I think most Ana baptist would find the terms "inert, ineffectual, mere ritual" to be somewhat pejorative. I don't know anyone in my almost 50'years of being a believer and my almost 40 years of being in ministry that would accept those terms. In fact, many would be highly offended and probably write the speaker of such words off with some pejorative rhetoric of their own. The question that is raised is "in terms of soteriology, is water baptism efficacious for salvation?" That's a "yes" or "no" answer that leads down another decision tree as to the purpose of baptism, as it can't be necessary and unnecessary at ththe same time.
Nothing offensive or provocative was meant (I would have hoped that would be obvious). The sole question of the post is this: Does Baptism DO anything, or to be more exactly, it is possible the God uses baptism for some purpose, to accomplish something. THAT is sole issue I attempted to address. Some regard baptism as effective, some not (I described that as ineffective, inert). Some see it as something God CAN (and often DOES) use for something, in sharp contrast to those who see that its administration is never used by God for anything. They may see it as "SIGN" or "SYMBOL" of something, but not actually involved in the attaining of that something. Do you disagree with my point? Do you hold that Anabaptist hold that God can and does use the administration of Baptism for His purposes, that it IS effectual in the accomplishment of something spiritual, that it is NOT only a sign or symbol or act of obedience but is a tool God can and does use to bestow blessings? Or do you simply dislike the TERMS I used for not being effectual of such, the term I used to indicate it is viewed as a act performed but only so? Perhaps you'd prefer "non-effectual" to "ineffectual?" So far, I've TRIED to lay the foundations (points 1-5) and then the first point of controversy (mode), and the second (if it is effectual or non-effectual). As soon as time permits, I'll get to the issues of whether it is forbidden to grant to those under a certain age (the anti-paedobaptism issue of Anabaptists) ... and then its role in soteriology in the Lutheran view. These controversal aspects rest on the points 1-5 above so that not aopreciating those foundations for Lutherans will result in not understanding the Lutheran pov in the areas where Anabaptist disagree. I was specifically asked to give the Lutheran perspective (and that includes the foundations of that).... a BIG, BIG assignment.... and I'm TRYING, my brother. Thank you for the conversation! I appreciate your participation and insights. - Josiah .
If I understand correctly, RK is referring back to the OP: The latest question would then be: if the Lutheran theology of baptism isn't 'baptismal regeneration' in the evangelical sense of 'you must be baptised to be saved', but it is, as you said, "seen as something God uses to accomplish something", then what is that 'thing' that God accomplishes? Is that thing soteriological, does it wash away my sins? Is it transformative of the believer (and if so, what is the state of the believer prior to, and after, baptism)? Is it the giving of a particular power, or the transformation of the will, mind, etc.? (By the way, please don't feel as if you have to write a Dogmatics of Lutheran baptismal theology. Most of us are well-read and will understand the answer with minimal context / minimal question asking. You're free to write one, of course, and it's great to see such effort.)
Hi Joe, As requested, I'm trying to address... 1. What specifically is the LCMS view regarding Baptism. 2. Why the LCMS view might sound "fishy" (IMO, because the foundations are not understood and/or are disagreed with) IMO, most things are "confusing" if we don't understand where it's "coming from." A big assignment but I'm trying.... Then was added also, So, as requested, I'm also trying to relate how baptism "fits" into the issue of justification, from the Lutheran perspective. That too requires some foundational work (already laid). I did give a VERY QUICK note that Lutherans don't define "baptismal regeneration" the way evidently some do (Indeed, I'd never even heard of that defintion) and that no, it is NOT meant in THAT sense. But of course, that doesn't mean there is not a different sense in which we mean it (I'm getting to that). The opening poster stated he was not Lutheran and the topic seemed both confusing and "fishy." He seems to convey that he understands none of it. And asked me to relate the Lutheran view on the topic of Baptism. Issues to address.... NOT with the hope of changing his view on baptism, but maybe making his evaluation of the Lutheran one less confusing and "fishy" LOL. You are welcome. I would not have chosen this as the opening thread for this forum (especially with such a broad mandate) BUT I'm very pleased it started with a genuine and respectful question. It's BIG but I'm trying. So far, there hasn't been a lot of interaction but that's okay, perhaps some are waiting until I'm finished. That may be yet this week (I'm sorry, I'm limited in the time I can spend here) - Josiah .
You are doing a fine job, no complaints here. You are doing a fine job! God can use a hamburger to bestow blessings. Or a rubber duck. Or a sermon. Or a cartoon strip. Or any of the hundreds of things that the church has, over the years, in various cloaks, determined to be culturally relevant and imprinted with a perceived "spiritual" meaning. Even someone that believes that the act of baptism is a sign or a symbol or an act of obedience believes that God uses the experience to bless his obedient children. Honestly, I don't know anyone that believes that baptism only gets you wet. To me, much of what has been explained thus far is, as is common to almost all theological positions/explanations, is much dancing around the maypole without getting to the root. You speak of "attaining" something, that baptism may/may not be could/could not be used to "attain" something. Or "accomplishing" something. To me, the question is "What is the "something" being attained? What is the "something" being "accomplished.?" To me, that's the root issue. It's binary. The means by which something does or does not occur has no meaning apart from the purpose or object of the attaining or accomplishment. I know people that have great faith, but their faith is meaningless because their faith is in something other than God. Means is meaningless (pardon the pun) apart from proper object. From your previous posts, it appears that Lutheranism (as described) finds that salvation is NOT dependent on water baptism. If that is the position, then to be consistent, the position has to say further that, from a position of salvation, baptism is not efficacious, or is non-effectual, or to use your term, is inert. If not required, then it is not required. It can't be "A" and "non-A" simultaneously, to quote our resident reformed theologian. If the "thing" being attained is salvation, then the answer is a resounding no, a thousand times, no. Baptism is not a means, channel, or tool used to obtain salvation. If the "thing" being attained is a milepost in one's relationship with God, or a shared history with a community of faith, or a testimony of oneness with Christ, or a "spiritual blessing in the heavenlies", or even just a really good emotion, then "yes, a thousand times yes", baptism can and is means of attaining or accomplishing something.
And to show you how frighteningly similar some people think, I drafted my response before lunch and forgot to send it, got back, sent it, then read Jeremy's...
I hold that OFTEN people are "confused" and consider something "fishy" (see the op) when considering OTHER points of view, simply because they don't understand the "roots" of that position and the epistemology used arriving at it. If all that is "skipped", we just end up to two DIFFERENT conclusions - each disagreeing with the other - and no real basis to address the "confusing" and "fishy" issues (or even "that's wrong!"). What you call "dancing around the maypole" I call addressing the basis. For example, for the synergist, any thought of a sleeping baby having faith is unthinkable - and we get the ENDLESS posts about "how can a baby choose Jesus? How can a baby do "x,y,x"? The many (VERY predictable reactions)... which aren't resolved as we speak of Baptism because it's a different issue - synergism vs. monergism. Follow me? Or, one may say, "Where are the words in the Bible that state,"baptized babies"?" (a VERY predictable and common response) and we get nowhere - an issue really unrelated to baptism, it's an issue of epistemology and norming (which I tried to address). Similiarly, as a Lutheran, I'm GOING to quote from Church Fathers, perhaps councils, note history.... and some may just dismiss that (and that's FINE, but they need to appreciate that Lutherans do not dismiss all that, follow me?). RabbiKnife, as I see it, the purpose of this thread (and forum) is not to change anyone's mind about anything - just to advance mutual understanding. The opening post has asked me to "unconfuse" him.... to convey to him the Lutheran understanding of Baptism. IF I just quoted 5 sentences from the Lutheran Catechism, I probably wouldn't achieve anything - and we'd just get all the usual "miscommunication" comments that typically happen that get us NOWHERE and would leave all just as confused as before. SOMETIMES, I've found, advancing understanding takes some work. Two points (I had hoped both had already been addressed).... 1. To be blunt and frank, Lutheran theology has little interest in being "consistent"... Lutherans, in fact, are quite cautious of arguments based on "logic" or "reason" - just as we are to dogmas founded on pop philosophy or "science" concepts. Lutherans are very comfortable with tensions, balances... In fact, we are pretty well known for the Law/Gospel distinction (that to some seems contradictory). Lutherans often refer to doctrine as "the mysteries of God" and often quote the passage that says we are "stewards of the mysteries of God." Again, basics..... People with different epistemologies making points developed from those differences.... necessarily disagreeing. 2. Just because something MAY not be effectual does not mean that it CANNOT be. Most agree that the presentation of the Gospel is a Means of Grace and potentially involved in justification. The Bible says, "My word shall not return to be void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." If Billy Graham preaches the Gospel to 10,000 at some stadium.... CAN God use that message as a "tool in the hands of the Carpenter" or "Means of Grace" through which He GIVES faith and life and justification? Lutherans would say a resounding "yes!" Does it mean that God is ergo MANDATED to do so, so that all 10,000 MUST be given faith/life/justification? No. So, I disagree.... it is NOT mandated that if a means is ineffectual in SOME cases, it is mandated that it is in ALL cases. I hope that helps.... thanks for the conversation..... I will get to the next point when time permits.... - Josiah .
Fair enough. Consistency is extremely important to me, so I'll sit relatively quietly and enjoy the read. And there is such a great disconnect over the object vs. means, that I'll just watch. Please continue. And to frighten you more, not everyone in the forum espouses the idea of "original sin".
I'm frightened not, because it is not the request (or my purpose) to convince or convert (I thought I had stated that; guess not). My objective is to TRY to answer the questions - the give the Lutheran perspective on this, and to do so in a way that makes it less confusing and "fishy." But yes, certainly, I'd welcome OTHER perspectives and to better understand them - even if none "move" on what they personally embrace. I'm CERTAIN (absolutely!) that those with different "starting points" will come to different conclusions, those who are syngerists for example or who have quite different epistemologies WILL come to different conclusions (it's unavoidable). Yup, Lutherans disagree with you on the "consistent" point. Jesus as 100% God and 100% man is inconsistent, for example, yet we hold it's true. But I don't accept that saying a Means of Grace MAY be used but not always used is "inconsistent". Lutherans work with a different approach than some others, which I TRIED to make clear in the point on epistemology. As long as you realize that, the Lutheran position won't be confusing or missed - just disagreed with. Thank you! - Josiah .
Consider, however, that TrustGzus hasn't been very active (for good reason, he'll be back around), so when he does come back, he may encounter a number of extensive posts that each raise new questions. A question was asked, and you're addressing it wonderfully, but don't lose sight of the fact that the person who asked it hasn't engaged all that deeply with you, yet. Can you expand on this? In what sense isn't your example consistent (with...)? You will certainly, for example, form an argument that makes free and extensive use of Scripture, logic, and reason, and the points you're raising are raised in the hope of generating a foundation for consistent understanding -- rightly so. Some of those answers will very likely appear paradoxical, or more properly mysterious (as in, mystery), but where is the inconsistency, or logical contradiction, or...? But also, what are the ways that baptism can be effectual? If it's easier, what is an example of baptism being effectual towards a particular end that you would provide as an example? (Does the lack of a visible 'sign' indicate that God hasn't worked in a given circumstance?) (Also since it was raised, I don't adhere to an Augustinian notion of original sin, and would even be quite alright advocating for Pelegius against the attack perpetrated against him by Augustine and Jerome, and continued to the present day through the use of certain pejoratives. I appreciate the Lutheran epistemology you've been presenting, which seems pretty standard so far.)
Maybe it simply comes down to what is meant by "inconsistent." But in point #3 in post 15, I tried to convey just a bit about how Luitherans approach the issue of source, authority, norming and epistemology in general. Obviously, all this could be MANY threads - on that alone! There are MANY approaches and understandings of such among Christians - and it IS one of the foundations which lead to very different conclusions. I tried to convey that while some put more "stock" in Tradition (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, in some ways Anglicanism) and some less ("Evangelicalism"), we all do (consciencely or not) - Lutherans more than most Protestants. And I tried to convey that while some put more "stock" in human philosophy (Catholic, for example), and some in "reason" (Reformed, for example) - these are areas where Lutherans typically put less. While Luther (early on anyway) speaks boldly of "reason", he becomes increasingly leery of attempts to subject Scripture to the reason, logic and constructs of such among humans. Lutherans are apt to say we are to accept what has been Revealed - whether or not we can wrap our (puny, limited, sinful) brains around it or not, whether or not it "makes sense" to fallen man. As my Doctrine teacher was fond of saying, "beware of over-thinking" and of "trying to make God make sense." Lutherans are fine with tensions. Lutherans are fine with mystery. Let me use an example that is less likely to be controversal..... One I used before in this thread.... MOST Christians accept that God can use the presentation of the Gospel (via the reading of Scripture, preaching, evangelism, mission work, even songs) - that sharing the Good News is a means that God can use. Now, a Lutheran would say "in order to GIVE faith - life - justification" because we are monergists, others "in order to lay before one a free choice" but we mostly agree God can use this reading, preaching, sharing, teaching, etc. So it CAN be effectual. But is it ALWAYS? I think we all agree, no. The bible says, "My Word shall not return to be void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it." Let me use the example I did. Billy Graham preaches a solid Gospel sermon to 10,000 unbelievers. BECAUSE that is effectual, some come to faith. But do all? If not all believe in response, is that because the Word is non-effective? No, we simply have a situation where something CAN be used by God to convey faith but isn't always. Again, the synergist will not accept that the Gospel can be used by God to GIVE faith since most synergists do not believe that God GIVES anything, only that He OFFERS it - an OFFER we freely choose to accept or reject, something we do entirely on our own with no divine involvement. But even for the radical synergist, there is still the possibility that God USES that means for that purpose - even if not always. Now, while I'm not taking the time to do it (lol), I would not be surprised if we could find Scripture that says that preaching DOES produce faith (a flat out statement, although maybe the word "ALWAYS" isn't there?) .... and Scriptures that indicates that it does not (although maybe the word "ALWAYS" is missing). An inconsistency? Maybe just that both can be true.... and it's okay to state both boldly (more reason to accept ALL Scripture says - without trying to "merge" them according to our sense of reason). I could use how Lutherans and Reformed disagree on OSAS as an example but that would open up a whole other can of worms, lol !!! ... and thus you'll disagree with the Lutheran position that Baptism involves forgiveness, but that IS a part of the Lutheran position - and I think I already gave the Scriptures and Tradition for that, which (to us) teach that. You give a good example of how a DIFFERENT view on a foundational issue leads you to reject a conclusion of another. Lutherans accept that sin is a kind of spiritual disease, a spiritual "defect" if you will, that simply is the "default reality" where people are lacking the Gift of faith - life - justification. We hold that the symptoms of this disease ("sins of thought, word and deed.... sins of omission and commission") - the symptoms - don't just spring out of nothing. If I shoot my neighbor, the "sin" isn't just my intentional, premediated, ACT of pointing the gun at him and pulling the trigger... no, that's the end product of a LONG line of stuff, going deep into my soul, my heart, my "DNA" as people like to say of such... something twisted and defective... it has roots. Those "roots", that "disease" is original sin. Now, some like to say that children are BORN with nothing but pure love and absolute divine holiness, void of anything unkind or selfish or un-God-like, always 'hitting the mark" of all the will of God (to miss that is the definition of sin). I have a 4 month old baby, and I think that's not true. But YES, if one believes that those under a certain age are the equal of God in terms of holiness, love, morality and service - they will reject that anything can forgive anything to one under that age. But again, that's way I need to do some foundational work here. If one "comes to the table" holding that those under the age of ____ are equal to God in nature, liove, morality, service, etc. and a Lutheran says, We believe that Scripture indicates that in baptism there is forgiveness" then the Lutheran position will be confusing and "sound fishy" as Joe put it. Follow me? Again, I don't think I was asked to convert anyone to anything, nor is that my purpose (I tried to say that early on). One who comes to the "table" with a different set of beliefs is therefore GOING to come to different conclusions (can't be helped without going back and changing those beliefs). I was only asked to share the Lutheran perspective on Baptism, and that's all I accepted to try to do. And I additionally accepted the challenge to try to make it less confusing and "fishy" to Joe (and any who choose to chime in). My Monist Hindu friend WILL NOT agree with me on this because we bring very different "stuff" to the discussion... just the way it is. BUT at the end of the day, if he better understands where I'm coming from.... and I he..... there's progress, IMHO. Follow me? Synergists tend to be Pelagian to some degree. It was declared a heresy by the Early Church in an Ecumencial Council Lutherans largely accept (a point Luther used against the Indulgence Sellers - the very point that "triggered" the Reformation and Protestantism). That's why I posted point #1. A synergist CANNOT accept the Lutheran position on Baptism..... it will confuse them, it will seem "fishy"..... and it is absolutely ASSURED that (not realizeing that somethiing more basic is at the root of this) will respond with all the old, old, so-often-repeated replies such as "How can be baby decided for Jesus? How can a baby say the "Sinner's Prayer?" How can a baby repent? How can a baby DO x, y, z that are mandated he/she does before they can have faith - life - justification?" You know - go to any discussion on Baptism - it's the same 500 pages of posts repeating the identical old arguments, never even beginning to understand each other, because they have a disagreement way back there that they (consciencely or not) "bringing to the table" that makes another position absurd. I'm sure you radically disagree with it, but I'm glad if you better understand it. It will make almost everything I post at this site MUCH easier to understand. Thank you for the conversation... - Josiah
Do you think non Lutherans are unable to be or are not comfortable with either tension or mystery? Do you believe that a systematic theology that invoke both reason and logic is a priori antithetical to either tension or mystery? Is this an assumption or experiencially based?
(Please excuse that I've truncated some quotes to fit within the 10,000 character limit.) Non-Lutherans are fine with tension and mystery as well, but going back to my question, what about the Lutheran position can entail inconsistency? In keeping with your example, I don't see an inconsistency in the hypostatic union, and I was asking what you see that you think it's a good example of inconsistency? Would mystery be a better word, or ontological difficulty, or...? To be clear, there's nothing controversial about the current discussion surrounding baptism -- that is the topic of the thread, after all. Bringing in a different example for illumination by analogy is fine, but then we need to ask what that analogy refers to actually as far as baptism is concerned. So, with your example in mind, God can use Billy Graham's preaching to bring some to faith, and God can use baptism to...? Bring some to even greater faith? To wash away sins? To bestow a gift of the spirit? To forgive? To...? In other words, if we accept that baptism can be effectual, to what end is it effectual? Alright, and when you mention inconsistency you would be referring - at least in part - to the inconsistency introduced when affirming that God can use baptism for forgiveness, but doesn't always (just like God can use Billy Graham's preaching, but doesn't always)? My question then becomes: assuming a Lutheran position that challenges the notion of being 'fine with inconsistencies', would this not be an example where Lutheran theology has simply thrown its arms in the air? Can you expand on when baptism would involve forgiveness, and when it wouldn't (or is this simply an acknowledgement of Acts 2.38, and other scripture involving baptism where forgiveness isn't mentioned)? I would ask why it involves forgiveness sometimes, but not others, although I suspect you'd appeal to God being God and incomprehensible short of His revelation. I do and am generally concerned that it's easy to go off on a tangent. I don't hold to the Augustinian doctrine, and probably not the Lutheran doctrine from your description, but that doesn't mean that I think anyone is innocent, or morally perfect, or unaffected (or unaffectable) by sin, etc. Different perspectives in Christian theology can lead to the same conclusion, even if the path to get there is unrecognisable to one side or another. Yes, Pelegius was the victim of theological bickering, mischaracterization, and character assassination -- welcome to the early centuries. But I haven't made any of those old, oft-repeated arguments That's probably because I didn't realise that synergism and monergism ought to be considered dichotomously. This raises another question for me: if twelve babies are baptised, and baptism can be effectual for forgiveness but not always, then by what means would a Lutheran parent know that their baby was forgiven or not by means of baptism? Excellent, and I can't say I radically disagree with anything yet (I'm not much for 'radical' anything, to be honest).
Josiah, I’ve been skimming. I’m on vacation on the road with limited time to read the forum and needing to prepare a teaching from the epistle for James for Sunday evening and prepare another presentation for something else this Sunday. So I asked the question at a bad time for myself. However, RabbiKnife (RK) and Athanasius are asking great questions and I’ve known both of them for years and both of them seem to process information very similarly to me (even though on some issues we are in different camps - I’m the resident Reformed member RK mentioned earlier). So they are moving it more or less in the same direction I likely would. My local LCMS has the following statement on their beliefs page.... Holy Baptism is the combination of water with God's Word. Baptism is necessary for salvation because by it, God's grace is offered. Children also may be baptized because they too are in need of God's grace and forgiveness. I see you like my use of fishy. Thanks for all your effort in this thread! Grace & peace to you, Brother. Joe
I understand that, and I accept fully that giving the Lutheran view is exactly what you've been doing. That doesn't preclude inquiring minds from wanting to know more, as it does help me to understand more fully the "Lutheran perspective" in context. So, if I could, I would like to know... 1.Do you (or Lutherans in general) think non Lutherans are unable to be or are not comfortable with either tension or mystery? 2. Do you (or Lutherans in general) believe that a systematic theology that invoke both reason and logic is a priori antithetical to either tension or mystery? 3. Is the response to questions 1 and/or 2 an assumption or experientially based?
I understood the point that theology needs to be consistent and logical. As I TRIED to express above in the point on epistemology and again in a later post, Lutherans place much emphasis on the words of Scripture, and under that, the historic, ecumenical consensus in understand that (if such exists). Luther, trained in a theological construct that placed GREAT emphasis on logic, reason, philosophy, etc., expresses that early on but slowly became quite cautious of such and more embracing of what Lutherans refer to as "mystery." Lutherans are just fine with tensions that may SEEM inconsistent, fine leaving the dots unconnected, fine leaving some questions alone. Yes, "mystery" tends to be how this is understood in Lutheranism. I don't know the community here, so I conclude I need to speak generally. I suspected there would be at least one who holds to anti-Paedobaptism and at least one who holds to the necessity of full immersion. And I suspected that some would find the Lutheran position "confusing" and "fishy" (as the op put it) because they might disagree with Lutherans on our strong monergism in Justification and/or our epistemology, etc (the "foundations" as I put it). Some seem to have indicated that they are not in agreement with all the points I've raised so far. Again, I know the theological position (or even the church affiliation) of any here (that includes my friend, Tango). I realize you all know each other, and that's an advantage I don't share. See post #20 (Point #6 ). That post is intended to convey that Baptism is a Means of Grace and certainly can be efficious. Yes, Lutherans do accept that Baptism may be associated with forgiveness, the giving of faith and life, and justification. No one replied to post #20 (Point 6).... Again, I don't accept that is an inconsistency, as was charged. It MIGHT be if I shared that baptism ALWAYS does 'x' but NEVER does "x" but that's not what I posted. It was stated to me that that's inconsistent, but I disagreed. No, I can't. At least in any definitive way. God does what God does. He uses means but He is not bound to such. God can forgive or give faith or save entirely by fiat, entirely immediately (Lutherans hesitate to tell God what is in unable to do in accord with His will). You are correct in picking up on an issue, one I'd accept exists, and I tried to address it before. Again, allow me to switch to a less cpntroversal Means of Grace.... Bob (an unbeliever) goes to a Billy Graham event and hears the Gospel - fully and clearly - and seems to "get it." I think there are Scripures that teach that ergo we all can be assured that faith/life/justification results (John 20:31, 2 Timothy 1:5, Romans 1:16, Romans 10:17, etc.) but there is a tension, because this is not always the case. Similarly, Lutherans would refer to the things I noted in point # (Post #20 ) as Gospel to assure parents that God has used this means. But we might also bring Law to parents who do not do as they pledged to God to do, to raise this child "in the Lord" and to teach this child diligently and to bring him regularly to God's house. Is this an "inconsistency"? I don't think so, although I admit that I cannot in some absolute, objective way, insist that my 4 month old son Baptized son HAS the divine gifts of spiritual life, saving faith and thus justiification in Christ. I'm holding to the promises quoted in the post above.... and doing as I pledged to do..... This is exactly the way Scripture speaks, the way the church speaks and the way Lutherans do. Again, "basics" come into play. Lutherans are monergist..... we understand that Jesus is the Savior and thus does all the saving (not the receiver), we understand the the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of life (thus dead atheists aren't). his is in keeping with classic, orthodox theology (and the Council of Orange).... why SOME receive this and SOME don't is an issue that Lutherans (and Catholics and Orthodox) simply leave alone, but is it a reality we acknowledge. Is it because God's love embraces only some (as Calvin argued), no, that contradicts Scripture. Is it because Jesus died for only a few? No, that contradicts Scripture. Is it because Jesus only OFFERS salvation, the Holy Spirit only OFFERS life and all equally have the free choice void of any divine involvement (as Pelagius and Arminius, etc. would argue; some synergists today)? No, that contradicts Scripture. So, we just can't answer that question (valid as it is). The reality, however, I admit, is that while the Means of Grace are effectual, the result of them is not always life/faith/justification ("My Word shall not return to be void but shall accomplish all for which I sent it"). We are dealing with divine MIRACLE here (as conversion is, as life is, as faith is, as justification is) and there is MYSTERY here. Scripture (and the church) has presented much as certainties - and I think we can do the same. But there is mystery here. I think Lutherans would be apt to address this individually, and in Law/Gospel ways. The parent who says, "Grandma baptized the kid over the sink in the laundry room - so I don't talk to him about Christ, no need to raise him in the Lord, no need for church or anything.... if he grows up to deny Christ and shoot the Pope, won't matter, he was baptized." I'd tend to approach him that he's abusing things. Then again, the 5 year old Baptized child raised in the Lord dies during Sunday School, I'd tend to comfort. Again, I think Scripture speaks this way (note again the Scriptures and quotes I offered in post # , they often ARE quite sweeping) but yes, all this is ultimately God's work and there is MYSTERY there. Again, see the references in post #20 (Point 6). I will expand on such later. Lutherans accept all such "as is." MY impression of the op was that the Lutheran position to this poster seemed confusing and fishy. Thank you for the conversation - Josiah .