Lutheran view of baptism

Ok, I suppose baptism may accomplish “something.” That it’s done for a “purpose.” The question is then, what? We know it’s NOT salvation. So, yes, I guess I’m “going back on my original statement.”

 

Hi Joe,

Sorry for the great delay.... you asked a HUGE question (and not a very easy one, lol) .... and I'm pretty overwhelmed with a completely new job (and vocation) and my son (now 5 months old); I just haven't had the time to dedicate to this thread all I need to do. My apologies. Fortunately, this is a very small site and a very inactive subforum, so that helps. Anyway, I've set aside some time this morning to see if I can quickly wrap this up - as inadequate as it may be. Again, my apologies.


Thank you kindly, Joe


- Josiah




.

 

Back to the question.....

Please note, I entered 6 foundational points that IMO need to be understood/appreciated in order for the historic position to be understood. I didn't get much discussion at all on any of these points but I'm not "taking" that as they not being read and understood but on the contrary....

Here they are again:

1. Post #3. Lutherans are monergists. I led with this because this IS the singular point that most causes disagreements on Baptism. Indeed, if soteriology is fundamentally understood as what we do for God, our efforts to find God, our efforts to climb up to God, our adequately jumping through certain "hoops", then infant baptism has doing ANYTHING in this regard will be rejected. Simply put, it is difficult (if not impossible) for synergism to accept anything regarding infant baptism. The RITE may be permitted for some symbolic reason but not seen as usable by God for anything related to justification. Indeed, some synergists simply make baptism one of the many "hoops" that just be adequately jumped through - so that it becomes some good work WE do to earn justification rather than a good work GOD does to bless. It's a critical point, IMO.

2. Post #3. Lutherans accept that USUALLY God uses MEANS to grant His gifts (including faith). This too is often a matter of disagreement that can "derail" the whole discussion. Of course, we can disagree as to whether Baptism is such a means (and that can be a valid point of disagreement) but for many, faith is not a gift of God but an accomplishment of man - thus the whole point of whether God can give faith via baptism is rejected to them since God doesn't ever GIVE it at all - via anything. Understanding that Lutherans see God as able to use this.... indeed, God able to use the faith/actions of others as His means.... is a point Lutherans embrace but many who reject infant baptism (at least as doing anything) do not. This point usually gets some lively discussion but didn't here.


3. Post #15. Epistemology. People with variant views on baptism often come at with very different epistemologies. I explained that while Lutherans use Scripture as normative (we're often credited with inventing Sola Scriptura, lol) we ALSO accept Tradition in the interpretation of Scripture. So, when the words of Scripture might be understood variously, we will look to see if there is a solid, historic, catholic consensus. And of course, there is a stunning one with this topic.


4. Post #15. Praxis. I purposely grouped this with #3 because it's closely related. Lutherans do not accept that we can only do what is exampled in the Bible (so the arguments of some anabaptists - which we view as wrong anyway - are not regarded as relevant), nor do we accept that a praxis must be commanded in order to be permitted or appropriate.


5. Post #16. Mode. A bit of a side point since the question Joe asked is not about this, but I threw it in for free.


6. Post #20. Effect. This gets to the issue. I'm going to repeat it below with perhaps a bit of commentary. I'll then try to give some concluding comments.



- Josiah



.

 

Is Baptism effectual? How is it related to justification (narrow)?

Tradition:

I'm going to start by again noting Tradition. I'm doing this in REVERSE ORDER (Lutherans bring this up AFTER a discussion of Scripture) but I'm doing it first purely out of personal convenience, lol (it's shorter and easier, lol). But it should NOT be dismissed (again, see points 3 and 4 in post # 15):

Lutherans also look to Tradition (especially early tradition that appears to be universal/catholic) 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 (including very early) 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. The universal, early understanding is quite remarkable! Could everyone have been wrong in their understanding of the words of Scripture for 1500 years? Absolutely (and occasionally, Lutherans think they were) but the "burden" (if you will) seems to rest with proving that point.


- Josiah



.

 

.

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 some....

John 3:5, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 22:16, "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name."

Romans 6:3-4, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 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 Corinthians 6:11, "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Corinthians 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and were made to drink of one Spirit."

Galatians 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Ephesians 5:25-27, "Husbands love your wives, as Christ love the church and gave himself up for you, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 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."

Colossians 2:11-12, "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, 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, "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."

1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."

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.



- Josiah



.

 

Below is meant to address the issue of whether those under a certain unknown age are unable to be given faith by God....

Matthew 18:6, "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..."

Mark 10:13-15, "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, but he disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Acts 2:38-39, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call."


It should be noted that Lutherans see repenting - teaching - baptizing as a SET (so to speak) but do not impose a chronology on it - as if God must bless and act in a certain sequence. The "saints of old" (OT) believed in a Messiah yet to come.... the saints of today (NT) believe in the Savior having come... but the chronology isn't essential, God is blessing. Lutherans also understand faith as essentially reliance and trust - not as cognative understanding, thus it is not relevant to Lutherans if the receiver is has attained some unknown quantity of information or some unknown quanitity of intellectual/philosophical "understanding." Scripture says that no one can even say "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit so enabling - no one - regardless of whether such is 80 years old or 80 hours old, if such has an IQ of 800 or 80. Faith is the work of God, the gift of God. Understanding (to the extent it ever happens - and that ain't much, lol) often follows faith. Lutherans note that the 3 koine words that can mean "then" never appear in any baptism text, the word typically is "kai" which is the most general connective word of that language - it does not impose some chronology on God.

I would add (just on my own, lol) that Judaism was certainly not the individualistic mindset that we Westerners inherited from Rome (and got multiplied in the Enlightenment), Jews and Christians "worked" with a very community, family, US perspective. Thus all the "baptized with her household...." statements. This obsession of "Jesus and ME" i is overblown, IMO - and needs a major dose of balance. I even think of the last of the 10 plegues of Egypt where the first born (of ANY age, education, IQ, etc.) was literally saved from death because of the faith and obedience of the parents... THEIR faith that believed, that killed the lamb, that put the blood on the doorpost... caused God's wrath to pass over their child (regardless of this child's faith, age, education, IQ) and for God's blessings to be poured out on the family - and the people of God. WEIRD given our very modern, western, Roman uber-individualism but quite in keeping with the Jewish sense of communion, community, family, people.

And to me, the question of whether children can believe is .... misplaced, especially since no one can. The real question is: can God give faith to little children?


More follows...


- Josiah



.

 

.

Consider especially posts 87 and 87.....

Lutherans speak in much the same way. Often in the same "all inclusive" manner. And when parents loose a baby (and thus was tragically very common until quite recent times), the Church DID comfort them with these things.

Now, there are those non-Lutherans, non-traditionalists, who raise issues Scripture never do: What about the child who dies before Baptism is administered? Does EVERY baptism effect faith? Lutherans shy away from dogmatic applications of human speculations.... and especially the twisting of Gospel into Law, what is meant to comfort into something desired to terrorize. If PRESSED, I've found Lutherans will state that it is POSSIBLE that God may not use a means of grace (God is not MANDATED to do anything although He cannot be unfaithful).... and of course, since Lutherans do not accept the uber-Reformed theory of "OSAS" Lutherans would not argue "Once Baptized, Always Saved."

Rather, the emphasis in Lutheranism (as in all of traditional, historic Christianity on this) is that Baptism happens in CONTEXT..... in COMMUNITY... it is an act of the CHURCH. Parents bring their beloved little ones to Jesus - where He is, in the midst of His people, the Church. In the believe that Jesus will bless.

And the emphasis is that baptism - repentance - teaching are a "set" (if you will) and something we all do TOGETHER, as family - community - the people of God - the church. As with the Church of old, Lutherans STRESS (including in the Baptism ceremony itself) the need for repentance and teaching (and more).... and parents, God-parents, and the whole assembly together pledge to bring up this child in the Lord, teaching him diligently, bringing him regularly to God's house, etc., etc. It's a SET. It's a COMMUNITY thing. This is our brother or sister - tiny, young, but no less in need of God's love, care and blessings (and ours). And again, traditionally, Christians have not insisted that God is mandated to work IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE (or in reference to time at all, I suppose)... He jumps in where He needs/wants to - in view of everything.


I hope this helps a bit. I'll say again what I did in post 2: My objective is not to convince or convert (I am 100% sure NO ONE'S mind will be changed even a tiny bit by anything I've posted - and I'm okay with that). My ONLY hope is that perhaps the traditional perspective on this is better understood.

That's about all I can say to your question, Joe.....


- Josiah




.

 

So, how does the thief on the cross next to Jesus play into things? He wasn’t born of water and Spirit. But, Jesus indicated he would be with Him.

 

Ask Jesus.

 

Well, it shows that water baptism isn’t as “necessary” as some people propose it is, or, if it is, Jesus has the ability (right?) to make exceptions to His own standard if He chooses, I suppose.

 

I'm good with that.... I'm never too comfortable telling God what He cannot do.

Thank you for the response!!

 

Oh, I agree. I would never be good with “putting God in a box.” Just pointing out something. I’m still not quite sure, beyond showing a public commitment to God, what water baptism accomplishes. We know it’s not for salvation. Christ’s shed blood on the cross ALONE accomplished that. The Bible says Christ alone saves. “Works” CANNOT save us. Works are things WE “do.” Getting baptized, if supposedly necessary for salvation, would be a “work,” though, as it’s something WE “do.”

 

See post #87. I quoted a few Scriptures that together sure suggests that Baptism accomplishes much.... and I can't find any that suggests it accomplishes nothing. I have a hard time reading just the verses I quoted in post #87 and concluding that Baptism does nothing.

1. Kind of depends on WHO you believe does the baptism. I believe God does. The word "baptism" is always in the passive in Scripture, as in "be baptized." No one ever baptizes themselves. I was baptized within one minute of my emergency C-Section - I wasn't even conscience or breathing - so how could it be MY work?

2. No one claims that baptism - AS AN ACT - accomplishes anything spiritual, the belief is that it is a "Means of Grace" (please see Point 2, post #3). Consider the preaching/teaching/conveying of the Gospel (say a Billy Graham Crusade or a good evangelism sermon by your pastor): Is there human work(s) involved? Yup (a LOT if it's well done!). Does the movement of air in waves a human preceives as "sound" save? Of course not, ONLY Jesus saves. But can God USE that human work(s) and those sound waves as the vehicle ("Means of Grace") in order to give the gift of faith? Many believe so.

3. Lutherans do not believe that OUR works save, but we do believe that HIS works can (see my signature line, lol). But does that mean God is rendered impotent if any human work is involved? If you take your child to church... if you pray with your child.... if you sing "Jesus Loves Me" to your child.... if you bring your child to Sunday School... if you read your child an Arch Book Bible Story.... is there human work involved? Yup. Does such mean that ergo God is rendered impotent to give faith to your child? And if God does, does it mean you are your child's Savior and not Jesus? And your child GOING to church and Sunday School, listening to you sing or read or tell... does that involve word on his/her part? Yup, obviously. Does that render God impotent to give your child faith? And if you child is given faith, would it be because of the work the child did or Jesus did?


Thank you!!!!


- Josiah



.

 

If you read it, I hope it is helpful in increasing understanding.