Lutheran view of baptism

Thanks, Joe!!!

I appreciate the question..... and the opportunity it gives for some mutual advancement in understanding. Please know, my "objective" is never to convince or convert (or "win") - I lack the ego for that - but if I (or even others) learn something, then I hold it may be good stewardship of time....

The issue of Baptism is BROAD and so the many aspects of it need to be addressed. And there are foundations (if we "start" from different placed, we tend to end up in different places). And those need to brought to the discussion.

I just changed jobs on the first of this month, now in a ENTIRELY DIFFERENT vocation, and I'm pretty consumed learning new things - so I don't have the nice blocks of time to spend on discussion forums. So I need to break this down into smaller chunks and I'll probably edit posts a lot as I can go back and expand or clarify. I'm simply saying give me time. And remember too, I'm not the LCMS, I'm one bloat. I can give you MY understanding (even at times, MY view which I at times may admit isn't fully in line with the LCMS) but I'm not Rod Rosenbladt or Paul Meier, lol. Understood?

Discussion forums, I've found, are given to short "sound bits" (especially clever ones). Discussion forums of this nature seem NOT given to complex issues. Lots of times I WANT to discuss those.... but I find the forum usually inapprorpiate for such.... and we humans seem to have short attention spans, lol. I am often accused of many things (often justly) and one is that I'm too long winded. Well... to ME.... the topics at times are just not given to short, clever sound bits. But I ask for your forgiveness in advance on this point.... I'm CERTAIN I'll need it.

This is not the topic I would have lead with BUT I'm pleased greatly we're starting this forum with a genuine, sincere question.

With all those disclaimers, lol....


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

Point One

I can't stress enough that Lutherans are "monergists."

Lutheranism was "born" out of Luther's great biblical, theological and especially pastoral concern over what the Indulgence sellers were preaching about justification... He felt that their sermons about how what WE do (specifically, buying indulgences) is what justifies us was NOT biblical and NOT Catholic (big "C") - it was a violation of the Council of Orange and was essentially a form of Pelagianism. At first, it was not Indulgences (or even Purgatory) that concerned him (that came pretty fast, however, lol) but the pelagianism and gross synergism... that souls were being terrified and directed AWAY from the Cross and to the mirror, away from what Christ did to what we do.

THAT issue would continue to be the centerpiece of the Lutheran Reformation. Yes, within a couple of years, there were a number of "issues" on the table (Baptism NOT being one of them)... and I think a solid argument could be made that the biggest real division was over ecclesiology, but BOTH 'sides' kept justification at the forefront, and of course eventually, at Trent, it was THIS issue which the RCC made the centerpiece of the division. But all along, remember - Luther was bold in confidence that he was actually upholding the Catholic position, protecting the Catholic view.... and that Catholicism simply went astray on "the chief article of faith."

For Luther (and Lutherans), this is central and key. In terms of Justification (narrow) - Jesus is the Savior (and thus Jesus does it, gives it) and the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life (and thus the Holy Spirit does it, gives it). Monergistic. ANYTHING that looks, smells or even implies synergism (in this topic) gets a pretty bold and negative reaction (maybe 95 Thesis posted on your church door). In this way, I think Lutheranism and conversative, traditional, confessional Reformed theology are pretty much on "the same page." Since both of us consider this "the chief article" and both are pretty passionate on this, we are close brothers (maybe even twins, just not identical twins, lol).

Lutherans view almost everything through this "lens" and truth. Lutheran theology is solidly "arrow down", how God is the active one, God is the giver, God is the one who blessed - out of His unconditional love, His endless grace, His boundless mercy. The question is just not asked, "What does the dead atheist do to cause God to.......?" Or "how does the Dead Atheist contribute to......?" Those kinds of questions (in this topic of Justification) just aren't on our "radar".... and when others raise them, we kind of go "tilt" - we just don't even know how to take that.

I've never brought up this topic with Anabaptists (I've found it to be unfruitful) but I have - at times - been drawn into it by things Anti-Peadobaptists at times post. But in many ways, it is an impossible discussion because we start from different points and look at this from different perspectives. For Lutherans, NOTHING in justification is about what we bring to the table, NOTHING to do with what the receiver must first do or deserve or merit or be able to accomplish. For Lutherans, that ANY has faith is a PURE divine miracle and free gift. We see no reason at all why God would be rendered impotent by a baby (although we might by some self-confident dude with 5 Ph.D.'s and an IQ of 200) - indeed, Jesus seems to praise the faith of babies. We simply view everything in terms of Justification from a very sharp focus of monergism. And that includes Baptism.




Point Two

Lutherans (like Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and most Reformed) affirm that God USUALLY does His work "via means." He doesn't HAVE to (always seems silly to tell God what He CANNOT do), but He usually does. This includes Justification. Most faith communities call these, "The MEANS OF GRACE." To stress, no one claims God HAS to use these (John the Baptist came to faith in the womb before he was born, probably "immediately" - without any means), but He usually does. And typically, the ministry He calls us to do involves these, the application of these.

What exactly is and is not a "Means of Grace" is a question Lutherans like to avoid - simply because there's not a nice list of these in Scripture (or even in Tradition - more on that later). There seems to be pretty catholic agreement that the Gospel (the presentation of such) is one such means. Scripture is pretty clear that God uses this ("my word shall not return to me void but SHALL ACCOMPLISH ALL FOR WHICH I SENT IT). Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans (and beyond) would include the Sacraments here. Some would even include prayer, loving service, moral "light shining in the darkness" as means of grace. My parents tell me that they sang "Jesus songs" to me when I was still in the womb and clearly they understood that as something God might use for His purposes (relevant perhaps because it was a very problematic pregnancy). Again, MUST God use any at all? Nope. Does He usually? It seems so.

My Lutheran teachers have all calls these "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." (Assuming Jesus was a carpenter, lol). TOOLS. In an of themselves, impotent and inert - very earthly. But in the hands of God - able to be used to accomplish what He desires. I think of Jesus performing a miracle of sight by using a mud ball, lol. Catholics understand this whole issue similarly.

Now.... where it gets "tricky".... is a practical consideration: Does the application of a "Means of Grace" MANDATE that God uses it to give and/or strengthen faith? To grant justification? To bless? Is it possible that Billy Graham preaches the IDENTICAL SAME WORDS to ten thousand people - and some (eventually) come to faith via the Means and some don't? Does this mean the Means is ineffectual? Does this mean Billy Graham was wrong to preach since there's no MANDATE that God MUST therefore bless the receiver via that sermon? Are WE bound to apply the Means even if God is not to use them? Ah... we'll get to that.... much later.... there's a LOT to consider before we get there.


Gotta run


Thank you!


- Josiah



.

 

So, what is “baptismal regeneration?”

 

Meaning what? That the act of baptism is the supernatural means of being a conduit to salvation and if it isn’t done one is lost? That the act of baptism itself is what provides salvation (Jesus’ death on the cross ISN’T “really” what saved us, it’s baptism that does?) Or is it that the act of baptism itself doesn’t save us but being obedient in doing it IS what “saves” us?

 

I disagree..... And btw, I know of no one (certainly not any Lutheran) who would argue that one not baptized is ergo not saved.

The term USUALLY refers to those who embrace that Baptism is a "Means of Grace" which God MAY or that God DOES use to grant the free gift of faith. It's certainly not the only means, however.... nor need God use any means. I'll get to this point, but there are a LOT of other issues related to Baptism, and a LOT of "groundwork" that needs to be shared before the Lutheran perspective can begun to be understood.

 

Baptism, per se, saves no one (just as preaching saves no one). Jesus is the Savior. Jesus does the saving. Now, MAY Jesus use means in that? Some say "yes."

 

Never heard of that view, thank you. I don't think the Church of Christ or Campbellite either one consider themselves Lutheran or that Lutherans so regard them.

Good to know; news to me. The thread here, though, as I understand it, was about the Lutheran position. I'll TRY my best.... so far, I have one post on that (#3). I'll put up additional posts as time permits.

The Large Catechism was written by Luther to Lutheran pastors (not intended to be Confessional but yes, it did become so). Luther DOES have a style of teaching and certainly a style when he's thinking of his opponents. And he, at times, states things a bit, well, over-the-top or with a bit of hyperbole. We often need to keep ALL he says on something in balance. I suspect Luther was directing this to the emerging Anabaptist movement and was very critical of their "forbidding" and "despising" of Baptism, Luther compares them to the Pharisees who despised the rite of John the Baptist. I suspect he's thinking of them here. When speaking of what Luther deemed opponents, well, he could be quite polemic. I was taught to realize this - not only when reading Luther but also the Lutheran Confessions.

I can tell you that all my Lutheran teachers and every Lutheran book I've read on Lutheran doctrine are all in 100% agreement that lacking baptism does NOT mean lacking faith. In fact, the opposite point is always made. All the OT saints - none were baptized. The Thief on the Cross was never baptized. John the Baptist was given faith while still in the womb and likely was never baptized. It would seen that at least 11 of the 12 Apostles had faith long before Jesus instituted Baptism. In the current LCMS "Explanation of the Catechism" , we find point 251 states, "It is unbelief alone that condemns." It gives 2 Scriptures: Mark 16:16 to show that only unbelief damns, and Luke 23:39-43 which is the example of the unbaptized thief on the Cross being saved.

If you wish to dismiss my opinion here or to read more, you might try https://steadfastlutherans.org/2012/10/qa-the-necessity-of-holy-baptism/


I hope this helps..... I'll get to my second post on this when time permits.... forgive me.


Blessings!


- Josiah


.

 

See post 3 for the first two points This post continues my response to the question directed to me in the op. There will be more posts and points in future posts.


Point Three:

Discussions often get "bogged down" with variant epistemologies (what is the SOURCE and/or NORM for one's position). It's often a reason people "talk past" each other. So I need to address this before we proceed....

Luther coined the term "Sola Scriptura" but the reality is, there are countless understandings and definitions of it. Luther meant this PRIMARILY as the final canon in the norming of deputed doctrines (and sometimes practices). Three things are needed: 1) ALL "at that table" accept full accountability - accepting their pov could be wrong, 2) A canon that all "sides" accept as a reliable standard or rule (and the more objective, the better), 3) An arbitration that all will submit to. Luther meant "Sola Scriptura" primarily in this second aspect; it is the objective rule ("straight edge") or canon ("Measuring stick") or norm (plumbline, what something must be aligned with) in the process of determining correctness. Positions (especially doctrines in dispute) are to be "held up" to Scripture as the final norm. While the word "sola" (only or alone) is used, actually Luther accepted other things too but all UNDER Scripture (some argue that a BETTER title would have been "prima scriptura" but what is is).

SOMETIMES there is a second aspect, that Scripture is not only the norma normans ("the norm that norms") or canon, but also the SOURCE of doctrine. For most Protestants, this seems to be THE meaning but for Lutherans, this is a secondary point (sometimes, not a part at all). Lutherans tend to understand "Sola Scriptura" every much like the written Law in the "Rule of Law." But again, the idea that therefore it's also the SOURCE is found in Lutheranism.

And it should be noted that what is NOT stated is often as normative as what IS stated. Luther is credited with saying, "Be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent - and both are equally important!" (There's zero evidence he ever said that, but it is quite in line with what Luther held). Lutherans might ask, "Where does God say THAT?"

But the point I need to make is this isn't as simple in Lutheranism as some like to make it (or as it might be among others). Lutherans bring a number of things to the "table", not JUST the Bible. The Bible foremost (absolutely), the Bible above everything else, but other secondary things. Because Lutherans hold that the Scriptures are not the personal, private possession of any one person or denomination (God gave it to ALL His children!) and the "job" of interpreting and applying it is not the task of any individual person or denomination (thus the frequent mention of Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers..... the great interest and study of church history). When discussing the WORDS on the page of Holy Scripture, Lutheran will ask "How has this been understood?" They will look to see if there is an ancient, historic, ecumenical consensus (and perhaps even a declaration of such in an Ecumenical Council). The WORDS on the page are the canon and are primary, but Lutherans often will look to the whole church for insight into how it is to be understood and applied. Thus, while Scripture is the canon, Tradition does play a role (even if secondary). Tradition (and the Councils) CAN be wrong (a point Luther made often) and thus is UNDER Scripture, but he did point a lot to the Councils, Fathers, etc. When Luther rebuked the RCC over the theology in selling Indulgences, he pointed primarily to the Council of Orange and the repudiation of Pelagianism.

Thus, when Lutheran look to Baptism, we will look first of all to the WORDS in the Bible - noting what IS stated and what is NOT stated. AND, under that, we will look to how Christians understand and apply that - in practice giving more importance to those closest to the time of Jesus (the earlier the writing, the more weight it tends to be given in practice). Side point: Not only do Lutherans give more "weight" to Tradition than most Protestants, we give less "weight" to "reason"or "logic" (especially than do some Reformed Christians), hesitant to "connect the dots" or submit Scripture to our reason, philosophy, etc. We at times come to the "table" with variant epistemologies.

Some anti-paedobaptist not only have a different view of justification (perhaps being synergists rather than monergists - see post # 3) but also have a different epistemology (making this discussion VERY difficult!). They may dismiss Tradition entirely, often holding that each individual person is led by the Spirit and each individual uniquely has the "task" of interpreting Scripture, and hold it's entirely irrelevant if their pov is brand new. I'm going to quote a number of Church Fathers and note church history in later posts..... some will dismiss all that entirely whereas Lutherans consider such relevant, even important.



Point Four (Praxis)

Lutherans usually agree that praxis (practice) is also accountable (some include it in "Sola Scriptura").

Some (particularly some coming out Reformed roots) take the view that a practice is FORBIDDEN unless the Bible clearly authorizes it and/or gives a positive example of such being done. Others (including Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican) take quite the opposite view, that a practice is permitted unless it is clearly forbidden by the words of Scripture or illustrated in a negative way as something to not do.

Lutherans lean toward the "permitted" view, but not absolutely. The TEACHINGS of the Bible can give insights that might encourage or discourage certain practices. And they often look again to Tradition to see what the universal, historic, ecumenical example is (as long as it is not forbidden or Teachings seem to make it quite problematic).

Lutherans would point out that if we adhere to be rubric of "all is forbidden unless specifically authorized" then the VAST majority of what Christians do in Sunday worship would be forbidden (including worshipping on Sunday). And I'd add, we couldn't be posting on the internet!

But we see this "tension" among Christians..... The "FORBIDDEN" unless the bible CLEARLY authorizes view on one side, and the "ALLOWED unless the Bible clearly states otherwise" view on the other. Lutherans are neither absolutely, but lean a lot on the "allowed" side. People bring their views on this WITH THEM (examined or not, conscience or not) as we come to discuss this issue. To understand the Lutheran view, we need to be aware of how Lutherans approach this.


I hope this helps.....

I'll post additionally to the request of the op as time permits....


- Josiah



.

 

Point Five (Mode)


Lutherans have no mandate regarding HOW to apply the water in Baptism or regarding the QUANTITY of the water or anything regarding the QUALITY of the water (if it need be "holy" for example). All these are unstated. All these issues are regarded as "adiaphora" (matters about which there is no mandate or dogma). Lutherans don't insist HOW MUCH water must be involved anymore than we insist HOW MUCH bread and wine must be consumed in Communion or HOW it must be distributed. The custom is typically pouring or sprinkling, but this is only a matter of custom and not teaching or mandate. Luther PERSONALLY preferred dipping almost entirely (often the Eastern Orthodox practice) and often says so, but this PERSONAL advise of Luther was never embraced by Lutheranism (and rarely practiced).

Lutherans disagree with the Anabaptists that the word "baptize" MUST mean and EXCLUSIVELY mean full immersion. It CAN have that meaning but not necessarily. We'd note many Scriptures, but just a very small example would be Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4 and many more. Some would note Ezekiel 36:25-27 which from the earliest church was seen as a "type" fulfilled in Baptism (and note the point of sprinkling and the coming of the Holy Spirit); a verse used in the Early Church. I'm no expert in koine Greek ... and there are MANY resources on the web if one wishes to read all the arguments here, but Lutherans are of the view that the TITLE here does not mandate full immersion. And we see nothing that suggests that other modes of application and quantities of water are forbidden (again, what is NOT said is often considered).

Lutherans tend to look to Tradition for help here, to see the universal, historic, ecumenical CONSENSUS of God's people. The Didache, dated to the first century by most modern scholars is of enormous value because in it we see a first-century catechism for catechumens which was most likely penned before all of the books of the New Testament were even written. And what do we find concerning baptism? "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living [“running”] water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1).

St. Hippolytus (A.D. 215) is unclear as to which manner of baptism he prefers. He appears to recommend immersion but makes it clear that immersion is not essential to the sacrament when he says: "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available." (The Apostolic Tradition).

St. Cornelius (A.D. 251) writes in very plain terms, in his Letter to Fabius of Antioch: "As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.”

Tertullian (A.D. 205), mentions “sprinkling” as a valid form for baptism, even though he evidently (from his writing) preferred immersion: "There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible." (On Baptism).

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."

I hope that helps.....

More points will follow in later posts as time permits....

- Josiah




.

 

Thanks. I wouldn't have suggested STARTING this forum with such a complex issue, but I'm GLAD it began with a respectful and interesting question..... It takes a lot of groundwork, however.... I just HOPE it generates some conversation, otherwise this new forum (and theological conversations) may not be a good "fit" for this community (or maybe just this topic).

The next couple of points will be more, um, pointed, lol (and maybe interesting?). It's just posts 1-4 need to be understood in order for what follows to make any sense at all. IMO, there is LOTS of "talking past" each other on this (and SO much of theology) because we "come to the table" with very different stuff; the reason for the disagreement is actually more fundamental.

I'll TRY to finish up my "answer" in the next day or two.... I appreciate the question and the opportunity to reply! We'll see if all this is something the community here desires to discuss.

Thanks for the kind welcome!


- Josiah

 

Point Six

Is Baptism simply an inert rite? A ritual act that accomplishes nothing, that God never uses for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that it actually can accomplish something, that God can use it for something?

I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate the first. But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. Let's look at those (hopefully the program here will bring them up for you to read)...

Acts 22:16
Acts 23:8
Romans 6:3-4
1 Corinthians 6:11
1 Corinthians 12:13
Galatians 3:26-27
Ephesians 5:25-27
Colossians 2:11-12
Titus 3:5
1 Peter 3:18-22

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication. And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual.

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.



Lutherans of course also look to Tradition (especially early tradition) to see the witness of Christians. Indeed, we find none who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, but great things are ascribed to it. Below is just a tiny sample....

The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."

There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... and nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating an inward decision." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something.


Thank you!

I will get to the next point ASAP....

- Josiah



.