence! They must be about to reject Christ! Oh! And those AGers! They believe miracles regularly happen! They must deny grace and have a works-based religion separate from Christ! And those Calvinists! Ohhh!! You just can’t even discuss how far those Calvinists have left Christ!!! They have rejected Christ and put man in his place!!!! Ahhhhh!!!!
Webmonk, my apologies. I think I misunderstood you. I have no problem with someone poking fun at the Southern Baptists even though I am one. Hope you have a good week =o)
Barry #40. I would tend to agree with you about the infant baptism part – I’m a credobaptist and I think that was one of those pieces of “crap”, as Esther put it, that Luther missed.
That doesn’t mean that Lutherans are delivering people to a false Christ, leading them away from salvation, or are a denomination which regularly goes around rejecting the Bible. (you didn’t suggest so, but I’m putting in the disclaimer, just in case)
They have a part wrong, and while it is something that could be potentially taken to an extreme (the parents of someone at church are LCMS and their father goes around serupticiously “baptizing” people he passes on the streets to save them), usually it’s not and I’m more than willing to be in as much fellowship with them as they’ll allow.
Whoops. I typed to slowly. Hmmm, maybe it’s time for bed. ‘night all!
No Lutheran would believe it a reasonable interpretation of Scripture to deny Jesus’s words: “This is my body” and “this is my blood” or “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
I haven’t read through all the above stuff, but I thought I’d stir the pot a bit more. ‘Anyone remember what Mr. Carter said about Mormon theology?
In a teleconference interview with religion writers from throughout the United States, Carter said Mormons are already Christian and he criticized the SBC for trying to proselyte Mormons. He stated: “Too many leaders now, I think, in the Southern Baptist Convention and in other conventions, are trying to act as the Pharisees did, who were condemned by Christ, in trying to define who can and who cannot be considered an acceptable person in the eyes of God. In other words, they’re making judgments on behalf of God. I think that’s wrong.”
I don’t mean to be overly serious, but doctrine is about the only thing we LCMSers take seriously. American evangelicals typical mockery and rejection of serious doctrine makes us sad.
I can’t resist about John 3: Jesus uses the analogy of being born because we do not have any say in whether we are conceived and birthed. Jesus emphasizes this:
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.
If being born of water and the Spirit is the Spirit’s work and not ours, then why can’t an infant be baptized? Restricting baptism restricts the Holy Spirit.
In fact, I’m going to start calling Baptist baptism “Closed Baptism.” Lutherans follow Scripture and have “Open Baptism” for anybody, letting the Spirit blow where he wishes, and Closed Communion for those in the undivided congregation that discern the true body and blood.
To say something on topic: no serious person cares what Jimmy Carter thinks about anything.
Boaz @ 37:
I don’t think anyone here is saying they don’t really believe their particular doctrinal position or that of their church/denomination. What they are saying is that there are a variety of particular doctrinal positions within the Body of Christ. Some are obviously right, and some will be found to be wrong, but they are not core to the Gospel of Christ, and we who have placed our faith in Christ alone for salvation will find out which are right and wrong in heaven. So, to best further the kingdom of Christ here on earth, we don’t want to get bogged down in petty disagreements and bickering. This is not universalism or post modernism. The differences are real — which is why we worship separately. But, they are not, literally, a matter of Life or Death. Not as long as we all have in common our trust in Christ alone for our salvation.
But, Boaz at 47, can you not see that you are interpreting Scripture? Scripture itself does not supply one example of an infant being baptized. It is interpretation and Catholic church tradition upon which Lutherans base their doctrine of infant baptism. And, I must admit that it is hard for me to see how a parent’s act of submitting their infant to baptism, and thus permitting saving faith to be received by the infant is any less a “work” of man than a decision not to reject the claims of Christ, and thus to accept Christ’s free gift of salvation for oneself. If the decisional process of receiving Christ’s salvation is deemed works righteousness, then how much more is is works righteousness if salvation is dependent upon the kind act of a loving parent. But, again, that is in the realm of scriptural interpretation.
Let me clarify that in my last comment, I am not intending to debate theology. I am merely pointing out that Scripture lends itself in many ways to more than one reasonable interpretation. That is why we have Arminians, dispensationalists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc. But, the irreducible Truth is that Jesus Christ is the Way, Truth, and Life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him. Praise God!
And no, I don’t believe the doctrine of infant baptism is works righteousness, any more than one making a decision to accept the free gift of Christ is works righteousness. Works righteousness is, and always has been, the attempt to earn, through one’s own good deeds, their way to heaven. We should all be able to agree on this point.
I think LCMSers would generally agree with me that no disagreement concerning the meaning of Christ’s promises can be “petty”, and I think we all agree Jesus promised some kind of benefit from baptism.
Lutherans believe that salvation exists for all those with faith in Christ, but that does not mean that everything else is a matter of indifference. That is doctrinal antinomianism: “We’re saved, so if we botched our interpretation of baptism, oh well.” No, our love of Christ in response the gift of faith makes us strive to understand his promises and follow his commands.
God promises to give faith and forgiveness in baptism, which does not depend on our decisions or works. An infant’s presence at the font to receive the Spirit is a result of the Spirit’s work, blowing where he will and working in its parents. The infant does nothing. It’s no different than the disciples at Pentecost. It makes no more sense to credit the infant’s parents than it does to credit whoever decided to use the particular room the disciples were in when the Spirit descended on them at Pentecost.
One’s rejection of Christ is completely different. It is one’s own decision, for which God is in no way responsible.
Boaz @ 52: We don’t disagree. I am in no way saying that the doctrinal differences are insignificant or petty. And certainly, you do not doubt that those of other doctrinal views study the Scriptures any less seriously than do LCMS adherents, do you? I don’t think I have botched my interpretation of baptism, nor of Communion. But I am not going to condemn you as a Lutheran for having come to a different interpretation of Scripture on these issues. I think you are wrong, just as you think I am wrong. But, we are both members of the Body of Christ. We have a commission here on Earth — we are commanded to go into all of the world and preach the Gospel.
I’m disagreeing that Scripture is open to multiple reasonable interpretations. When it comes to Christ’s promises and commands, we cannot throw up our hands and say “we don’t know what Jesus meant, so we’ll let everybody make up their own mind.”
Jesus said that he taught some things in a purposely cryptic manner, but he promised that the Holy Spirit would make his teachings clear. Jesus emphasizes that only those who hear the Word and understand produce fruit, and those that do not understand are snatched by the evil one. Their is danger in not understanding his teachings.
Sure, there are lots of systems and theories that can be made up out of the bare text, as the post-reformation landscape shows. But there is no scriptural injunction to set our theological differences aside. We cannot downplay our disagreements on what Christ promises.
That doesn’t mean we can be jerks about our disagreements (except when it comes to Jimmy Carter), which can be hard to do, and probably leads to confessional Lutherans rep as overly contentious.
Webmonk #43– I agree, thanks for clarifying.
Wow, Boaz, that is radical. So, you have everything just exactly right, eh? And when Jesus spoke those parables, He meant every last little detail would be crystal clear? I guess there’s not really any point in theologians spending years in study, or seminaries. Funny how even in the church of the Acts, there were significant doctrinal differences that arose from time to time, yet Paul’s overriding purpose was to work to smooth over the differences for the sake of the Gospel.
That’s quite a strawman you set up. Who exactly has ever stated or implied that, if we can’t figure something out, we throw up our hands and just let everybody make up their own mind? Have you not been reading the thread? I have studied Scripture, and been taught under pastors and teachers, and through that process of study have arrived at an understanding of Scripture. That understanding is continuing to evolve as I study further and mature in the faith. I believe my understanding is correct in all of its aspects, or it wouldn’t comprise my belief. But, I accept that others whom I respect and know to be genuine believers differ in some of their doctrinal positions. I don’t condemn them because of our disagreements. I don’t assume that their faith is flawed vs my own. I accept that on this earth we see as through a mirror darkly. We don’t have all of the answers yet. We each have an understanding based on what God has granted us during our walk with Him. His purposes for allowing these doctrinal differences within the Body will be revealed to us in the next life.
I don’t know what you mean by the “bare text”. If you mean study of Scripture alone, in its historical context and in context with the entire body of Scripture, with reference to the ancient texts in their original languages, that’s how it’s done. If you mean you have to layer centuries of church tradition onto the “bare text” to ascertain its true meaning, as Lutherans have done, I disagree. The Scriptures (the canon of 66 books) comprise the entire written Word of God.
I do give you credit for your honesty. Your comments reveal much about the Lutheran mindset and why Lutherans often seem so arrogant and exclusive, as if they really don’t believe the Body of Christ extends beyond Lutheranism. I’m not sure that is a Christ-like mindset, however, which should give you pause.
Barry,
You really need to go and study Lutheran doctrine a little. Lutherans also believe that no one can enter the kingdom unless they are “born from above.” We believe that happens when the Holy Spirit operates in our lives where he has been promised to us by Jesus Christ, Baptism. By your reasoning kids can’t be saved until they are what 8 9 or 10?
It’s sad I am doing VBS this week. We have Baptist kids here 6 and 7, displaying great faith in their Lord Jesus Christ, yet they are not baptized because their church doesn’t believe they are old enough yet to “make the decision.” This is just blasphemous. Infact what Carter says of Baptists and Mormons is pretty much true of what they do for the children of their congregations, decide who is and who is not fit for God. Jesus says let the children come to me, and suffer them not. You ought to be ashamed. The promise is clearly for Children, do baptists cut Acts 2:38-39 from their Bibles?
But back to Carter and Mormons, this is what happens when you see Christianity in terms of moralism. When doctrine no longer matters, then you don’t have a leg to stand on in debating Mormons. The Baptists around here think they are spreading the gospel to the Mormons, when they write an article in the paper condemning alcohol. What a crock. Seriously they waste a page and a half freely given to them in the paper and never mention Christ, or the cross.
Bror, I’ll admit I haven’t delved that much into the Lutheran justifications, but at least at face value there ought to be something of a tension between sola fide/sola gratia and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, don’t you think?
tODD; when Carter goes as a diplomat sans portfolio and says obviously fraudulent elections are OK and interferes with our nation’s official diplomacy, he’s causing some HUGE problems.
Esther; keep in mind that graduation from a seminary is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity, either. In fact, my experience suggests that the correlation between doctrinal fidelity and seminary education is slightly negative. Ugly reality is that doctrinal fidelity isn’t kept by reading big books.
Wow, Boaz. Now you’re just making things up. “I’m disagreeing that Scripture is open to multiple reasonable interpretations.”
Yeah, try bringing that up next time Lutherans get into an internal theological debate. Try that even within just a couple of LCMS pastors who all went to the same seminary, and you’ll find a dozen different views of lots of different aspects of Scripture.
If you’re just going to make up silly statements, it’s going to be hard to have a reasonable discussion.
BikeBubba,
Do you think if I did think that I would be a Lutheran Pastor?
Thing is we Lutherans believe that Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit. We also believe the Holy Spirit is working in Baptism.
And Webmonk,
Lutherans tend to be pretty unified in what they believe scripture to be saying. Sure we can have some debates on some passages. But Boaz is essentially correct in what he is saying. We don’t believe that multiple interpretations can all be correct, or that they are all equally valid. We do believe that there is a plain sense to scripture, and that where scripture is unclear, we go to the clear for understanding.
Bror, yeah. Go pull my other leg. I’ve been here for too many years and witnessed far too many intra-Lutheran disagreements to get suckered in by statements like that. There is obvious large-scale agreement, at least within the LCMS splinter of Lutheranism, but the details of a LOT of things are still disagreed about. Toss in WELS, and while LCMS and WELS acknowledge each other as orthodox and all that, the differences become even more frequent.
But oh yes, “scripture can’t be open to multiple reasonable interpretations.” Yup. Those WELS people are completely outside “reasonable interpretation”.
*sigh*
Obviously multiple differing interpretations can’t all be correct, but multiple differing interpretations can be “reasonable” and don’t necessarily require that the “other side” is merely rejecting Scripture. (note the “can be” and “necessarily” parts)
Absolutely, there are unclear things in Scripture, and we go to the clear parts of Scripture to help illuminate those unclear parts. When we do that, we (including LCMS pastors) STILL come to disagreements on parts.
If the LCMS people come to disagreements within themselves, and are still “reasonably” disagreeing with each other, is it such an impossible concept to think that people outside the LCMS have reasonable disagreements?
No! Of course not! As Boaz put it “those that do not understand are snatched by the evil one.” Everyone outside the LCMS out and out rejects Scripture!!!!! Ahhhhh!!!!!!!
Webmonk,
Actually for the most part I believe the Wels and LCMS do agree on quite a bit, and what we disagree on I consider to be more or less adiaphora, and am finding quite a few in the Wels and ELS to hold the same, especially among laity.
They excommunicated us a long time ago for going into altar pulpit fellowship with the ALC. Looking back on that sordid history, I’m not sure I blame them. But putting pieces back together again can be a difficult affair.
At least though when scripture says things like: Baptism now saves you. We in these circles can agree that it does.
Or when Jesus says this is, we can believe that it actually is.
We have some disagreements on the doctrine of the ministry, and there they are wrong, though I think the LCMS needs to relook at a few issues there ourselves.
That’s my whole point – there are disagreements within LCMS, and between LCMS and other denominations, and those disagreements are “reasonable”, in that they can exist without suggesting that the others are “snatched by the evil one” or something like that. And no, not all LCMS people agree that “baptism now saves you” once you start getting into the details of what that specifically means. BUT! The disagreements are “reasonable” and they aren’t merely rejecting Scripture and accepting a works-based religion.
But! As soon as a disagreement happens with someone outside the LCMS or WELS, that person “is insecure in their doctrine”, “believe that it’s folly to claim an understanding of scripture”, “embraced post-modernism’s rejection of a Truth”, “snatched by the evil one”, create their own individual truth”, follow “works righteousness and decision theology”, “rely on their own works or wisdom rather than Christ’s promises”, “puts the individual at the center of their doctrine”, etc.
(those are all just from this single thread – the list can ten times as long and twice as nasty if we start through the archives)
The Rev. Al Mohler, an SBCer himself, has a fine column up on his site on Jimmy Carter: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=4140
Webmonk,
The issue isn’t so much is one damned because they hold a false view concerning some passages in Scripture. However, to teach falsely concerning the gospel is sin, and ought to be taken a little more seriously than “well hey it is reasonable.” I don’t think the doctrinal positions you hold that are in disagreement with the Lutheran position are at all reasonable for one. But also have the effect of undermining faith, if not in you than in others. And it is this cavalier attitude towards doctrine that I absolutely despise in the American evangelical world, and I believe that is what Boaz is attacking also.
When scripture says Baptism now saves you, we believe it, therefore we do not deny those whom we love and cherish this blessed gift that God has given us. And if there is someone in the LCMS that does not believe that it is probably due to the fact that they haven’t bothered to investigate what their church believes, teaches and confesses, and why. Or they ought to be ashamed of their lack of integrity, because not believing that would disqualify you from calling yourself a Lutheran in any meaningful way. To be Lutheran is to believe, teach and confess certain doctrines, though unfortunately some seem to think it means to be born of a certain heritage.
And yes, to reject these is to, on some level accept a works based religion. The works of kissing the toe bones of dead saints might be replaced with praying a prayer, but it is works based nonetheless.
Webmonk,
They have to have doctrinal unity on every point, or else their defense of closed communion crumbles. “For those who approach the same altar together profess to be one—one in all points of Christian doctrine and practice…” (Stoeckhardt, quoted at http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf)
It’s a façade, but one necessary to uphold other parts of doctrine. There is no disagreement within Lutheranism, it all comes from the people who aren’t Lutheran enough and are misrepresenting the denomination.
Bror,
So you believe baptism saves ex opera operandi? (No, he doesn’t. Now watch the qualifications come.)
Bror, we’re talking about two entirely different things – you’re talking about disagreements with each other over important parts of Christianity.
I’m talking about the attitudes of people deciding that everyone who disagrees with them are borderline apostate – as demonstrated quite clearly in this thread – treating them as near-heretics who go around tossing out the clear meaning of Scripture just to put in their own personal meanings.
What seems to be the Lutheran response? “Well, everyone else DOES go around selfishly tossing out the clear meaning of Scripture!”
Nemo,
It saves, by virtue of the fact that Jesus instituted it for our salvation, and the Holy Spirit works through it.
Stop trying to use terms you don’t understand. And pulling quotes from long dead theologians and misquoting them.
We Lutherans can have honest disagreements over whether or not the make up of man is Body, Soul, and Spirit, or Body and Soul. Stoeckhardt believed that. But when it comes to things as fundamental as whether baptisms saves or not. No we can’t abid disagreement there and commune together. I don’t commune with people, like Barry, who think I am not saved because I trust the promises Christ made to me when I was 3 hours old. I despise men who try to undermine my faith, and the faith of others in Christ’s promises while masquerading as a Christian.
Webmonk,
Quite frankly where there is disagreement with Lutherans it is because people have tossed out the clear meaning of scripture, and if they aren’t heretics then they are close enough. Which is why we don’t commune them.
We also happen to believe that one can be wrong on a doctrine and still be saved by the work of the Holy Spirit. That though is another issue dealing with inconsistencies in their thought, and the all powerful work of the Holy Spirit through the gospel. We however, will not condone the sin of false doctrine by ignoring it, or saying “well, hey, it isn’t what scripture clearly teaches, in fact it is the opposite, but then it is reasonable.”
Bror: Has Barry told you that he doesn’t think you are saved? You threw that out there like he has.
This is a common misunderstanding among Lutherans, concerning what they misname as “decisional” theology. Whether or not we agree that you were saved when you were three hours old because your parents chose to baptize you, I have no reason to doubt that you are saved today. And I think Barry would agree with me, though he should speak for himself and not have either of us put such words in his mouth. The reason why you are saved is that it is obvious that you have put your trust in Christ alone as your Savior. It’s as simple as that. Not everyone remembers a moment when they did so, but that’s not the point. The point is that you did. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. The Gospel cannot be any simpler than that.
I know that there are a lot of good things that Lutheranism contributes to the body of Christ, but there are too many times when I interact with certain strains of Lutherans (Bror isn’t one), that I just can’t wait until the LCMS finally finishes shrinking down to nothing.
Yes, I know it’s a sin and lack of charity in me, but hey! Sin boldly!
#67- The great irony for me in watching this discussion unfold is that what you say here is exactly the attitude I’ve heard growing up from so many of my fellow Baptists against all “Catholic types”– they follow traditions of men, don’t read their Bibles or they’d reach the same conclusions we would as to the clear meaning of Scripture, they’re near heretics who probably aren’t really even saved. I’d suspect that SBs actually have more of a reputation on this front than Lutherans do.
Webmonk, as a Lutheran myself, but with a long history in other places, I second Bror – you can be wrong on Doctrine and still be saved. A larger proportion of people in ALL denominations, including some Lutherans, (but especially the Reformed)fall into the trap of thinking that you are saved by a set of propositions, instead of saved by Christ. A common mistake our Calvinist bretheren make is to think of justification by faith as justification in believing by justification by faith alone.
As a Lutheran, I’m happy to say there will be many Baptists and Catholics and Pentecostals in heaven with me.
Kelly @ 71: Agreed. Please let it be clear that these blanket judgments people make about the spiritual condition of others are wrong no matter who makes them, whether they be Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, etc.
Now, of course, that being said, I sat in a funeral service at a Catholic church for a friend of mine, and listened to the priest give a homily about the process at the judgment seat of the Lord weighing the good and bad acts of the person who had died to determine his fate. In that particular instance, I did make a judgment that the priest giving the homily needed the assurance of saving faith, and needed to trust in Christ alone, rather than his own filthy rags.
Don S,
Barry wrote, “We Baptists would say that the Lutheran church is making some false converts by assuring people of a salvation that they may not in fact possess because they are putting hope in their infant baptism.”
What am I to determine from this but that I am a false convert, since I do infact put hope in my “infant” baptism, and teach others to do the same, because in that baptism they were buried with Christ. and if a false convert, than not a convert at all. And if I am not converted, I must be going to hell, since I am not a Christian.
See, you guys cry foul when we pull out the heresy card, all the while you do the same thing. I’m not the one here saying you aren’t saved, I am telling you that you are sinning grievously by teaching falsely concerning this and others, and that you ought to repent of it. Yet your hearts are so hardened to this you could care less, you say so as much with the cavalier attitude you have. Like, maybe I’m wrong, maybe not, but I sure am not going to investigate, because hey it is what I believe. And surely it doesn’t matter that much. And if it doesn’t matter so much, why are you so bent on chastising us Lutherans for it? It doesn’t make sense, but you want me to believe it is “Reasonable?”
So let me get this right Don,
I am supposed to trust Christ alone, that is trust Christ apart from his word’s concerning baptism, the Lord’s supper, sin, false prophets, and justification? Or is to trust in Christ alone, also mean to trust what he says concerning these things also?
Bror, is your hope in your infant baptism or in Christ? I suspect it’s in Christ. I hope so, anyway.
And now you are putting words in my mouth. I have never once said that the Lutheran belief in infant baptism as a means for transmitting saving faith to an infant is heretical. The bottom line for salvation is that one puts his trust in Christ alone for salvation. If a theology layers additional requirements on the simple gift of faith in the saving work of Christ through His sacrifice on the cross and subsequent resurrection, then that is heresy.
“Like, maybe I’m wrong, maybe not, but I sure am not going to investigate, because hey it is what I believe. And surely it doesn’t matter that much.” — where in the heck did you get that from? That statement doesn’t reflect my view at all. Another example of putting words in my mouth.
As to your comment @ 75: your trust in Christ, for salvation, is in His saving work through His death and resurrection on the cross. That’s it. That’s the Gospel. John 3:16. Yes, sure, you want to study His Word and understand His other teachings, but you don’t need to trust in His teachings to be saved. You need to trust in His redemptive act. Of course, His redemptive act is our justification and atonement, and the means by which we can have access to the throne of God the Father.
Don,
To trust in Christ alone, is to believe in Christ alone, is to believe that what he says is true! How am I to believe he died for my sins, if I believe he is a liar concerning what happens in baptism?
When I trust my baptism for my salvation, it is because I believe the promises Jesus made to me when he baptized me.
I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth. I am reflecting a very awful vibe I get from the evangelical world. In fact though it is somewhat reflected in what you say. First you want to take us to task for our teaching on Baptism, then you turn around and say it doesn’t matter at all, as long as I trust in Jesus. Except that Jesus tells me to trust in the baptism with which he baptized me.
“That’s it. That’s the Gospel. John 3:16. Yes, sure, you want to study His Word and understand His other teachings, but you don’t need to trust in His teachings to be saved.”
Thanks Don, I was worried for a moment that I had to trust Christ. Now I understand I should only trust Christ where it is convenient for me to trust him. I don’t need to trust him everywhere.
Is it just me? Or does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?
Actually, Bror, I believe Don is right on target.
Bror, as I’ve stated before, it is not my intention to debate theology on this thread. Way off-topic. But, suffice to say that I don’t agree with you about what Christ teaches about baptism and Communion. You know that perfectly well. I believe that everything He said is true, but I disagree with you as to your interpretation of what He said. I don’t believe water baptism saves. I believe that faith in Christ comes first, then baptism as an act of obedience to and identification with the risen Christ. “Believe and be baptized”. I don’t believe that you need to know and understand all of Christ’s teachings, and to assent to all of them, to be saved. That study comes later for most people, after their salvation.
I do believe your teaching on baptism matters, a great deal. I hate it that people who have never demonstrated an iota of fruit in their lives, who evidence nothing that would indicate their trust in Christ, tell me that they guess they are going to heaven because they were baptized as a baby. But I don’t think it is a heretical teaching, and I don’t think it separates you from God. I believe that, at bottom, your trust is in Christ’s redemptive work, not in your baptism. I believe that we will both be in heaven some day, rejoicing in the work, love, and grace of the risen Christ.
You see Don,
Here it is. One moment you tell me faith in Jesus is enough. Then you tell me I only have to believe in him, but I don’t have to believe him, or take his word’s seriously.
Then I get that I have to demonstrate at least an iota of fruit in my life, evidence something that says I trust in Christ, (heaven forbid that be a, “Yes, I am saved, I know so because he baptized me.” Ask me, that’s a pretty big evidence of faith in Christ they just pointed too.) before I can be saved.
What if I believed that Baptism was a redemptive work of Christ? Rather than a mere show of obediance to Christ. I see where the Bible talks of Baptism as a redemptive act Christ does for us. I see where baptism is offered to Children. I see where it is credited with sanctification, justification, and regeneration. What I don’t see is where it is demoted to a work of obediance.
Bror — I didn’t say any of those things, but, oh well. However, I will say this, and quite clearly. The redemptive act of Christ was His death on the cross and His subsequent resurrection. That is the basis of our salvation, and what we put our trust in when we trust in Christ for our salvation. It is not Lutheran to elevate baptism to the status of Christ’s redemptive act, over the cross. If you are teaching that, then, yes, you are a heretic.
Don, give it up. When Bror gets like this he’s impossible to converse with.
I know, Webmonk, which is why I try not to engage him in these conversations. I like him when he talks about guns!
But, I need to hear him say that the Cross is the bottom line in Christianity. He can’t leave it that he’s trusting in baptism for salvation. That’s not what Lutherans believe, and he knows it full well.
Good luck. Have fun. He’s not gonna say it, though.
Don,
I am not elevating baptism above the cross, I am just not lowering it contrary to Christ’s words to something less than it is.
Romans 6:4 (ESV)
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
And I’m just waiting for someone to say that they are Paul’s words and not Christs.
When I trust in Christ I trust in Christ, in what he says and what he does and I don’t drive wedges between the two. If Christ wants to save me with baptism then he will save me with baptism.
Now, I quite like these theological debates. But they would be better if you and Webmonk would honestly answer the questions I pose. Rather than running off into a corner and saying I am impossible to talk too. Seriously, am I not to trust Christ’s words? I’m only supposed to trust in his death and resurrection? I’m free to believe he is a liar elsewhere?
You’re right, Webmonk.
You are impossible to talk to when you get in these moods because you start accusing people of saying things they never said, attributing to them things they never meant, and generally being ridiculous. I realize you don’t see it, most people don’t see themselves clearly, but it’s not just me this has happened with. It’s a common occurrence in your discussions here.
Go back through the recent comments and look at how many times Don has had to say “I never said that!” (69,76,80,82) You seem to imagine that people say things, and then you accuse them of the things you imagine. Pretty soon the entire conversation consists of you putting bizarre statements into peoples’ mouths.
Look how you ended the most recent – #86: you suggest that Don is implying (1)you aren’t supposed to trust Christ, (2)we should only believe in the death and resurrection and nothing else, and (3)everywhere else that Christ was lying.
I’m sure you actually think that he is suggesting those things. That’s why it’s impossible to have a decent conversation with you when you get like this – you really seem to think people are believing all those things, when they aren’t. It’s impossible to have a conversation with someone who is essentially making things up, even if you don’t realize you are making stuff up.
Don,
Really, just answer. Because I get the distinct impression that you actually don’t believe that faith alone is all that matters. If you did you wouldn’t write this:”I do believe your teaching on baptism matters, a great deal. I hate it that people who have never demonstrated an iota of fruit in their lives, who evidence nothing that would indicate their trust in Christ, tell me that they guess they are going to heaven because they were baptized as a baby.”
See I want to know, what evidence of faith, beyond their obvious confession of it right there, would you like to see? What iota of fruit do they need to demonstrate get approval in your eyes?
But that is all right, you don’t have to answer we have already seen through you there. We see through a lot of baptists there. That’s right your not baptist, you just believe like one. Going to Calvary Chapel makes you nondenom.
Webmonk,
I think you may be right “most people don’t see themselves clearly.” Which is why I like to show you and them the implications of what they are saying. If that is not what they said, they can say it more clear. I see myself fairly clearly thank you.
That’s an individual example of the larger pattern of discussions that seem to come up here and in other Lutheran-inhabited sites – everyone outside of Lutheranism gets accused of the most far-out things, such as what you’ve been accusing DonS of believing.
For some weird reason, it is a cultural pattern of behavior. It’s in existence everywhere, but from what I can tell, it seems to be especially strong among various strains of Lutheranism and in Calvinism debates.
Look at #89 – once again, there is the accusation. He doesn’t REALLY believe in faith alone.
I heard a term that I think describes a lot of so-called Christians these days: “Red-Letter-Christian”. As in those red lettered words are the real deal, the stuff to pay attention to. Someone might even say that there is enough to learn just in the words of Christ and whoop-de-dee, they automatically don’t have to listen to anything else that Christ speaks in the rest of the Bible. Sometimes I think I have even fallen prey to this hierarchical view of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. Thank the Lord, Christ himself delivers us from such bondage to take seriously the whole counsel of God.
I like these theological discussions too. Its been fun listening in. Good job, Bror! Go Paedobaptists!
Bror #90, I’m sure you like to think that of yourself, but when you start getting over and over again the reaction from lots of different people – “No, that’s NOT what I said!” – then you ought to consider that maybe you’re making things up about them and not actually seeing the hidden implications of what they are saying.
Like I said, you apparently think that people actually think and believe all those things you accuse them of. It’s been a pattern, not just with me or DonS, but lots of times.
And yup, let’s get Bryan in there too, suggesting that DonS is a red-letter Christian with a hierarchical view of the Bible, ignoring anything outside of what Christ specifically said.
You will notice I only accused myself of that tendency – if you feel accused too, that’s your deal. I’m out, just wanted to say I appreciate everyone else taking the time to actually try to talk to one another about these important Words of Christ. Although, it is clear to everyone that it is a very challenging and hard conversation. Still, worth it, I would say. Out now, thanks again to y’all.
Webmonk,
I try to be fair. I show what they said, and I draw a logical conclusion from it. If that is not what they meant they are free to say so, and ask me where I go it from.
But Don here, clearly is looking to be a fruit inspector. He is the one who brings up that they have no fruit of faith, and trust in their baptism for salvation. And clearly does not think that is enough, though Christ sure seems to think so. So I’m asking him, what is it? Faith in the cross and resurrection, or works? He says the right thing there, but then doesn’t follow that out. If you believe Christ’s death and resurrection are salvific, why do you not believe him concerning baptism? Is he untrustworthy?
Thanks Bryan,
It is important. It may be difficult, but it is worth it.
I’m glad you anyway are enjoying it.
I would also like to add here, that if I hear someone saying or implying something by what they say, then I am probably not the only one hearing that. By me bringing it up, the person has the chance to clarify. I don’t think it is me that is seeing myself unclearly here. I know what I believe, and I believe that I am articulating it quite clearly. It is that either I am not seeing Webmonk and Don S clearly, or they are not seeing themselves and the implications of what they are saying clearly.
What iota of fruit?
DonS does believe Christ concerning baptism. So does WebMonk. So do I. So does Bryan. So do you. (We’ll leave Jimmy Carter out of this for the moment). The disagreement is not on the authority of the speaker, but on the meaning and practice of the words. Accusing Don of anything else is not a legitimate form of argument.
(and I hereby third DonS’s and WebMonk’s observations about arguing with Bror—it definitely gets my adrenaline running, but not always in a good way)
Bror, “if I hear someone saying or implying something by what they say, then I am probably not the only one hearing that.”
No, you seem to be the only person hearing that.
What iota of fruit?
Just a hunch, but maybe Don S is referring to this sort of thing: Matthew 7:16, 21; Luke 3:8; John 15:15, 8; Romans 6:22; 7:4; Galatians 5:22; Colossians 1:10.
Nemo,
Wanting to join the fruit inspectors?
Yes scripture does talk of fruit, we all know that.
I would just like to know what fruit Don would like to see that evidences faith and makes one worthy of being baptized? Or of being saved in his eyes. Since obvious confessions of faith in Christ’s words, even in front of men at his high stature, don’t qualify as evidence of faith in his eyes.
Webmonk,
No, I am the only one challenging it, not the only one who sees it.
Why the wedge between what Christ says, and what he does? If I can believe he died for my sins, why can I not believe he saved me in baptism, when he says he has?
Bror 101, listen to yourself. Now you’re implying that Don must believe that there are certain fruits he wants to see before someone is “worthy” of being baptized or saved. And then you follow it up by saying that confessions of faith in Christ’s words don’t qualify as evidence of faith for him.
Can you really not see that you are making those sorts of accusations up out of your own imaginations and not on anything actually said, implied, or even hinted at?
Bror @ 89:
Wow. That’s not even close to what I meant. Thank goodness you are giving me the chance to clarify.
I am not a “fruit inspector”. Whether you are saved or not is not my deal. It is solely God’s, as He is the One Who sees our hearts.
However, by their fruits we will know them (Matt. 7:16). We are to associate with Christians. How do we know with whom to associate? By their fruits! Fruit includes simply confessing Christ with your mouth. So I know someone is a Christian because they confess Christ with their mouth. Because I can’t look on their heart, I accept that confession at face value.
When someone tells me they think they are a Christian because they were baptized as a baby, but they cannot even articulate that their hope rests in Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, ALONE, and isn’t dependent upon any works they themselves have done, then I wonder. And, I share the Gospel with them.
Hopefully, that is now clear to you.
Not fruit inspector, fellow vine member.
Saying “I guess I’m going to be saved because I was baptized as an infant, therefore I’m ok” in and of itself is hardly a “confession of faith in Christ’s words”, and indicates nothing about a confession of Christ’s death. As Boaz (the first person to mention fruit) put it, “Jesus emphasizes that only those who hear the Word and understand produce fruit, and those that do not understand are snatched by the evil one. Their is danger in not understanding his teachings.”
DonS’s concern is that infant baptism can (which is different from always or inevitably) lead to a false assurance, a faith in the act rather than a faith in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Or, as Luther put it, “we may not administer the sacrament against our conscience, as giving it to those in whom no fruit is to be hoped for.” (Sermon, third Sunday after Epiphany, The Discussion of the Doctrine of Personal Faith and the Faith of Others; Also, of Faith and the Baptism of Children).
So Don,
What is your answer to that. To tell them they can’t trust their baptism, even though Christ made some wonderful promises there?
I’m all for pointing people to the cross, but you don’t do that by undermining the faith and despairaging infant baptism. To trust in one’s baptism into Christ, is to trust in Christ. I would actually, therefore be quite tempted to see one pointing to their baptism, as very much a confession of their faith in Jesus Christ, contrary to what Nemo thinks.
Webmonk,
What I have done is taken Don’s words in context. Here we have a person confessing their faith. They have been baptized. We Lutherans actually have a song encouraging this as a confession of faith “God’s own Child, I gladly say it, I am baptized into Christ.” And Don because he doesn’t understand the doctrine of baptism, has missed this as a confession of faith, and wants to see some iota of evidence of faith. And because he won’t answer questions forthrightly we have waited till now to get to the point. Rather, then commending the person for believing Christ’s promises, promises that he has attached to baptism, Don would tear down that person’s faith, and despairage them for trusting in something Christ did for them when they were an infant.and in doing so would actually sow seeds of doubt concerning Christ. If I can’t trust what he says about baptism, then it’s going to be a little harder for me to trust that he died for me.
I am not sure I can add much to the conversation at this point but simply to clear up one thing I might have been muddy on.
The only baptism that saves is the one by the Holy Spirit from above (see John 3 and Romans 6.) As a Baptist I believe water baptism is an important sign of what has already happened to the individual through repentance and faith alone in Jesus Christ. I believe young children 5, 6, 7, 8 etc. can be saved. However, how can you be saved if you don’t know what sin is? If you can not acknowledge you are a sinner? Regardless of age, if someone does not admit that they are a sinner in need of a savior they cannot be saved. They may have an intellectual belief in who Jesus is but they are not trusting Him to take away sin. We have the same problem in the Baptist church with some false converts who were baptized at some point and then never return to the church and then live lives that do not display the fruit of a changed life. When you ask them if they are a Christian they say yes because they had been baptized at some point.
Nemo,
And who should we not expect to see any fruit from?
I’m a big fan of Luther’s and have read quite a bit. Quite frankly as far as he is concerned you can’t expect to see fruit out of anyone before they are baptized. And it is a miracle that any of us have it at all. The fruit is the work of the holy spirit and does not come from us at all.
Like I asked before, quit quoting theologians you don’t understand out of context.
Barry Bishop,
“However, how can you be saved if you don’t know what sin is? If you can not acknowledge you are a sinner? Regardless of age, if someone does not admit that they are a sinner in need of a savior they cannot be saved. They may have an intellectual belief in who Jesus is but they are not trusting Him to take away sin. We have the same problem in the Baptist church with some false converts who were baptized at some point and then never return to the church and then live lives that do not display the fruit of a changed life. When you ask them if they are a Christian they say yes because they had been baptized at some point.”
We Lutherans in accord with Ephesians 4 believe in one baptism. We don’t believe you have to articulate a thing, and can still have faith. We also believe that God can save a person at anytime, regardless of age, despite what they know of sin, because repentance is infact, as is faith (the two go hand in hand, can’t really have one without the other) a work of the Holy Spirit, who works through what you despairage as “water baptism.” If it was just water I wouldn’t trust it either, but Christ made some pretty hard core promises concerning that water.
Bror Erikson #110
Agreed, repentance is from God (Rom. 2:4) as well as salvation and faith.
I do not believe that scripture teaches baptismal regeneration however.
If I understand correctly, Lutheran theology would call someone an apostate who leaves the faith after being baptized as an infant because they are rejecting the Holy Spirit who was offered at baptism.
However, Baptists would say that the person never had the Holy Spirit because once they are regenerated they can never lose Him. 2 Corinthians 1:22
Barry,
Do you also believe that if someone was to die before they were five they have and had no chance of being saved?
I’ll just go with Titus 3 and not doubt that baptism regenerates.
By your estimate, apostasy would be impossible, yet scripture talks about it. Again I will stay with scripture on that, thank you.
Bror Erickson,
Based on 2 Sam. 12:23, I believe infants that die can be saved by the grace of God. I do not deny original sin however, (neither does David, Ps 51:5), but I am unable to give a sufficient answer from scripture due to some time limits of my own and the restrictions of this medium (remember, this is just the comment area about Jimmy Carter).
Titus 3 has nothing to do with water baptism. Read John 3 in light of Ezek. 36 especially 36:24-26. Notice that Jesus expected Nicodemus to know these things as a teacher of Israel.
Sadly, we will have to talk again another day, my friend.
Barry,
Pray tell what does Titus 3 have to do with, if not baptism? Why do you insist on calling it water baptism, is there another baptism? Ephesians 4 indicates only one. I don’t remember Jesus ever talking of two or more? Or were the disciples just off their rocker believing that they were to make disciples by baptizing with water?
And if you believe in original sin, what is the cure? It kills you know.
Now Ezekial 36:25 seems to be talking about water baptism to me (and now dunking at that, clearly says sprinkle there.) Ezekiel 36:25-27 (ESV)
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. [26] And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
But I suppose you think he is going to sprinkle water and make us clean, and at some other point put his spirit within us? but I read it and see all the things he will do when he sprinkles clean water on us, water cleaned by the power of his word, and the promises he attaches to it.
Sorry you can’t respond. Maybe someone else can, or you can check back tomorrow. i’ll still be here. I have some things to get to also.
Also a comment on the 2 Samuel verse that you cite.
It is good of you to acknowledge children can be saved by the grace of God. I don’t doubt that either. All things are possible with God. However, to argue from the particular to the general from scripture is not a great thing to do. Know many people who prayed the prayer of Jabez and it didn’t seem to work out the same for them.
The question at hand is should Children be baptized. We are agreed that faith is needed for salvation? If saved then do they believe? And if they believe who are you to deny them baptism?
We also have no idea whether or not this child was circumcised, as we have no idea when he was afflicted with the disease that killed him. He died seven days after he was afflicted. But he could have been over a week old at that time. To argue that he was saved without baptism is like arguing the theif on the cross was saved without baptism. It’s a no brainer, baptism hadn’t yet been mandated as the means of salvation. The theif no doubt was circumcised.
Bror @ 106: If a person does not even understand that they are a sinner incapable of earning their way to heaven, that Christ died on the Cross in sacrificial atonement for their sins, and that salvation is a free gift from Christ, attained simply by faith in His atoning work, then what exactly are you tearing down? Even were they already to have been saved by virtue of their baptism, they still need to understand the essence of the Gospel, don’t they? Because aren’t Christians supposed to live a life in service and obedience to Him?
The other kind of baptism, other than water baptism, is baptism with the Holy Spirit. Acts 1:5: “for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit, not many days from now.”
Bror @ 115: Are you now arguing that the thief on the cross was not saved because of the proclamation of Christ, on the cross next to him, but rather because he was circumcised? Because baptism had not yet been mandated?? So, if baptism had already been mandated (when was it “mandated” for salvation, by the way?), could the thief not have been saved by the mere words of Christ? Would He have had to baptize him?
And, to clarify, is it your view that baptism, being “mandated”, is the only means of being saved?
Okay Bror Erikson,
here is a very shortened form of an argument used by Balthasar Hubmaier against infant baptism. He asked the pedobaptists of his day:
“Would you baptize a donkey?”
-”of course not” they would say. “Only people are candidates for baptism”
“Would you baptize a Jew or a Turk?”
-”of course not” they would say. “Only people who believe in the Christian faith are candidates.”
“Then why are you baptizing infants who do not believe?”
Notice the order of the Great Commission in Mt. 28:19, “make disciples” then baptize.
You confuse regeneration with the act of water baptism, thus you seem to hold to baptismal regeneration. Ephesians 4 talks about the Body and unity, hence there is one baptism. But let’s be perfectly honest, everyone who sits in a church building regardless of denomination is not part of the one Body simply because they have been baptized. It is only those who have been born from above. The true Body will be revealed when Jesus returns. Read the parable of the sower from Luke 8 and Mark 4.
Now I gotta get back to packing since I am moving tomorrow.
Congratulations, Barry, on your new baby boy! (I clicked through to your website).
DonS,
Thank you for these questions. I want to make something clear here. There should be no dichotomy between baptism and the gospel. It is Christ’s death and resurrection that gives baptism it’s power to forgive, and save. We are baptized into that death and resurrection. And yes a person can be saved, by believing the proclomation of Christ, but that faith will not reject baptism given the opportunity. What you baptists do, is deny believers the opportunity! And excuse me for finding that highly objectionable. And then you turn around and rather than explaining what that baptism did for them as an infant you drive a wedge between the gospel and baptism, so that you can get them to live a life of service and obedience in accord with what you believe that to be. I was bringing out the fact that the thief on the cross was undoubtedly circumcised, and that baptism had not yet been mandated to show another dimension to this tired argument you baptists use to denounce baptism. By the way Christ didn’t really say much to the man, but you will be with me in paradise today. We have no idea what instruction if any in the gospel came before that. But Christ in those words uttered absolution to the man, pure and simple as he does to us in baptism. The man believed the same promise Christ makes to us in baptism. And I happen to believe that part of the reason it was efficacious was because of the man’s life long relationship with God, brought about when he was 8 days old.
Baptism was mandated, instituted, in Matthew 28 where Christ tells the disciple to make disciples by baptizing the adults of all nations. I though you baptists had that one down?
So are your infants saved because they have faith like the thief on the cross? Is that what you are getting at? Faith in the promises of Christ?
As for the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:5. It is interesting that you try to argue from particulars in a narrative, against the generals in an epistle (i.e Baptism… now saves you 1 Peter 3:21) I suppose though I’m not saved until there are tongues of fire dancing on my head, and people in foreign countries here me speaking their language when I am speaking in mine? Do you see where that goes? I find it peculiar too, not in that I doubt it, but in proof that the Holy Spirit can manifest itself in different ways, and come in different ways at different times, as the disciples already had the Holy Spirit (John 20:22,) before it came on them in the closed room, and before Jesus Ascended. That is unless Jesus didn’t actually give what he says he did in John 20.
Barry,
So you are arguing people are saved without faith, since infants can’t believe? What? Why not? The Holy Spirit is not able to give them faith? Just us adults?
Interesting translation of Matthew 28 18. where did the “then” come from. It always found it interesting that it emphasized baptizing before it mentions teaching, though to be honest the two go hand in hand. There is not first make them disciples, then baptize them. It is you make disciple by baptizing and teaching.
You seem to think that Christ cannot use baptism as the means to birth someone from above, care to explain why not? What is the water to do with in that whole John 3 bit then?
Bror Erikson
Wrong on 1 Pet. 3:21. Baptism, which is a type (antitypon, αντιτυπον) now saves you.
Just as the ark saved Noah and his family from God’s wrath so does putting your faith in Jesus Christ alone now save you. Baptism is like a stamp, mark, figure or TYPE that shows this has already occurred. It is not the salvation itself.
The ark is a figure of salvation through Jesus and baptism is a figure of this as well.
Also, I don’t believe there is a drop of water mentioned in John 3 and Ezekiel 36. Both refer to regeneration by the spirit. Yes, there are apostates, “they went out from us because they were not of us.”
There are also wolves in sheep’s clothing. Not sheep that become wolves.
Barry,
It is Erickson, not Erikson.
But Baptism, which now corresponds to this, now saves you. The others were the types which find their reality in baptismt.
What? I thought you baptists knew your Bibles? no water in John 3? John 3:5 (ESV)
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
No water mentioned in Ezekial 36? Ezekiel 36:25 (ESV)
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
Come on, read the quotations you cite.
Bror Erickson,
First, I apologize for misspelling your name. It was an oversight. Yes, I am aware that the word “water” is those citations. But “water” does not equal “baptism by water”
Understand? Salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone. Not faith PLUS (or through means) of the application of water.
Look up the word “sprinkle” in the Pentateuch and often it is associated with blood being sprinkled, not water. The one who cleanses is God himself through the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross–not the actual blood of the OT sacrifice or the actual sprinkling, pouring, or immersion of water.
dear brother webmonk. appreciate your posts. I agree with them in fact, but you are not hard enough on us Lutherans. You miss the one criticism that truly is truly damning to us Lutherans and would call us to repent in buckets of tears.
You seem to be doing what I used to do… 1) list doctrines 2) put side by side.
Instead of lists try doing things in concentric circles. the center: always: Christ and his Life, death and resurrection. Who is Jesus? What did he do? Why did he do it? How does he deliver us all He is and does/did in 2009? Is it truly about Him or is it really about us responding to Him or about us in some other way?
What is at the center of EVERY truly Lutheran doctrine? Christ and his life, death and resurrection as THE raison d´etre for every. single. doctrine. Where this is NOT true, even if Lutheran´s spout it as Lutheran doctrine, it is truly not a Lutheran teaching. Challenge us Lutherans that way. Ask us: “Where is Christ and the forgiveness of sins in this particular “lutheran” teaching you are telling me about?” or “show me that your doctrine is DIRECTLY about christ crucified delivered to me, and not just ‘by the way this is about Christ in some metaphoric way’.
So what does this mean practically my dear webmonk?
It means this: There are many non-Lutherans who are, in fact, BETTER “Lutherans” than most Lutherans in many ways. I fully include ME in this. Lord have mercy and knock more sense into me!
Topping this list would be the likes of Eugene Peterson(presbyterian), Robert Capon(episcopalian). There are so many more.
WHY are do they out-Luthurn us Luthurns? Because they do a better job at not merely being Christ-centered, but by going way beyond that and making Christ THE reason for EVERY doctrine, for the Bible, for everything they can say about their faith and Christianity. And yes, like Lutherans, they don´t have it all right. But this thing they DO have right is what makes them beat the Lutherans at their own game and we Lutherans LOVE them for it.
So ok Webmonk. Go ahead and respond by telling me that Lutherans are far, far in practice from doing what I say, but don´t stop there! tell us Lutherans here how we can be more radically about Jesus, and about being serious about having EVERY doctrine be about pointing a sin-troubled sinner to the Cross. We will LOVE you for THAT criticism!
Any Lutheran here disagree? Nope.
Or better show us how any particular teaching of your church serves up 100 proof life-death-resurrection-Jesus better than the Lutheran version of that same doctrine.
Any real Lutheran here will then see things YOUR way. I would bet alot of money on that. Take the challenge Webmonk!
fws, what the heck are you talking about????
I don’t think I compared any doctrines side by side here, in any way, shape, or form. I’m not accusing anyone of forming doctrines without Christ at their center, or anything close to it. I really haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re talking about.
I’m, to put it bluntly, talking about people being jerks toward the “other side”, regardless of what doctrines they are arguing over. Accusing “them” of all sorts of horrible things and suggesting things about them that have basis only in the imagination of the accuser.
Bror @ 120: Thank you for acknowledging that salvation is through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and His subsequent resurrection. We definitely agree on that point. And I also appreciate your acknowledgement that baptism is not a requirement for salvation.
I don’t “denounce” baptism. Baptism is a very important act of obedience in the Christian life. I disagree strongly with your interpretation of baptism as key in the process of justification, but not on its role in the process of sanctification.
As for the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you asked what other baptism there was than water. I was answering your question, and am confident that Barry said “water baptism” to distinguish it from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of Holy Spirit in a believer first occurred at Pentecost in Acts 2, as, while Christ was still in earth the Holy Spirit was present at times, but there is no teaching of indwelling of believers until Acts 2. You kind of rambled in your comment, but I got the impression that you don’t put much stock in the baptism of the Holy Spirit. However, this baptism gave the believers the “power from on high” promised to them by Christ in Luke 24:49. It was a very significant event, and the disciples were told to “wait for it”.
Now, the Great Commission. The biggest significance of this passage, in my opinion, was that Christ commanded the disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all nations. Not just the Jews. All nations. It’s also important that they were to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The triune God is now fully revealed and exalted. Baptism is mandated, to be sure, but I don’t see any evidence that it is mandated as a means of salvation.
Barry,
In Ezekiel, Sprinkle is associated with water, not blood. Being a prophetic passage, I can’t help but believe he is talking about baptism, something that would come about in the future, not something that happened in the past.
But you would have me believe that God did not save Noah by having him build an arch, and that he lied when he said anything about baptism saving. the arch was the type, Baptism is the real deal. And it now saves you, that’s what the passage says. It now saves me, just as the arch saved Noah. That’s it. But you would have me believe that I liar’s death on the cross saved me.
What does the water in John 3 signify, where but in baptism do you have Water and the Spirit?
What is Titus 3 talking about if not baptism?
Don,
If I am justified I am sanctified, can’t have one without the other. Can’t be one without being the other. But I was justified, I was sanctified, at least that is what Paul told me, and I think he connected both of these to something there in 1 Corinthians 6. Oh but I guess that wasn’t talking about baptism either. That was talking about the time I had tongues of fire on my head. 1 Cor. 6:11 (ESV)
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If Jesus wants to act through water to justify me, by incorporating me into his death and resurrection through it, why can he not? Why am I not to believe him here, when you want me to believe that he died for me? do you see the disconnect here? Baptism is a lot more than an act of obedience, it is Jesus parceling out salvation to sinners. You make baptism a work, nothing but an act of obedience. Then you call into question the salvation of those baptized as infants for putting their trust in Christ’s work for them.
Jesus instituted baptism, therefor it is he who baptizes. And as John the baptizer says, “he will baptize with the Holy Spirit.”
But go ahead ignore what scripture says. Just trust that God will save you. I mean he saved Noah without an Ark.
Well, yes Bror we are sanctified (set apart) when we are saved, when we are also justified, once for all, by the blood of Christ. But, as you also know, sanctification doesn’t end there. It is a continuing process during our time here on earth, in our pursuit of holiness in the strength of our Savior and with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit. II Timothy 2:21 talks about a man cleansing himself from things of dishonor to sanctify himself, and make himself useful to the Master. Obviously, in context, this man is already saved. I Thess. 5:23, though, says it best: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirt and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. The process of sanctification is, clearly, ongoing until our time on earth is done.
Of course, Jesus CAN act through water, to justify us, but that’s not what He chose to do. You say that I make baptism a “work”. Well, what does that mean? Once we’re saved, God expects us to work. We are to obey Him, and those acts of obedience are works. I don’t understand why you see the idea of works after salvation a theological problem. Of course, it would be different if baptism was required for salvation. Then it would be a work.
John 3 references the two births of man. The first is from his mother’s womb (v. 4). A man is “born of water” during this first birth. Then, he is born of the Spirit during his second birth (born again). Note that Jesus’ reply in v. 5, where He talks about being “born of water” is directly responsive to Nicodemus’ comment in v. 4 regarding an old man going back into his mother’s womb and being born again. Jesus is clarifying that, no, the first time is of water. But the second time is different. It is a birth of the Spirit.
Bror, the line of reasoning starts with the assumption that faith is something that only smart people have, and that Baptism is in the realm of works– obedience, responsibility, sanctification, Christian duty, etc. That’s the basis for figuring that all those references to Baptism in the NT must be purely “spiritual,” even the references to actual water. Though why it’s such a barrier to imagine that God delivers the Gospel using “stuff,” is hard to say. Billy Graham still used a physical pulpit and a printed, paper-and-ink Bible to deliver the Gospel. It doesn’t mean that people believe that “Jesus plus Billy” or “Jesus plus paper” saves, but rather that Jesus saves *by means of* a pastor preaching or a book being used. Lutherans don’t believe in “Jesus plus Baptism” saving because there is no wedge driven between Jesus and Baptism in the first place; Baptism is defined in terms of Jesus given to us. It all starts with your definitions, and ends with everyone talking past each other. And hijacked blog posts!
Webmonk @ 38,
Limited Atonement is not a Calvinist Doctrine, it is a “Dortish” doctrine. Examples of Calvin’s belief in unlimited atonement abound.
132: It’s a bit debatable since there are lots of quotes from Calvin supporting Limited Atonement, too. I’m not particularly bothered by whether or not the modern Calvinist position is in lock-step with Calvin’s original stances or not. It’s not.
Congratulations Kelly on a fine misrepresentation of the other side’s views.
DonS,
So there we have it. We are not saved by faith alone, but by faith and a life of continual pursuit of holiness. Sounds Roman Catholic to me, just have the terms of justification and sanctification turned around, terms the Bible uses interchangeably in many places.
“Of course, Jesus CAN act through water, to justify us, but that’s not what He chose to do. You say that I make baptism a “work”. Well, what does that mean? Once we’re saved, God expects us to work. We are to obey Him, and those acts of obedience are works. I don’t understand why you see the idea of works after salvation a theological problem. Of course, it would be different if baptism was required for salvation. Then it would be a work.”
What Jesus didn’t choose water to save us? Isn’t that the question at hand? Where does he say he doesn’t? I see him using water as part of his plan when he instituted baptism, unless the disciples had it all wrong on the day of Pentecost when they were baptizing everyone with water, where they and their children received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38-39.
I believe I recall, answering the question of “what shall we do?” The answer was “repent and be baptized” not merely repent.
Mark 16:16 “Who ever believes and is baptized will be saved?” Not just believing.
And in Ephesians 5 we learn that we were sanctified quite clearly by the “washing of water and the word” Ephes. 5:26 (ESV)
that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
But I suppose Jesus didn’t save me when he sanctified me?
DonS your break down of John 3 is quite peculiar. Nicodemus is asking if he needs to crawl into his mothers womb to be born again. And Jesus is answering that. Why would Jesus tell someone how they are to be born the first time, when they were born of flesh? Nicodemus already had that done. Now he needed to be born again as Jesus was saying. And Jesus indicates that his baptism is one that comes with the spirit, and makes them born again. Baptized with my baptism and you will be born again. Unless you are born of water and the spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus is quite unconcerned whether or not the mans mother broke water or not.
And then he proceeds to the Judean country side, and baptizes, though he baptizes no one, but the disciples baptize in his name, making it Jesus who is baptizing.
And John goes to Aenon to baptize, because water was plentiful there. Indicating that to baptize you need water.
Jesus says we make disciples by baptizing them. He does not require us to send the Holy Spirit. Rather he promises that the gift of the Holy Spirit will be in Baptism. Acts 2:38-39.
But I suppose you are right, and Peter, Paul, and John were all wrong? They didn’t mean that by being baptized with the water baptisms they did that day, that the Holy Spirit would really be given to anyone.
Now why do I have a problem with demanding works after justification? Well I really don’t. I have a problem making those works a requirement for salvation, or sanctification. We live a life of sanctification by the grace of the Holy Spirit. That is we live in our sanctification by the grace of the Holy Spirit. In that sanctification we naturally do works, as a vine bears fruit, and because we are in Christ, the vine bears good fruit. We do not make them good. Without Christ and the Holy Spirit you could donate a million dollars to the salvation army and it would not be considered good. But in Christ, Barry changing the diaper on his new born son is a good work in deed. That is this doctrine of vocation that Veith keeps harping on.
And it all does come back to Jimmy Carter. He is the pot calling the kettle black badmouthing the SBC for being judgmental. Being judgmental is what being a southern baptist is, and you judge those that Christ dearly loves, the little children he would have you suffer not, and bring on to him. You judge somehow they are unworthy of him. As Barry says, nothing but donkeys, not fit for baptism. And there Barry will fail in his vocation of father, and as a Christian. That is unless he starts Believing Jesus, rather than claiming to believe in him.
Kelly,
I am aware of where they start from.
My hope is that through honest dialogue here, if sometimes a bit heated. They would come to understand where they are wrong. Or maybe some others lurking here, might see the fallicy in the “baptist” position.
So far they have compared the little one’s Christ cherished to donkeys. Claimed that where as faith and repentance are works of God, it is not possible for God to work this in little Children, so that they are not to be baptized, until the child on his own is able to come to the conclusion that he is a sinner. (Good luck with that.) And as you have rightly deduced, limited faith to conscious knowledge.
They have declared that God saved Noah from the flood sans Arch. (I remember God using an Arch, but it has been a few days since I read that story. Possibly, I am wrong.) And have held forth that Jesus was instructing Nicodemus on how he had to be born, before he could be born again. And that I should not believe Jesus, Just believe in him. I suppose because Jesus was lying when he attached sanctification, and justification, salvation itself to the waters of baptism. But then if he was lying, and I can’t believe him, why should I believe in Him?
Credo-Baptist friends:
I have to jump in on my fellow Lutheran Bror’s side here. I know your opinions are sincere, and that you are trying to find Biblical truth, but I have to agree with Bror and Kelly that you are misguided. While this discussion has perhaps become more heated than it should be, there are basic flaws with Credo-Baptist doctrine.
First of all, Credo-Baptists have this hang up about linear time. It’s always, first you have to become rational enough to understand, next you have to believe, next you have to make a decision, next you have to start producing fruit… Many Credo -Baptist Christians are frequently asking questions like “WHEN were you saved?”, as if there has to be some specific moment I can point to or I’m not really a Christian. Or they look at the fruits of a person’s life at a time when they professed Christianity and suggest something like “Well, he wasn’t a Christian at point a, but later his fruit shows he was at point b..” God is eternal, He does not operate in linear time. I was “saved” when God called me out before the foundations of the world. I was saved when He promised Adam that He would send a redeemer. I was saved when He became a man and died and rose again. I was saved when he sent His Holy Spirit to me at my infant baptism. I was saved when He caused His Word to be preached to me. I am saved as I write this. And I will be be saved when my physical body dies. And I will be saved when He raises my physical body, just as He raised His own. I am eternally saved by an Eternal God, and this preoccupation with specific events and the order in which they occur ignores God’s nature and attempts to make His ways temporal like our own. It is a basic mistake that taints the rest of what you say.
Another basic error is that Baptist (And I think most Credo-Baptist) theology converts faith into a work. As though my salvation is an act of my free will. As in: I have prayed the sinners prayer…I have asked Jesus into my heart…I have made my dicision for Christ…I have decided to follow Jesus. This is reducing faith to a series of volitional acts that the individual performs and thus “gets saved”.
to be continued
continued:
You see this in your arguments about how understanding must precede faith (see Barry Bishop’s comment @ 108). He argues that you cannot repent if you don’t understand what sin is, so you must be rational to be “saved”. I have read a number of works of Credo-Baptist theologians (John MacArthur was one of them) who went through the same analysis. They spent a great deal of effort arguing that faith could only come after I consider my sins and I admit that I am a sinner and I repent of my former sinful ways and make my decision for Christ…I, I, I, I. And of course my brain had to be sufficiently developed to accomplish all these mental tasks. And nobody could be saved unless these taskes are understood and performed. And then, and only then, can a person take the next step of baptism.
And then they turned around and claimed that infants are saved without doing any of that. They point to David’s statement about going to be with his dead infant son and from this extrapolated that all infants who die in infancy go to heaven.
Well, if infants are going to heaven, then they must be saved, and if they are saved, then I guess it’s ok to baptize them, right? (just pointing out a contradiction).
The thing is, the Bible doesn’t really say that ALL infants are saved. We may hope that they can be, but I don’t know where the Bible overtly says that. David’s son was one of the Children of Israel. As such, he was under the old covenant, which he would have been capable of rejecting had he lived. But he didn’t live very long; he died under the old covenant, and thus we can conclude, as David did, that his son was saved.
But what Credo Baptist’s ignore are those Bible passages that say that infants not only can be saved, but that they can have faith. We can start with Jesus’ response to people who brought their children to Him in Matthew 19:13-14. The greek word used here means “infant”, and Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. In Psalm 8:2 David writes: “from the lips of children and infants You have ordained praise”, but most specifically David writes in Psalm 22: 9-10 “Yet you brought me out of the womb; YOU MADE ME TRUST IN YOU even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” And we also have the example of John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother’s womb as Mary approached (Luke 1:39-44).
Now, it doesn’t make sense that infants, even preborn infants, can have faith, if you define coming to faith as going through a series of mental conclusions and decisions. But the Biblical concept of faith is that it is not a mental process at all. This is why it is possible, in God’s will, for infants to praise God (Psalm 8:2), trust God (Psalm 22: 9-10) and leap for joy in anticipation of the advent of God (Luke 1:39-44). I have to agree that donkeys can do none of this, but the Bible clearly teaches that infants can.
Quite frankly, the misrepresentations and deliberate misinterpretations of baptistic theology on this thread by Lutherans have been astounding. Look, I never wanted to get in a debate on this subject. I recognize that I am on a Lutheran blog, but sheesh, the post is on Jimmy Carter and the SBC and the Baptist cracks start right away. Bror, you say you want to convince people that they are wrong. Well, I can tell you one thing. You never took a Dale Carnegie course on how to win friends and influence people. You don’t convince people by belittling and ridiculing their views, by calling them names, misrepresenting and twisting their honest communications, and demeaning them. Just a tip. You may want to consider that the next time you are evangelizing.
Now as to your post @ 134, the misrepresentations and twisting continue apace. Good grief! Where did I ever say that “We are not saved by faith alone, but by faith and a life of continual pursuit of holiness.”? NO, NO, NO!!!!!! Bror, it would be nice if you listened and engaged in an honest and respectful discussion, just once. You are saved once, for all time. That doesn’t mean you just sit around after that. We are here for a purpose, to accomplish His will and His purposes, to evangelize the world, and to pursue holiness. We are set aside (sanctified) once when we are saved. Forever. But, scripture tells us (I cited that scripture last night, you ignored it) that the sanctification process continues in our Christian life, as we continue to be taught (there’s the Great Commission again) and to grow in our faith, and to learn what things are not edifying and should be set aside. Over time, we work, through the Holy Spirit’s power, to complete that sanctification (II Timothy 2:21, I Thess. 5:23), so we can be used by God in greater and greater ways. This is NOT AT ALL part of salvation. We are already saved. Can I make this any clearer? Read the book of James. There’s life after baptism, Lutherans. Bror, you are confusing the terms “sanctification” and “salvation”, and using them interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. Yes, you are positionally sanctified when you are saved, but sanctification continues after you are saved, separate and apart from salvation.
Bror, yesterday you said the narrative passages of Acts 2 were over-emphasized, today you are quoting them. Now, in quoting Mark 16:16, you are now saying baptism is REQUIRED for salvation, not just believing. Which is it? Yesterday, you said it wasn’t required. I’m confused. Is it, or isn’t it, Bror?
I didn’t originate the interpretation of John 3 I shared yesterday. It is, no doubt, the majority position, outside of the Lutheran church. And, in context, it makes the most sense.
Kerner, yes, of course I recognize that God is not constrained by linear time and space. That’s why I think the whole issue between reformed and Arminians is so silly. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined. Sure, He foreknew everything, because He saw it all simultaneously, from the beginning of time. So He knows who will be saved and who won’t. But, He chose to constrain us with time and space, and He expects us to act within those constraints. Jesus acted and thought within those constraints as the Son of Man. So, since we are not God, and we do not know the things that He does, we still need to evangelize, and we still need to assume that every person we come across needs the Lord and can be saved. So, I guess I am not sure what you are getting at. I wasn’t baptized as an infant. So what was I supposed to do, if we are not to think in space and time? Even as a Lutheran, someone has to get up, dress the baby, and take him for an 11 AM service, wait until after the hymns, then take the baby up front for the baptism at 11:36. It is a human act, at a point in temporal time. So, I’m struggling with the distinction.
This whole “decisional” thing, and how that is somehow construed as a “work” baffles me. Works-based salvation means doing good deeds, hoping to outweigh your sins and earn your way to heaven through your own self-righteousness. Making a decision to accept the free gift of salvation through the grace of Christ’s atonement for us, in the strength of the Holy Spirit, Who draws us to the Christ — how is that a work? It is all the Holy Spirit. We are powerless to make that decision on our own. Once we are saved, the Holy Spirit works through us to do His will here on earth, as we repent and root out the sin in our lives in His strength. Again, how is that a work? Very confusing. And I mentioned yesterday, the parents who take the infant for baptism are performing a work that allows their child to be saved, in Lutheran theology. That is a work of the flesh, as well, using the same logic that you are imposing on credo-baptists.
Well, I think that is enough. Misconstrue away.
Kerner,
Here’s my hang-up (and the reason I am skeptical of infant baptism). I believe (as does Lutheran theology—I’d insert quotes, but Bror would then explain how I’m quoting dead theologians without having the faintest clue as to what they’re talking about), that baptism should not be administered apart from the faith of the baptized. I also agree that infants are capable of having faith. (hence, I rely my own baptism as an infant, while remaining skeptical of infant baptism in general—paradoxical I know, but isn’t the whole point that we don’t need to understand it all?).
However, what happens at baptism is a specific declaration that this particular child is being granted faith at this particular moment—based on the prayers and faith of the parents, sponsors, and pastor. That is a guarantee that I don’t see made in scripture. The inverse is also troubling, that such a declaration is necessary for the faith to be given to the child.
http://www.lectionarycentral.com/epiphany3/Luthergospel.html
DonS,
Lutherans don’t like James. It might be more effective to point out that Paul had finished his explanation of the gospel by the end of Romans 5, but then manages to add another eleven chapters of…something.
continued:
Now, how are infants (or for that matter, the mentally disabled), who are not mentally developed enough to understand language, going to get the ability to praise, trust and enjoy the presence of God? The answer is that they get that ability from the same place adults get it: the Holy Spirit gives it to them. It is very much a miracle that the Holy Spirit can melt the sinful heart of a fallen adult. Adults do not come to Christ through logic, even if they think they do. They come to Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, infants, if they are to come to Christ at all, must do so through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, how does the Holy Spirit come to a person under the New Covenant?
Well, one way we can probably all agree on is that the Holy Spirit works through the preaching of God’s Word. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Now, God COULD have figured out a way to send His Holy Spirit to people directly, but He, in His wisdom, sends His children to preach His Word and the Holy Spirit works through that Word to to change people’s hearts. But, not all people can understand human language. So, how is God going to work in the hearts of people who can’t understand language? In Matthew 28:19-20 he says “Go and make desciples of all nations, baptizing them in (or into) the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” So, infants are too young to teach, but they can be baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I’ve spent a lot of time on the foundations of Biblical doctrine of baptism, and now I’m running out of time when I want to address the specifice. I’ll say briefly that everywhere the significance of baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, the statement is to the effect that baptism is having some effect. Washing sins away (Phillip to the Ethiopian), we are baptized into the name of Christ, we are buried and resurected in baptism, and finally, baptism now saves us. Reading those verses with the great commission telling us how to make desciples, I think its pretty clear that baptism is not merely a stamp or a sign of a person’s conversion, it is part of the process of that conversion. I know Credo-baptists say there is a sipritual baptism as well as a water baptism, but I have never heard a satisfactory response to Ephesians 4:5 that pretty clearly says that there is only one baptism, not two separate ones.
Don,
I haven’t misrepresent your views, I cut an pasted them! I quoted you verbatim. Saying that you continue to grow is another thing than saying you have to live a life of obediance. We don’t obey, that is just it. When you say we have to complete our sanctification you are saying it is not already complete, that there is something left that we have to do, other than die. Sanctification is part and parcel of our salvation. Thats it.
but then why can’t infants baptizes continue in sanctification.
I cited acts yesterday too, just got the citations wrong most of the time. and I never said they were over emphasized, but that it is dangerous to argue from particular to general. Peter makes a general statement to a crowd in acts 2:38-39 as part of a sermon. Jesus at the in acts 1 is speaking specifically to the twelve disciples, and does not promise that we will all have tongues of fire dancing on our heads. But I suppose Peter meant that only the children of that crowd could be saved. It is context. You baptists show you have no reading comprehension. I’m reminded of a “River Runs Through It.” You assume God can’t use water so however many times he says he does you think he is wrong.
I still don’t get it, Jesus says that he saves using baptism, but you refuse to agree.
I will answer you this way, as to you last question, then I would like you to answer just a few of the ones I have posed above. Faith does not refuse baptism, faith craves baptism, faith does not denegrate baptism because salvation is offered in baptism. So you believe and are baptized there is no wedge, and if you believe you have your children baptized, because not only do you believe in Jesus, you believe him.
Now are children saved without faith? or is faith required? If you children are saved by faith, why not baptize them since they are believers? Answer that.
Or is it by virtue that they have no sin? If they have no sin why do so many of them die?
This will probably be my last post on this thread (you can all celebrate now), as I have work to do today, and then out all weekend. Bror, I didn’t get much of your last comment, as it’s kind of “run-on”, but I think you basically repeated what Kerner said. I don’t get how you think sanctification and salvation are the same, when it is clear in scripture that sanctification is an ongoing process. You accuse me of ignoring scripture, but you’re doing the same thing. And Nemo is right — you Lutherans sure don’t like the book of James do you?
As far as children and the developmentally disabled are concerned — I don’t know. Kerner cites good scripture and I tend to agree that faith is an evolving thing. What if a young child dies before they are old enough to understand the concept of sin? Well, I take the scripture Kerner cited to heart, personally, and have always felt that even infants can have a knowledge of God and “faith” at some level. The same with the profoundly disabled. We teach our young children and the disabled among us to whatever level they can understand, and we trust God for the results. We know that God is good and we rest in that knowledge. We baptists don’t baptize infants because we have a different understanding of water baptism than you Lutherans do, just as you have a different understanding of other biblical doctrines than we do (e.g. that baptism, as referred to in Scripture, is often the baptism of the Holy Spirit, rather than with water). Bror, that is going to have to suffice as an answer to your questions. We are not going to resolve these differences on this thread, but hopefully we all understand them a little better now.
Kerner — John MacArthur is not a typical example of an evangelical Christian. He wrote a very controversial series of books on what he termed “Lordship salvation” about 20 years ago, and believes that salvation is a process that includes the notion of making Christ “lord of your life”. He does not believe in the eternal security of the believer, and probably falls more on the line of the “fruit inspector” that you guys were referencing earlier. I do not agree with many aspects of his theology, and I would say it is very much a minority view among the greater community of evangelical believers. So please don’t cite him as representative of the evangelical Christian view that you Lutherans love to lump all into one category.
Have a good weekend, all.
Well, one more point in closing:
Rom. 10:9-10 — that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
I John 1:9 — If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Thank God we can all rest in the promise of Scripture, and in the knowledge, based on His promises, that we on this thread are all saved, based on our confession of Christ, and His promise of forgiveness of sins. God bless you all.
Don, Baby…Don’t go away mad. In fact, don’t go away. This would be a better discussion of we could calm down a little. I wasn’t trying to misconstrue, but to explain.
To answer your questions. (And just take this as my explanation if you’re not convinced by it). The reason the decision making process is a work is that you think you are doing it. Baptism (especially infant baptism) is not your work because you didn’t do it. It was done to you.
Look, when you were younger and God’s Word was preached to you, the Holy Spirit worked through the preached Word. So, the Holy Spirit was active, and we could say the preacher was active; he was doing God’s work by preaching the Word. But you were passive. The Holy Spirit changed your heart by the means of the preached Word. For Lutherans, baptism is kind of the equivalent of the preached Word. The Holy Spirit works through baptism to convert the person baptized. Like the preached Word, baptism is a means by which the Holy Spirit does this, and this is especially important for infants and others who cannot understand words.
When we teach our children about Christianity, we don’t ask them to affirmatively decide to follow Christ. We TELL them that they ARE saved because Christ has died for their sins and the Holy spirit IS working in their lives. And generally, when they are little, I’m pretty sure they believe us. It is our hope that the Holy Spirit, who is already working in their lives, at least since their baptisms, will make their spirits good gound when the Word of God is sown in them. Therefore, they no longer have to accept the Holy Spirit; they Have Him already. But just as a person hearing God’s Word being preached can harden his heart against the Holy Spirit and reject Him, so can a baptized Christian. While I believe we can be sure of our salvation, I also think that the parable of the sower, and Hebrews 6:4-6 make it pretty clear that a person who has received the Holy Spirit CAN reject Him. I like to think that this is rare, but if Scripture says it can happen, then it can.
So what does this mean in practical terms? Well, when David’s son died, his som being under the Old Covenant, David was able to believe that his son was in heaven. When my children were baptized, the Holy Spirit was working in their lives, and they were children of God unless they rejected Him. If they had died in infancy, they would have been under the New Covenant, and I, like David, would have been able to say with confidence that they could not have come to me, but I would someday go to them.
But they didn’t die; they all grew up. There were times when the fruit of some of them was pretty sketchy. But I was always able to have faith in the fact that they were baptized, and that they had heard God’s word preached (and they go to communion too, but let’s talk about that some other time) so that the Holy Spirit was working in them and they would not reject Him. No one can read another person’s heart, but I still “have faith in their baptisms”, which is just another way of saying that I have faith in the Holy Spirit to complete the work He has started.
Well Don,
So you do believe infants have faith. Are we agreed then that you deny believers baptism? That is what it seems like to me.
I know of one baptism, and one baptism only for the Christian, it is a sacrament instituted by Christ that requires water. Ephesians 4 is clear that there is only one baptism. We were not all promised to receive the same manifestation of the Holy Spirit that the disciples received on the day of Pentecost. But the spirit is promised to us in baptism, and to our children according to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2.
As for sanctification, we live in it, we grow in it, but it was completed in Baptism, as Ephesians 5 indicates, 1 Corinthians 6 indicate. And a person who denies Christ’s teaching on baptism, might ought reconsider whether or not they are confessing Christ in light of Romans 10:10.
Neom:
I hope what I wrote to Don addresses what you said @139. As you say, it’s hard for finite humans to completely understand the mechanics of how God works our conversion. But I do believe that the Bible supports the Lutheran position that Baptism is one of the means by which He does it, especially for those who are unable to understand the other means, God’s Word. I don’t believe it is MY faith that saves my children. It will be their own faith, that the Holy Spirit who began working in their hearts at baptism gives them, that saves them.
Well, good weekend to you all as well.
Bror, I have some questions, so I can understand better what Lutherans believe. What is the difference, if any, between an infant getting baptized and an adult getting baptized? Does the fact that the infant is passive and the adult active reflect any real difference? Does the Holy Spirit work differently in these cases?
Also, do you relate NT baptism to OT circumcision? If so, in what way? Thanks.
Oh, Don and Nemo…and Barry if you are still out there:
You may be burned out on this thread, but I would like to know something if you care to tell me. You (cumulatively) have referred more than once to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit vs. water baptism, as though these are 2 different events. We Lutherans have responded that we believe, mostly citing Ephesians, that there is only one baptism and that the application of water and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit take place as parts of a single event. So my question is, where do you find support for your concept of 2, non-simultaneous baptisms?
It is very possible that I, through ignorance, am not stating your doctrine quite correctly. This is not an attempt to mischaracterize your position as a straw man. I really just want to know where you get you position from. So, if anybody still cares to explain it, I’ll check back later.
Acts 8:14-16
“Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.”
Kerner @ 146,
That sort of explains it—but the parallel between hearing the Word and baptism doesn’t quite work for your position. People can hear the Word without God opening their hearts, why do you not hold the same for baptism?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the Lutheran position, but doesn’t it teach that each and every infant baptism is efficacious (i.e. sprouting of faith in the infant)? That’s a higher rate of success (so to speak), than you attribute to the Word.
Interestingly, this was posted just this morning on the Between The Times blog, written by Al Mohler and Danny Akin:
http://betweenthetimes.com/2009/07/24/why-we-believe-children-who-die-go-to-heaven-2/
Frank,
Good questions. The answer is no, there is no difference, the Holy Spirit works the same way for both adults and infants. Adults too are passive when it comes to faith. Faith is always the work of the Holy Spirit. The other baptists on this thread have agreed with me there. That is why I find it so peculiar that they would think the Holy Spirit can’t operate on an infant. Jesus seemed to especially care for infants, and had a few things to say about entering the kingdom of God like one of them. He certainly did not see that they lacked any faith. They even confessed faith in him as he entered the temple.
Lutherans do tend to see linkage between circumcision of the Old Testament and Baptism in the new. We don’t see it as a one to one, but we do see a correlation. Baptism has as one of its chief benefits over circumcision as the ability to be administered to the female sex, and to be not quite as painful for adults. Col. 2:10-12 (ESV)
and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. [11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
But as God saved infants through circumcision in the O.T. we do not see why he can’t save infants through baptism in the new.
I hope that helps.
Nemo,
You sight Acts 8:14-16 as proof of two baptisms. Interestingly only one baptism is cited. The Holy Spirit is given to them later, after they had been baptized in the name of Jesus. The disciples then give them the Holy Spirit in a different manifestation, to carry out the work that needed to be done in Samaria.
I see a correlation between this and the fact that the disciples had been given the Holy Spirit long before the day of Pentecost when it “fell” on them. john records Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples in the locked room, chapter 20. I find it hard to believe that the disciples did not have the Holy Spirit already, when Jesus had given it to them. Odd not to have that which Christ has given. But the Holy Spirit did fall on the disciples in Acts chapter 2 manifesting himself in a way that he hadn’t before.
So I don’t see Acts chapter 8 supporting any “baptism of the Holy Spirit” but merely a conveying of the Holy Spirit, done by the disciples, so that work could be done in Samaria that might not otherwise be done. Especially, because no one in the text calls it a baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Frank,
That article by Moeller is quite weak. I like how he sights that the Old Testament prophets were not baptized. Hmmm, yet everyone circumcised.
He also down plays the effects of original sin, and holds to freedom of the will. Like we shouldn’t be damned for the sins we do unconsciously.
He is right that we have to take the Bible seriously and cannot just give into emotional desires and make them doctrine, but he doesn’t do it!
He also has a very romantic view of the innocence of infants, who I have known to be very conscious of their sinful actions.
Thanks Bror. Let me think about that.
Oh, consider this verse. John the Baptist, says, Matthew 3:11, “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Frank,
Thank you, I have been waiting for someone to bring that up. The best treatment, and the most evangelical of all of them, for this verse is handled by Bo Giertz, in his devotional title “To Live with Christ.” But enough of shameful plugs for books with my name on them.
John here draws a sharp distinction between what he does with his baptism, and what Jesus will do with his. John baptizes with water for repentance. John the Baptizer’s baptism was nothing but an act of obedience or repentance. When Jesus baptizes, His baptism was much more, he gives the Holy Spirit, and cleanses us from sins with fire. John acknowledges here that his baptism is nothing but water. Repentance can be accomplished in many ways. John’s baptism is not yet a sacrament of grace. That has to wait until Christ comes. Christ will make baptism a sacrament of grace. (This by the way is one reason I have a hard time understanding Baptists always citing John’s baptism as being normative for the Christian. John is quite clear in stating that Christ’s baptism is much more than his.)
However, the verse does not say that Christ will not use water. Only that Christ’s baptism will be much more than mere water. The disciple’s obviously understood that when Christ instituted Baptism in Matthew 28, they were to use water, while baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit. They used water. One only needs to look at Acts 8:36-39, and Acts 10:47, to see that they used water, even when people had received the Holy Spirit already!
So it would be false to believe that Jesus was to baptize sans water, based on what John the Baptizer says. It would also be false to believe that when we are baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, we are not given the Holy Spirit. Christ clearly promises him there. He also clearly promises the gift of the Holy Spirit in baptism through Peter in Acts Chapter 2:38-39, even going so far as to explicitly promises the Holy Spirit to your children. Though it would be hard to exclude children from all nations, Children are generally considered citizens upon birth.
Kerner @ 148:
OK, I’ll take a crack at answering your question. It probably helps to discuss the history of baptism, and its historical context within the Jewish community first. Jewish proselyte baptism, a baptism of repentance, and the type practiced by John, was common during the time of Christ. Jesus was baptized by John (Matt. 3:16), after John had stated in Matt. 3:11 that “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”. In being baptized by John, Christ was identifying Himself with John’s message of righteousness (Matt. 3:15). Jesus baptized during His ministry (John 3:22, 4:1), though in John 4:2 we find that He was apparently not doing it Himself, but having His disciples do it.
Jesus only speaks of baptism once, directly, in Matt. 28:19 (the Great Commission). The context of that verse is the commandment to go into all the world, making disciples of all the nations (not just Jews), and baptizing those disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
In John 14:26, Jesus promises the disciples that the Helper, the Holy Spirit, will be sent by the Father in Christ’s name, to teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had said to them. He repeated this promise in Luke 24:49, just before the Ascension, stating that He was sending forth the promise of His Father upon them, but that they were to stay in the city until they were clothed with power from on high. Though in John 20:22 Jesus breathed on the disciples, stating “Receive the Holy Spirit”, this clearly was not the event they were to wait for, which was Pentecost.
Acts 1:5 — For John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now. Of course, this referenced Pentecost (Acts 2). Clearly this was a baptism of the Holy Spirit separate from any baptism by water. The disciples were already saved. Nemo mentioned Acts 8:12-16, where baptisms of the Samaritans, presumably with water, had been done only in the name of Jesus, rather than in the name of the Trinity, as commanded in Matt. 28:19. As a result, the Holy Spirit had not yet fallen on them. So, the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred separately, after the laying on of hands. In Acts 10:44, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles after they believed, and they were later baptized with water in verse 47. This incident is discussed by Peter in Acts 11 in Jerusalem, and he references the term “baptized with the Holy Spirit” in verse 16 in connection with the Holy Spirit falling upon them. So this is a definitive instance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and baptism with water being two separate events. And both appear to have occurred AFTER belief.
Well, I could go on, but this should suffice to answer your question.
Webmonk at 133. I’m not concerned if Calvin’s followers are in lockstep with Calvin either on the matter of the extent of the atonement. You’re right; they’re not. I only wanted to point out the dubiousness of the statement “Calvin’s Limited Atonement”. It’s a nasty thing to argue about, but Calvin sheds enough doubt on the L of TULIP to make me doubt that he actually believed it. Besides, Luther wrote the following in his lectures on Romans:
“God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God's sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]
Let there be peace. I believe in unlimited atonement and that Luther in the above cited passage and the followers of Dort are wrong.
CL
DonS,
You write:”And both appear to have occurred AFTER belief.”
Now later this afternoon I am going to go throuhg an pull apart piece by piece the fallacies in your little history of Baptism. However, I want to remind you that just yesterday you admitted infants have faith.
Now I want you to explain why you deny these believers baptism. Or do you not believe in believer’s baptism, but men of super faith, and high egos’ baptism?
DonS,
First we know very little about the various baptisms that were invogue at the time of Jesus. There is not certainty that they were at all like Johns. We have no mandate at all for baptism before Matthew 28. Though Jesus does talk of baptisms, and refers to his own death and resurrection as a baptism. That other baptisms were practiced, other than John the Baptizer’s, is attested to in Mark 7, where Jesus lumps them in with pharisacial traditions of men that ought to be despised. Mark 7:1-8 (ESV)
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, [2] they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. [3] (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, [4] and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) [5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” [6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
” ‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
[8] You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”
Interestingly in the greek baptism (which means wash, but for clarity sake is normally translated baptism,) and nipto (normally translated wash) are used interchangeably. Giving further definition to what it means to baptize, it means to wash at its root, but takes on the meaning of a ceremonial washing.
However, you get the distinct impression that Jesus cared little to nothing for these ceremonies. Which leads one to the conclusion that John the Baptizers baptism was not related to these other washings either. Nor would Christ’s baptism be related to these.
John Baptized with water for repentance, not righteousness. Jesus submitted himself to John’s baptism, not to show agreement with John’s “ministry of righteousness.” That was not what John the Baptizer’s baptism was about. His baptism was one of repentance. It was an act of repentance. Jesus submitted to it as an act of repentance, though he had nothing to repent of. So in repenting, he was repenting for our sins, and taking responsibility for them upon himself!
But the Baptism with which Jesus would baptize us would be very different from John the Baptizers. John even say’s so. Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit. And that he does as the formula in Matthew 28 makes abundantly clear. Jesus baptizes us, the same way he does in John 4, through his disciples, disciples already made by course of baptism. But when Jesus baptizes he gives what he says he gives, he gives the Holy Spirit. And this is done in that which you so crassly qualify as water baptism, because you disbelieve the promises Christ attaches to baptism, and expect two baptisms, contrary to Ephesians 4.
Now the promise Christ makes in Acts 1:5 and is fulfilled in Acts 2 is indeed an extension of that promise he made in John 14. You rightly point that out, but why you think this should be normative for all Christians is beyond me. As Christ has said nothing to me or you for which we need the Holy Spirit’s help in bringing to remembrance. He is talking to the 12 disciples, who will be carrying out his work after he ascends. The disciples have the Holy Spirit, but in a few days, the Holy Spirit will fall on them. Interestingly, they don’t use the word baptism to describe it when it actually happens.
When in Acts 10, Peter sees the Holy Spirit falling on the gentiles, and he is amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit is being poured out on them. So what does he do? He has them baptized with water, in the name of Jesus Christ.
I think it is a fallacy also to believe that being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, meant that they were not baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Or that the gift of the Holy Spirit would have been deprived of them for having been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only, as Peter promises the gift of the Holy Spirit to those baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2, and makes a special point of saying that this is for their children too. So to say that Acts 11, is normative in any way for all Christians at all time, is quite bad reasoning.
We are not all guaranteed tongues of fire on our heads, or any other visible manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit fell on these people that day so that Peter would know that though they are gentiles, they are to be baptized, he is not to withhold water from them. They do not have to be circumcised first. Since the Holy Spirit had been poured out on them, now they were to be baptized, water was not to be with held from them, and when they were baptized with water the Holy Spirit would be given to them, and sealed to them in yet another way, and would not depart from them.
This is why you have to be very careful trying to read your doctrine of baptism from Acts. Though it can be very informative. Acts should be interpreted in light of those passages that are much more clear on Baptism, like Matthew 28:18-19, Ephesians Ephes. 4:4-7 (ESV)
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— [5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, [6] one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. [7] But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.
Romans 6:4 Romans 6:4 (ESV)
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
1 Peter 3:21 (ESV)
Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Col. 2:10-12 (ESV)
and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. [11] In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, [12] having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Titus 3:5-7 (ESV)
he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, [6] whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, [7] so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Ephes. 5:25-27 (ESV)
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, [26] that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, [27] so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
1 Cor. 6:11 (ESV)
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
These verses make it very clear that the Holy Spirit is working in the water with the word of God saving us with a salvation that includes justification, and sanctification, completed justification, completed sanctification.
And now that yesterday you admitted that “Well, I take the scripture Kerner cited to heart, personally, and have always felt that even infants can have a knowledge of God and “faith” at some level. The same with the profoundly disabled.” Why then do you deny baptism to these believers? Why do you feel free to stand in the way, and withhold water for baptism, in a way Peter did not feel free to stand in the way of God? Does God tell us that we are to have a certain amount of faith before we can be baptized? Does he ever tell us what age our children have to be before the promised Holy Spirit can be for them also?
Is it really faith in Jesus, when one doubts his words concerning baptism? When one so despises the little ones he loved and cherished that one compares them to donkeys, and stands in the way of them being baptized into his name, and be given the Holy Spirit also?
Thank God there is repentance, and forgiveness for these sins too, but if I were you I would start taking God a bit more seriously.
If when we are baptized, we are baptized into Christ’s circumcision, an event that happened when he was 8 days old, then I think it ought to be appropriate that we baptize infants, and allow them to have the blessed promises and gifts Christ gives to us in baptism. Promises and gifts he first undertook when he made a down payment in blood for our sins, as the knife cut the foreskin of his 8 day old body. And there with that blood he promised to live what we could not, a life in perfect obedience to the laws of God, so that he could accomplish our atonement with his perfect sacrifice. We are baptized into his perfect life, his circumcision. It isn’t a promise to be obedient to his law, God would rather us not make promises that we cannot keep. Eccles. 5:5 (ESV)
It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.
This is why a doctrine of baptism that makes it a pledge we make to God to live a life obedient to his laws, is such a terrible thing. It is an awful thing to put this on anyone, and if forces little ones, even if they are 8 or older to sin, because that promise will inevitably be broken, that vow will not be paid.
Bror @159: Believers decide to identify with Christ and His Body through what you call “believers baptism” when they are ready to take that step. Since we do not believe the act of baptism is the means for salvation, we’re not denying anything to them, but the opportunity to be ready to take that step of obedience.
Bror @ 160: “John Baptized with water for repentance, not righteousness. Jesus submitted himself to John’s baptism, not to show agreement with John’s “ministry of righteousness.” Regarding this statement of your’s it is obvious that you did not read my explanation carefully. I said that John’s baptism was one of repentance. But when Christ asked John to baptize him, read Matt. 3:15, which I cited, regarding Christ’s explanation that it would “fulfill all righteousness”.
As for the rest of your diatribe, I never said that everything that happens in Acts still happens in exactly the same way today. I am baptistic, meaning a bit dispensational, and the manifestations we see in the early church, before the completion of the canon of the Bible are no longer required. But, Kerner asked a question, and Nemo and I answered it.
I think I’ll leave it at that.
Thank-you Bror for a fine, orthodox and thorough exegesis and apology of biblical Baptismal theology. I stand behind you 100%. Too often anabaptists take the cross as some kind of jumping off point which is confirmed and confessed by baptism. Baptism IS the jumping off point because it unites us to Christ in his death in resurrection. We thus, through the life begun in baptismal waters, partake vicariously in the righteousness of Christ. The Father now sees us as righteous by virtue of our Baptism – for we are considered righteous before we work (Rom. 4:4) Baptism is NOT a work. That is nothing but salvation, freedom and eternal life with Jesus.
Praise God! The Lutherans are right.
CL
DonS,
You wrote:”He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”. In being baptized by John, Christ was identifying Himself with John’s message of righteousness (Matt. 3:15).” Now there is a difference between fulfilling all righteousness, and identifying with John’s message of righteousness. Indeed Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, by repenting of our sins with us, even though he was righteous and needed not repent of anything, he was taking upon himself responsibility for the sins of the world, so that when he was crucified, his atonement would cover all our sins.
Now, I have given you plenty of verses indicating that there is a lot more going on in baptism than identifying with Christ, or making a decision.
Here you have shown your true colors, you make baptism our work, something we do for Christ, a pledge of obedience if I read your other posts right. But when the New Testament talks of Baptism it links it to things like the giving of the Holy Spirit, justification, sanctification, regeneration, incorporation into Christ’s death and resurrection, and more generally salvation.
Can you give me a Bible verse that limits Baptism to a mere identification with Christ, or talks of it as a pledge of obedience? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible that people are encouraged to make a decision to do this?
What is mind boggling to me, and I realize I have been dealing with two personalities here, but between you and Barry, you have admitted that children have faith, and that repentance and faith are the work of God, and yet, you will not baptize these children who have faith, despite all the blessings Christ would give them in baptism. You take a work that Christ would do for you and for your children, and make it your work, as if you were baptizing yourself, and it was not Christ who is baptizing you, even with the Holy Spirit. It necessarily has to be Christ who is baptizing you with the Holy Spirit. You can’t baptize yourself with that which you do not have. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
You maintain your false doctrine by driving a false wedge between “water baptism” and “Baptism of the Holy Spirit.” I suppose you don’t believe God can work through water? Show me where it says that all things are possible with God, but giving the Holy Spirit through water? Show me where in the Bible baptism is referred to as “water baptism.” Show me where Jesus says “suffer the children, and bring them not unto me, until they are ready to make vows they will never keep, just as you have made vows you have not kept.” Show me where faith is equated with a decision for Christ.
DonS,
One more thing, as I try to get this post to be the most commented on. I do believe we can hit 200!
Reality is often different than perception. According to what you believe, you are right you are not denying your children anything, but a headache when they realize they have made a vow in bad faith at the urging of their parents when they turn 8, 9 or ten, or however old you think they have to be to make vows they can’t keep.
I posit though that your doctrine of baptism is very unbiblical, in that it fails to take into account much of what the Bible says about baptism. And even what it does take into account it badly distorts, as it tries to shove it into a paradigm that is not in alignment with Biblical teaching.
Baptism in the Bible, there is only one for the Christian, and it uses water, at least the disciples seemed to think it used water, is linked with justification, sanctification, the giving of the Holy Spirit, regeneration, and a uniting with Christ in his death and resurrection. If the Bible is correct in this, then these are the things you are denying your children when you refuse to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And this is why I think you have a very cavalier attitude towards the doctrine of baptism. You fail to see its importance, in fact you down play its importance. And it has very harmful consequences on your faith, and that of your children. If I am right, you are in great danger and so are your children. But if you are right, then no one should ever be baptized, I would not fit an adult with such a heavy yoke.
thanks C.L for your words of encouragement. Perhaps though, one day, we will see you drop the Crypto. Not sure how crypto it is anymore, when you agree with us on such things as baptismal regeneration.
God bless you.
“They had been baptised only in the name of Jesus.”
Is that why Jesus commands us in Matthew 28 to baptise in the name of the Triune God?
Jesus never commands us to do anything where he will not be present there (in it) for us.
Also, notice the order in Matthew 28, “Baptize and teach…” Baptism comes first. “Make disciples.” How? Baptize and teach about him, that’s how.
(Gal. 3:27) “For as many of you who were baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.”
Were clothed in Hos righteousness in our baptisms.
You are never going to be a better Christian than at6 the moment you were baptized…no matter how hard you try. In fact, the harder you try (to make YOURSELF a better Christian), the worse off you’ll be.
It’s like shooting yourself in the foot.
Obligatory dosclaimer:
I’m not a pastor, I’m a lawyer. THis means that my theological training is that of an amateur. It also means that my vocation leads me to look at debated issues in a different way from most people. This last is not necessarily a good thing. Our Lord had a lot to say about lawyers in the Temple; none of it good.
Nemo @150:
I dare say that infant baptism, especially when the infant dies in infancy, does have a pretty high “success rate”. I hate to try to get into the mechanics of the miracle of any miracle, because such things are by definition beyond me, but I think it has to do with the infant having little intellectual capacity to resist the Holy Spirit. This is not the same as being innocent, which infants clearly are not. It is to say that a mature adult has a very active and corrupted intellct with which to harden his heart against the Holy Spirit, and an infant doesn’t.
The Lutheran doctrine of baptism is closely connected to the Lutheran doctrine of election, as well as the rest. We all know of people who have apparently been Christians since their youth, but later have lived ungodly lives and apparently renounced the faith. My unbderstanding is that baptistic Christians believe that such people were probably never Christians in the first place. Lutheran theology, as I understand it, allows for true apostacy, based on Hebrews 4:4-6, and the parable of the sower, and probably other passages of Scripture. Whether people who fall away form Christianity are apostates or merely prodigals is hard to say. But we can at least hope that they will “remember their baptisms” and repent and return to their loving Father, even if it is only at the last moment. This has been the comfort of many grieving parents (although I realize that the basis of all Biblical theology is scriptural truth, not the number of people it comforts).
Don S:
Thanks for the explanation, and I realize that I said I wasn’t trying to set you guys up, but I do want to say something.
I wasn’t always a Lutheran; my parents got interested in Lutheran theology when I was a junior in high school. Since I was confirmed by what we call adult confirmation, I have seriously questioned whether I should remain a Lutheran on multiple occasions, and these occasions each generated a serious personal Bible study on my part. This had a lot to do with my training as an attorney, which I know you share. I don’t know if the results will satisfy the clergymen out there, because I never reached the conclusion that Lutheran doctrine was obvously the only possible correct position. I did, however, conclude that Lutheran doctrine is probably as close to understanding scripture as human beings are likely to get. Here’s why.
Lutheran doctrine starts with the default position that all scripture is not only true, but means what it says on its face, and Lutheran doctrine tries as much as possible to consider all scripture as a whole before reaching any conclusions about anything. I realizze that other theologies may try to do these things also, but I think Lutheran doctrine does it best because Lutheran doctrine deals with apparent paradoxes best.
This debate is a case in point. I honestly believe that baptistic theology is so focused on the intellectual aspects of belief that it has to ignore those scriptures that teach otherwise. By even suggesting that there is any such thing as an “age of reason” at which point a person becomes capable of repentance and faith is to go wrong. I think we agree that faith is not a product of reason. But it is pretty clear that baptists won’t baptize anyone who can’t reason out basic doctrines. Why?
I know you don’t believe everything that took place in the book of Acts is what should be going on today (if you are even a little dispensationalist, you wouldn’t), but a lot of baptistic theology does just that when it comes to baptism.
Good comments, Kerner.
Infant baptism does provide comfort for parents for grieving parents… and not grieving parents.
It gives us the assurance that God wants us to have.
God’s promises actually touch us physically.
God has acted, for our sakes, at the font (as He also does in the Supper and preached and read Word as well.)
One does not HAVE TO be baptized to be saved. But one CAN BE baptized and BE saved.
For nearly a thousand years just about every single Christian that came down the pike was baptized as an infant. There were no Christians there?
All of the Reformers (that I am aware of) were baptized as infants, and never re-baptized.
Good point about returning to our baptisms (daily, as Luther said)
It’s not a one time event that we move away from gradually. Baptism carries us, like a ship through stormy seas. It moves with us.
Since God is the One that does the baptizing, we know that we can trust in it. Those promises are as good and valid for a 3 month old as they are for a 33 year old, or a 93 year old.
When someone does not trust God, or believe, that does not invalidate the Promise that was given to them in their baptism. They are just not taking advantage of it. Will the Lord be merciful to these, the baptized, on the Last Day?
That is a question (as Kerner sates) that we cannot answer.
(cont.)
Baptist theology tends to observe that there are many adult baptisms in Acts, and only a couple vague references to baptizing entire households, and conclude from this that no infants should be baptized today. In a comment above.
Nemo pointed out Acts 8 as a time when people “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” received the Holy Spirit at a later time. There is also a passage in Acts 19:2 in which “desciples” are asked whether they have received the Holy Spirit, and reply that they have never heard of Him. They are asked about their baptisms and they reply they received John’s baptism. They are then baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus and hands are laid on them and they receive the Holy Spirit. I guess what I take from all this is that the events recorded in Acts took place before the New Testament was written. I am not surprised to hear that people were being baptized in the name of Jesus, but maybe not in the name of the Triune God. So I regard it as possible that people were not receiving the Holy Spirit because they were not being baptized in His name. But my point is that the Church in the apostolic age was not necessarily any better at understanding things correctly than in later ages. It took the early Church centuries to get issues like the nature of the Holy Trinity and the dual nature of Christ settled. We consider these things fundamental today, but a lot of people made a lot of wrong turns before those issues were settled.
I also think baptist theology focuses on the personal relationship between God and the individual Christian, and that coupled with the intellectual aspects of belief, caused baptistic theologians to reach their conclusions before considering all the scriptures that address faith and where it might come from.
Paul had a pretty good theology of baptism from the git-go. Trouble is, hardly any of the early church believed it.
Yeah, the enlightenment, modernism, rationalism and a desire to resolve all the tension sure has hoodwinked many Baptists and their Anabaptist forerunners.
I’ve always been one to let God be God and not try to wriggle in (too much) on His territory (saving sinners).
Thank you, Kerner, for your thoughtful and respectful posts. I “hang out” on this Lutheran blog because I greatly respect and appreciate Dr. Veith and I enjoy the thoughtful commenters. Many good discussions have taken place here, and I have enjoyed learning about the Lutheran faith. I have made it a personal policy never to tear down the great Lutheran faith. We Protestants are all children of the great Reformation of Martin Luther, and I deeply respect that. I want to understand Lutheranism better. Those of us within the Body of Christ should make serious efforts to understand the faith of our brethren, and healthy debate concerning theology and doctrine is a good thing. But, the enemy is outside of the Body, and our focus should be on him and our role in fulfilling the Great Commission here on earth, and not on tearing each other down.
That being said,let me clarify something about baptism as practiced by those having a baptistic doctrine. Bror above is wrong. Baptism is not a vow or a promise of anything. It is a public identification with Christ, the Body, and the Holy Spirit, Who has a role of unifying and empowering the Body by indwelling believers. I understand why you, as Lutherans, would view the concept of holding off baptism until the believer can express his/her faith and the desire to be baptized, but this is because you view baptism as a means of salvation, and the primary means of salvation for young children. But, since we don’t see baptism as fulfilling that role, it’s not cruel, from our perspective, to withhold it until the child is older. By withholding it, we are not withholding faith from our children, under our doctrine. Hopefully, this makes sense to you (although, of course, I don’t expect you to agree).
Now, it does strike me as odd that, though, especially in Bror’s world, infant baptism is by far the most important doctrine delivered in scripture, there is no clear scriptural example of infants being baptized. One would think that such a fundamental doctrine of the faith would have been clearly set forth, multiple times, particularly in the epistles.
I Corinthians 1 has interesting things to say about divisions in baptism, particularly in verses 10-17. Verse 17: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ shall not be made void”.
This is why I think, regardless of our differences concerning the difficult doctrine of baptism, it is the cross of Christ which unifies us, and which is, by far, the preeminent doctrine and message of the Gospel. And I celebrate the unity that we have in the message of the Cross.
God bless.
(cont.)
Baptistic theologians agree that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, but since many baptistic theologians don’t believe that non-reasoning people (infants, the mantally disabled) can understand well enough to believe, these baptistic theologians believe that non-reasoning people can’t have faith. Since Lutherans believe that non-reasoning people CAN have faith, Lutheran theologians consider where that faith might come from.
Bror has done a very good job of finding scriptures that state on their faces that baptism does something. Baptistic theologians sometimes respond that these scriptures must be figuative language. But there is nothing about the context to indicate that the writer is speaking figuratively. In fact, in I Peter the writer is using the waters of the great flood as an analolgy to illustrate the reality of how baptism saves us. This is pretty direct language. And that’s what it SAYS. But it doesn’t fit what I think is the preconceived construct of baptistic theologians, so they have to explain it away.
It’s late, and I don’t know if I’m saying anything new anymore, but I do want to add one thing. Nemo compared the success rate of baptism with that of the Word. But I don’t think that’s exactly right. For Lutherans, baptism is not separate from the Word. There is nothing talismanic about the water. Only when the water is combined with God’s Word is there a baptism. And, hopefully the child will have God’s Word spoken to him/her and prayed over him/her and taught to him/her regularly at as he/she grows in understanding.
I don’t know if all of this will convince any of the baptistic Christians out there. But I hope we have at least made clear the scriptural basis of our position.
Oh, I forgot something. I know of no scripture that says on its face that baptism is merely a sign of the covenant or like a stamp or that it is a public profassion of faith that already exists. Whereas Bror’s research has found many scriptures that indicate on their faces that baptism is part of the process by which we get our faith. That’s why I stayed Lutheran all those times I considered doing otherwise.
Ha, Kerner, it is late, particularly in the mid west! You must be ducking work on briefs or something
I just posted above, but let me briefly respond to your latest post. Somewhere earlier in this mess, I stated my view that faith finds a person where they are (for lack of a better term). I think a baby does have faith at some level, and the scripture you cited above at about the same point as my post is the basis for my view. The same thing for profoundly developmentally disabled people. So, we teach them where they are intellectually, and we leave the rest up to God. That’s really all we do anyway. The parable of the sower is our basis for this. Sow the seed, and the soil will receive it and respond to it however it will. Personally, I believe that everyone who hears the gospel responds to it at some level, and can have saving faith. Depending upon their human state, we fellow humans may not know their response, or what they understand, but God does.
Bror knows what he believes. I give him that. But, most of the scripture he has cited is not conclusive as to whether it is addressing water baptism or baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is not at all “figurative”. The Holy Spirit is, in essence, a manifestation of the Living Water Christ promised to the woman at the well, supplanting the earthly water which cannot permanently quench our thirst. “Believer’s baptism” is symbolic, using earthly water, of our identification with Christ and our unity in the Body because of the Holy Spirit.
Kerner, again, thank you for your comments. You have made it Lutheran doctrine clearer.
Bror @ 166.
Illustration: I had a very good reformed friend over for dinner after the afternoon church service last week. We, naturally, started speaking about baptism. I asked him what would give him comfort on his deathbed; i.e. what would assure him that all of the gospel promises had been personally applied to him despite himself? He answered, “my confession of faith”. This is the fallacy of non-Lutheran protestantism and (irony of ironies) betrays a latent Pelagianism. Such a foundation then is built on my confession. I believe the answer to my question is baptism. Sure, what we believe in our heart we should confess with out lips, but how often have we betrayed God? How often have we not repented? How can I be sure my confession was genuine? Baptism is THE instance in my life when God, despite me, applied not only the promises of future life with him, but actually gave me those blessings. I can be sure that He considers me righteous because I know, ipso facto, I was united with Christ. One of the best defenses of baptismal regeneration is Ex. 15. God said to his people in Ex.14 “Be still, and I will show you my great salvation.” The Israelites were saved by the water, despite the fact that they preferred to return to Egypt and die in their slavery. But they had to be still (silent) because God would show them salvation. He proceeded to save them in the waters of the Red Sea and drown Pharaoh and all his hosts (i.e. Satan and all our sins). They were henceforth reminded consistently by the prophets, especially when they were rebelling, that God had saved them in the Red Sea and they should therefore obey and thank Him. The NT presents (I forget where, in one of the letters to the Corinthians?) the Red Sea crossing as a prototype of our baptism. The Israelites did not choose the Red Sea crossing; their silence was commanded; the glory was all God’s (see the song of Miriam and Moses which we will all sing at the close of time – Rev. 15); God, most clearly, saved them with the waters of the Red Sea; and He reminded them consistently that He had done so to urge a sanctified life upon them.
Bror, you’ve lead no one astray, you have simply, in this case, followed the example of Christ, Paul, Moses and all the rest of them. And I thank you for that. It is the evangelical power of the gospel and should be shouted from the steeples and rooftops.
Still, for a time, Crypto-Lutheran.
Additionally, Abraham and the Israelites at the Red Sea and everywhere else were saved by faith and I find it instructive that they were saved BEFORE Moses climbed the mountain and received the Law.
CL
…and does anyone see the significance in the fact that God saved infants in the Red Sea? Remember, St. Paul applies the Red Sea crossing to the NT baptism. Amazing. That some, we assume, fell away and were lost, is simply proof of unlimited atonement and resistible Grace. Dort is burning…
CL
Ha.
I recently heard (from a Baptist minister nonetheless) that Baptists really value Baptism, hence the name.
That is a clear case of ignorance by someone who surely ought know better.
(forgive me if I’m backtracking over covered territory – I did not have time to go over all the comments made here)
‘Baptist’ was derived from the word Anabaptist’, who were clearly aginst baptism as a regenerational act of God (against infant baptisms).
I’ve always found something quite odd regarding Baptist theology.
How in Heaven’s name can they believe that God can actually be present in their hearts, yet deny that God could be present in a bowl of water accompanied by His Word of promise???
Very odd, indeed.
Don,
Comments like this drive me crazy!
“But, the enemy is outside of the Body, and our focus should be on him and our role in fulfilling the Great Commission here on earth, and not on tearing each other down.”
What we are debating here is false doctrine and it is damn serious, and I mean damn. False doctrine is nothing but a tool of the devil, lies he uses to tear down and destroy faith. He is the father of all lies. Now you may be sincere, I believe you are, but you are sincerely wrong, and have swallowed a lie of the devil. The enemy is sometimes within the gates, false prophets abound, wolves in sheeps clothing.
Bror,
You need to break out of your shell and tell us how you really feel!
We can basically divide the world into two camps (didn’t Jesus say that?).
Those who trust in what God has done, is doing, and will yet do for them…
and then those who want to have some role in it, too.
To trust in what God does for us in baptism, is to clearly remove us from having to do, say, think, or feel anything with respect to our salvation.
Believer’s baptism?
No thanks. I know where my “seriousness” when it comes to God has taken me, and where it will lead me if I let it. To hell.
This is why I am no longer a naval gazing Baptist, but a Christ focused Lutheran.
DonS,
“I think a baby does have faith at some level, and the scripture you cited above at about the same point as my post is the basis for my view. The same thing for profoundly developmentally disabled people. So, we teach them where they are intellectually, and we leave the rest up to God.”
No you don’t leave it up to God, you stand in his way, by refusing to do what he has asked you to do. You deny these believers in Christ Baptism. Who are you? Peter would not even dare stand in the way of baptizing those you had been given faith by the work of the Holy Spirit.
And why do you insist on denigrating the baptism that Christ has given us, the one in which he offers the Holy Spirit as Peter so well tells us in Acts Chapter 2:38-39, the same baptism he specifically offers to CHILDREN that day, by calling it “water” baptism, and maintianing that it does nothing, but you do do something by submitting to it.
Lets not forget, Paul actually did baptize in Corinth, he also had his entourage baptize for him there. Baptism and preaching the gospel go hand in hand. But Paul did not want people thinking they were better than others based on who baptized them, that was the issue. The doctrine of baptism was not the issue.
And Don, you may not realize it. I don’t know, but you routinely make insulting remarks. Mine may be more blunt, but you do routinely try to tear down the Lutheran faith. I have not seen you try to understand it at all here.
Tell me again, why do you believe in two baptisms, rather than one? Why do you not believe that the Holy Spirit is given in “Water” Baptism, despite the clear testimony from the disciple that the Holy Spirit is given when people are baptized with water?
I also like how you and Barry are quick to say these passages are not talking about baptism, but seem to be at a complete loss then to tell me what they are talking about. Either explain why they can’t be talking about baptism, or admit that they are. Tell me what ones do you have a problem with, and why?
Kerner,
“these baptistic theologians believe that non-reasoning people can’t have faith.”
I hope for their sakes they are wrong, as I find their reasoning leaves a lot to be desired.
One more question for Don;
‘how do you know that people who make a commitment to Christ are really serious about that commitment?’
Anyone that I have ever known that has made a commitment to Christ, never really looked too serious about it to me. They still kept right on living exactly the way they wanted to.
Jesus told us that “all men are liars”.
So when they backslide a little do they need to re-commit and be re-baptized?
How often? When would that nonsense ever end?
Don S:
Thanks for the kind words, but I also have to stick up for Bror for a minute here. I know you have found Bror’s argument to be a bit, er, intense. But there’s a reason for that. Remember what we Lutherans believe about baptism; that it is a means of grace, and a particularly important one for people who cannot intellectually understand the spoken or written Word.
For Christians to refuse to baptize their children is kind of shocking in that context. It’s something like refusing to teach your children about Jesus, but believing that God will find a way to save them regardless. What if something happens to the children before we do what (Lutherans believe) we are commanded to do to make our children disciples? Are such children lost? You can see that this is more than just an academic debate to us.
Wow, a lot happened this weekend.
Steve, does this answer your final question?
…it is not demanded of us to know the exact state of faith within, and the external hearing and profession are not sufficient for the one baptized, we are to be content that it is enough for us, the baptizers, to hear the profession of the one to be baptized, who comes to us of himself. And this for the reason that we may not administer the sacrament against our conscience, as giving it to those in whom no fruit is to be hoped for. But if they assure our conscience of their desire and profession, so that we can administer it as a sacrament that imparts grace, we are excused. If his faith is not true, let that rest with God; we have not given the sacrament as a useless thing, but with the consciousness that it is beneficial.
All this I say in order that one may not baptize recklessly, as they do who even administer it with the deliberate knowledge that it will be of no effect or benefit to the person receiving it. For therein the baptizers sin, because they knowingly use God’s sacrament and Word in vain, or at least have the consciousness that it is neither intended nor able to effect anything; which is an altogether unworthy use of the sacrament and a temptation and blasphemy of God. For that is not administering the sacrament, but making a mockery of it.
Martin Luther, speaking of non-infant baptism, sermon previously referenced and linked to.
Ok, I’m bowing out. In closing, Hebrews 6:1-13 is a passage that has greatly helped me when I get confused or too argumentative about baptism.
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2and of instruction about washings [baptism], the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.
Bror:
I cannot discuss this issue with you any more. It is not edifying to you, or to me, or to anyone else. I naturally respond emotionally when I am labeled as a “denigrator” of baptism, and a false teacher. I’m sure you can understand that. I don’t want to lash back. I understand the importance of your understanding of this doctrine to you, and this is why you respond the way you do. But, I don’t want to respond in kind.
As for your claim that I “routinely make insulting remarks”, I will admit to occasionally being a little bit sharp, or snide on occasion. And I apologize for that. It is a personality flaw that I struggle with always. But, I think, for the most part you are referring to my substantive remarks directed toward the doctrine of baptism. And I won’t apologize for those. As I’ve said, I greatly respect the Lutheran faith and its historical place in Christianity, but I’m not a Lutheran, and the reason is that I disagree with some aspects of Lutheran doctrine. What you are saying is that you can be free to tear down my faith, and, in fact, to call it false doctrine, but if I respond with an explanation of that faith or of why I disagree with a particular Lutheran doctrine, I am being insulting. That is a one-way street my friend. And that’s not fair.
Steve: You made a number of comments, let me briefly address them. @ 181: as I’ve stated previously, it’s not that God COULDN’T be in the bowl of water. Rather, it’s that, under the new covenant, we don’t believe that’s how He works. @184: we don’t believe we have some role in our salvation. That is a misconception you Lutherans seem to have. We respond to God’s message of Grace, through Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not us, but God. Now, after salvation, we enter into a relationship with Him, as the bride of Christ, and in that relationship, because of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, we are empowered to respond and to do works in His name. @ 188: It’s not for me to know. It is God who looks on the heart. I claim God’s promise that if we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness. At my moment of conversion, I was confronted by the Holy Spirit with the sins in my life, as well as the problem of Origininal Sin, and my complete unworthiness for God’s Kingdom. I responded to these promptings by confessing my status as a sinner and claiming the promise of Christ. So, as you claim the promise of Christ through baptism, I claimed the promise of Christ through confession of sins. That is for all time. He cleanses us from all unrighteousness. We all backslide from time to time. That is not an issue which puts into doubt our salvation. Rather, it damages our relationship with God. To restore that full and rich relationship, we come before Him in confession and repentance regarding the sin we have involved ourselves in as believers. But it’s not at all a salvation issue at this point. Once we are saved, we are saved.
Kerner @ 189: I understand your sticking up for Bror — no problem. I don’t mind “intense” argument — I’m a lawyer for goodness sake. I live in that world. But I do mind being labeled a false teacher or purveyor of false doctrine. That is out of line. I understand why not performing infant baptisms is a big deal to Lutherans. But please understand that we have a different understanding of the role of water baptism. We teach our children about Jesus, beginning at birth. I don’t fear the issue of a young child going to hell if he dies in his infancy. We don’t believe they are lost.
Steve @ 188: One more thing. If all men are liars, what if someone relied on their infant baptism for salvation, and then found, after death, at the seat of judgment, that their parents had lied about having had that person baptized? Maybe because of embarrassment that they had neglected so important an event? What then? Are you really relying on the act of the baptism for salvation? Or are your relying on your faith in Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross, and His atonement for your sins? I suspect the latter.
Nemo @ 190: Thank you for a pointed and relevant closing comment. May we all take it to heart. God bless.
Nemo,
Luther was just saying that adults ought to profess Christ before they are baptised, lest it’s not some sort of magic.
He is not saying anything there about infants…at all.
Martin Luther himself was baptised as an infant, as were all the other Reformers.
God baptizes. Otherwise Jesus would never have commanded us to have it done, or to do it to others. Why would He? For kicks?
For some “religious” show? he wasn’t into “religious” shows.
But He was into baptism, water batism, in which He imparts the holy Spirit and fire.
No one way street here DonS. I just want to be clear. You believe my doctrine to be false, as I believe yours to be false. So lets not pretend that by you contradicting the Lutheran doctrine of baptism you are saying anything other than it is false. Thank you for now owning up to the fact that you are snide, and sharp. Realize, I respond in kind there. Perhaps it is a personality flaw. I don’t think so. What I think is a personality flaw is turning tail and running. I think it is a personality flaw when one makes a snide comment and doesn’t have thick enough skin to take one back. I don’t take your comments near as personally as you think. What I take personally is you taking my comments more personally than I take yours. I consider us friends, though I have never met you, and figure if you can dish it you can take it. You may notice I often respond to others in a kinder tone, depending on how they go about asking for my position.
I think it is a personality flaw that one does not answer another’s questions in a debate. I think it is a personality flaw that when one has lost a debate, they hide under “that is not fair! and try to end discussion. Feel free to use snide remarks with me. But don’t turn tail and run if one or two come back.
You may not have been finding this discussion edifying. By that I take it too mean your faith is being challenged, and your BP is up. I have been finding this edifying though, and I rather like having my BP up. So I thank you for being willing to debate with me on this, it has not been the first time and may not be the last, and I see no reason why this one has to end so abruptly. And I think it is edifying for you too. I don’t see how an honest debate about what God’s word says cannot be edifying for a Christian, or for faith. Believers want to know what God’s word says, we want to be faithful to it. Debates are helpful in determining what God’s word says, they serve to strengthen or weaken our previous positions, depending on whether they are right or wrong. In either case I believe they can bring us closer to Christ.
I ask again, which verses that I cite do you think are not talking about baptism and why? It may be helpful to the debate for you to answer that. Also one thing I have learned over the past few years on this blog. There are many people who linger and watch our debates Don, I run into them here and there, and they too are edified by these debates.
Don S.,
I am relying on what Christ has done for me in my baptism. Romans 6 “Do you not know that you were baptised into a death like His, and a resurrection like His?” (paraphrased)
Otherwise, if you do not trust in a concrete action that God has done for you (baptism, Lord’s Supper), all you are left with is faith in your faith. Not faith in God.
Baptism is the means wherein God gives us faith. Can He do so apart from baptism? Of course! But He can also do it in baptism. And He does.
Steve @ 198: But again, my question. What if that baptism had not really occurred? What if you had lived your whole life thinking that you had been baptized as an infant, but it turned out that you had not?
It’s not “my faith”. It’s the faith that God has given us through the Holy Spirit. This is where Lutherans get confused about what baptistic Christians believe. Yes, if it was “my faith”, I would be in big trouble. But we pray, with the apostles: “Increas our faith” (Luke 17:5).
You actually answered my question in your last paragraph. Regardless of whether your infant baptism actually occurred, your faith has been confirmed in your own life. You can go to the judgment seat confident in the faith God has given you, by whatever means, and even if man lied to you about your own baptism.
Aargh. “increas” should obviously be “increase”.
Don,
One does not have to be baptized to be saved. (That is Lutheran doctrine)
But one can be baptized and be saved.
God commanded that we do it.
You gotta problem wit dat!!
Bror @ 197: No, I don’t believe your doctrine to be false. The term “false doctrine” has a meaning that is very serious — someone who is adding to or subtracting from the Gospel of Christ, which is well summarized in I Corinthians 15: 1-5.
Now, earlier in this thread, when I thought you were coming awfully close to a position that baptism was required for salvation, then I said if my understanding was true then your doctrine was false. But you backed off that ledge.
Doctrinal error is not necessarily false doctrine.
LOL — now I’ve admitted that I am “snide and sharp”. No, that’s not what I said, exactly. I can be snide and sharp in comments, it’s something I have to watch. But it doesn’t define who I am, thank God.
I have already answered your questions. You just don’t like the answers. Generally speaking, I think that a lot of the verses you reference actually concern the new baptism which accompanies the new covenant, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That is the one baptism reference in Ephesians 4:5.
As to who “won” or “lost” a debate, is that really the point? Yes, one of us is right and one is wrong about this particular doctrinal issue. Or, perhaps more accurately, one of us is more right than the other, as I doubt either of us has it exactly right. But, the same one of us is more right than the other no matter how well or poorly he argued the issue.
I consider you a friend as well, Bror. I appreciate your passion and your ministry, and the way you look at life in general. When I say that I really can’t continue this discussion with you, it is as much about me as it is about you. I don’t want to damage the Body by being unjudicious in my comments and discussion, and I risk that with you on this topic. That’s all. Besides, I think the issue is well set forth in the above 200 comments
God bless you, Bror.
DonS,
Lets put it this way. In a way I do think that baptism is necessary for salvation. The BOC when confronted with this issue, says baptism is necessary, but it does not say for what. Faith alone saves, but faith desires to be baptized because it trusts the promises Christ makes in baptism. One who says they have faith and refuses to be baptized, has no faith and is not saved. I will not say the same about those who have faith and are refused baptism. But God have mercy on the soul that refuses them baptism, that is a very sinful act, one that needs to be repented of. Faith in and of itself desires to be baptized, the same way love desires marriage. It is not love that possesses people to shack up. It is love that possesses two people to marry, despite the legal ramifications telling a man that marriage is beyond stupid. So it is with faith and baptism, faith desires to be baptized as much as Jesus desires to baptize. This parallel between faith and Baptism, love and marriage is brought out beautifully in Ephesians 5. Where baptism is linked to sanctification, a “washing of water with the word.”
Now, to posit that Ephesians 4 is talking about “Spirit Baptism” and has nothing to do at all with the baptism the disciples performed with water, would be to posit that there is more than one baptism for the Christian. We know that the disciples baptized with water, a cursory reading of Acts shows that. It also shows that the Spirit is given through that baptism with water. It is for this reason that Ephesians 4 cannot be talking of anything but the baptism with which the apostles baptized. That there is such a thing as “Spirit Baptism” that is divorced from water baptism is really the question. We know of one baptism for sure, and I’ll take Ephesians 4 to be referring to that baptism, especially when the next chapter illustrates that baptism so well. To do other wise would be to say that despite Ephesians 4 telling us there is one baptism, there are in fact 2.
As for false doctrine. When I error on a test, I get the answer false. And one can be guilty of false doctrine in many ways. False doctrine does not limit itself only to where the death and resurrection of our Lord is concerned. One can be guilty of false doctrine also where the law is concerned.
1 Tim. 1:3-7 (ESV)
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. [6] Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, [7] desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
1 Tim. 6:20-21 (ESV)
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” [21] for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.
Grace be with you.
Don, you have not answered my questions. It is not merely that I do not like your answers. I have asked repeatedly, for you to answer me regarding these verses in which I see baptism, and you do not, and why you do not see baptism there. You have brought up a couple verses and answered why you read them the way you do, but you have not answered to all of them. Neither have you made any answer after any of my explanations as to why these are necessarily referring to baptism. You have not even attempted to show why my interpretation of them is wrong.
Don,
I want to answer for Steve here. All men are indeed liars, but we do not therefore go suspecting that they have lied to us in every instance without very good reason. To believe that our parents have lied to us regarding whether or not we have been baptized, without very good reason, and despite the baptismal certificate, at least most of us still have, signed by our pastors, elders, parents, and God parents which if we do not have framed on our wall, is tucked into one of those baby books, along with all the pictures of our baptism taking place, would be a very grievous breaking of the fourth commandment, indeed.
However, in those instances where a person is rightly doubtful as to whether they have been baptized or not, we baptize them, if it is the second time, then it is, but they know they have been baptized. This would not be the same as to rebaptize a person who knows that they have been baptized, but doubt God’s promises took the first time.