Lutheran view of baptism

I only gave the Lutheran approach, as I was requested to do.

IMO, unbelievers are unable to do much spiritual, but I would not limit what Christian might be able to do. I DO know - from my personal past and from countless discussions with non-Lutherans in other forums - that others often DO reject mystery, tensions.... and often do subject nearly everything to their own sense of "reason" etc. But I would never hold that this is because they "cannot" do otherwise. I have no reason AT ALL to conclude that Lutherans are "able" to do something no others are (and don't understand how I conveyed such).

As I've stated, it's often a matter of degree. Some seem to employ more philosophy, some less. Some seem to employ more "logic" and some less. IMO, this often impacts their theology. I gather that from my own experience and from literally tens of thousands of discussions with Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed, Evangelicals, etc. I tried to present this way back in post 20, point 6, not to explore all the issues of epistemology (a large number of threads could be generated just by that!) but to briefly convey a foundational point to help make the Lutheran position less confusing.

In my post on epistemology (which no one replied to at the time, and which one posted he/she has no major problems with), I simply noted that Lutherans tend to more cautious of secular philosophy and "logic" than many others. I did not say it is eliminated, but there is a cautiousness about it.... and a willingness to leave questions unanswered, to not "connect the dots," to accept we are often speaking of miracles (which almost by definition defy logic and science and philosophy) and mystery (which again, almost by definition, is outside of logic, reason, science, philosophy). As my Doctrine teacher said, "God gets the last word - no matter what issues that raises or questions that leaves unanswered."

Great.

What I feel is necessary to better understand the Lutheran position on Baptism (and much else, too) is to appreciate that Lutherans are strongly monergists, and thus quite different than synergists. One who believes different than Lutherans on this point are - perhaps even necessarily - going to raise certain objections, going to be "confused."

It is NOT my intent to have a discussion on monergism here (although I'd welcome it in this forum), only to present a foundational point that Lutherans hold that certainly impacts how they view the issue here - Baptism. It seems unessential to ME that we agree on it or on other views, only HELPFUL if all realize a Lutheran perspective that impacts this. Nor do I mean to argue that monergist MUST reach the same conclusion on baptism that Lutherans do (I've shared several points, not just that one - although I put it #1 because I think it impacts things more than any other singular one).


I HOPE that helps a bit, lol......


Thanks for the conversation....


I'll try to get back to the topic here as time permits....


- Josiah



.

 

dp

 

Joe,

Concerning the snippet from the parish's website....


On the one hand, I think we CAN speak this way (indeed, Scripture itself does) See post 20 and all the quotes there and how they "speak." See John 3:5 for example.

On the other hand, there is a miracle here, there is mystery here. Lutherans do understand Baptism to not be "optional" - something parents can CHOOSE to do or not, like choosing to use disposable or cloth diapers or to breast feed or use formula. Our Baptist friends sometimes call Baptism an "ordinance" - something God mandates - and Lutherans probably agree there, thus "necessary" . But as I tried to very clearly state before, Lutherans are monergists who believe that Jesus is the Savior (thus Jesus alone does the saving) and that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of spiritual life (alone... thus self isn't). As I stated in post #2 (Point #3 ) God NEED NOT use any means at all - He can give His gifts purely by fiat (as perhaps HE did with John the Baptist still in his mother's womb), He is not impotent if no Word or Baptism or anything else (any means of grace) is not employed (as I noted, Lutherans are hesitant to tell God what He is unable to do), but He usually does use means and He often commands such. WE are bound to it, HE is not.

And as I stated before, Lutherans do NOT teach that one without baptism (or anything else for that matter) CANNOT be given the divine gifts of faith - life - justification. WE are told to do these things, but God never said He is bound to them and CANNOT act outside of them (God can likely do what He wants). Yes, Luther (in response to the Anabaptists) speaks boldly against what he concludes is a despising and rejecting of Baptism, a prohibition of it (and perhaps uses a bit of hyperbole - such was the style of the day) but the "necessary" comment is in response to the "prohibition" point of the Anabaptists. I posted (I think) a direct quote from the LCMS website that specifically states that baptism is NOT required for salvation and that the divine gift of faith - life - justification CAN exist without it (indeed without any means) Lutherans point to John the Baptist who appears to have been given faith while still in the womb, to the Thief on the Cross, to Apostles, and to all the Saints before Baptism was instituted. WE are bound to it, GOD is not.

wink

I've TRIED. I think I've mostly failed, but yeah - I'm not done yet, lol

You asked a big question when you asked me to explain the Lutheran doctrine of baptism.....

.... and to you!



- Josiah



.

 

Baptism conveys forgiveness, but forgiveness is by no means limited to baptism.

As I stated, Lutherans see baptism as A means of grace, not the only one. And that God NEED NOT use any means at all (He didn't appear to with John the Baptist still in his mother's womb). But that reality doesn't mean that Baptism thus does not convey forgiveness or that baptism is forbidden to those under the age of _____ or that Baptism is optional like whether parents use cloth diapers or disposable ones, lol.

It's always in view of the Christ. But in that light, He can give what He wants to whom He wants. My point on that was and is only this: He is not bound to any "Means of Grace" but we are.

Lutherans hold that Justification (narrow) is Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide as one inseparable united doctrine. But while the first 2 aspects are universal and in a sense objective, the third is how this is conveyed to an individual, and that is not universal. How does God give that aspect (as He did the first two)? While it is all MIRACLE.... and while Lutherans hesitate to theorize as to all the dynamics in this, He commands the application to means and seems to often use them.

Perhaps I should again define what is meant by "Means of Grace." These are means why which God conveys the blessings of His grace and mercy, His favor, the benefits of Christ (always in light of His atoning work). How is this conveyed to us, so that an individual receives the Gift of life - faith - justification? Certain means often seem involved. One Christians very often note is the presentation of the Gospel message ("the Word") - thus evangelism, missions, preachers standing on street corners shouting John 3:16, lol). "Tools in the hands of the Carpenter" Jesus once used a mud ball in His miracle of granting sight to a blind person; He used a means.... does He HAVE to? Nope, He performed this same miracle elsewhere with no mud ball at all, lol.

I think you are saying more than Lutherans would, but I don't object to that.

Lutherans accept what Scriptures state - as they do - and do the same. See what I posted in 46 to Joe.

Yes, there is a Lutheran position. And yes, it includes miracle and mystery.

Yes, it has meaning. Just as John 3:16 does, even though as you'd quickly point out, not everyone has everlasting life in heaven. But it's still absolutely true - even though the "mechanics" of all this is mystery, even though all this is a divine miracle (and like all miracles, is largely outside comprehension).

Acts 22:16, Romans 6:3-5, Galatians 3:27, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, etc. Scripture does not speak of Baptism as being worthless or meaningless. Nor do Lutherans.


I hope that helps a bit....


Thank you for the conversation...


- Josiah




.

 

I have a couple more points to make before I've addressed your request... I DO hope to "finish" from MY perspective.... and I HOPE there will be discussion continuing. Time for me is suddenly more limited than in the past, so I probably will avoid CREATING multiple stuff (but not necessarily participating!).

I'm the new kid on the block.... walking into a very well established community where everyone knows each other. I do not know the theological perspectives of any (not even Tango - we go way back, but rarely have we discussed theological stuff). I don't know who I'm responding to or what doesn't need to be said. I will in time (assuming I stay) but meanwhile, my NOTORIOUS reputation for being long winded will be solidly confirmed. I gotta say too that in my 20 years or so of posting at forums like this... the literally THOUSANDS of posts and discussions that got NOWHERE but the same (I can now perfectly predict) "talking points" ... there are forming in me two very different approaches - I both try harder and expect less, lol. BUT I keep it up... as long as my posting helps me with what I believe, and I learn from what others say.

I could not be more happy that this forum (that I think I'm party to blame for) began with a genuine and sincere question, even presented with much affirmation! The OP here gave me a very, very positive impression of how things may work HERE (as Tango said it does). I'm pleased you asked the question you did..... and IF I knew you and the community, I could have made some assumptions that would make my reply quicker if not easier.

I myself find this topic "difficult." It was entirely uncontroversal for 1500 years, but in the past 500, it has become a "hot topic" full of several "issues" some people feel VERY passionate about (whole denominations were begun around some aspect of this topic). It's become a major dividing point. But IMO, it's not a simple as perhaps some others.

When I'm "done", and IF you post "That helps" than I think it was good stewardship of time.... and gave me an opportunity to ponder all this myself. Anything more than that would be a pleasant surprise well beyond my hope.

Thanks. I'm thankful to the community here, as well.


Josiah



.

 

Thank you. I'll slowly..... eventually.... MOSTLY figure out MOST, lol....

In MY limited experience, orthodox/confessional Reformed share MUCH with orthodox/confessional Lutheran - above all, that (near obsession) with monergism. I use to listen a lot to a radio show, "The White Horse Inn" that featured Lutheran and Reformed hosts, and was impressed by the similarites and how they often complimented each other well.

On my end, I was raised Catholic. My family is all Catholic except for my older brother who attends a mega non-denom (that has no discernable theology at all), he doesn't regard himself as Catholic but I'm not sure what he DOES regard himself. My 'problems' in the RCC go back to when I was about 10. By 15 I didn't consider myself exactly, totally Catholic (I'm not sure how many do, lol). By 18, I was gone. After wandering a bit, I ended up in the Lutheran Church. I actually still have a pretty high regard for the Catholic Church and agree with the vast majority of it... but I have "issues" with the epistemology an ecclesiology, and I think the soteriology there is "muddy" where it should be clear... and there are things I don't really object to as much as I do the status and necessity of such (Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Marian dogma come to mind), none of these were reasons why I left (in fact Justification wasn't either); the ecclesiology and epistemology were the deal breakers. But again, no hard feelings - I'm very grateful for my time there, I consider Catholics my full, unseparated, equal brothers and sisters. Just wrong on some stuff, lol. We'll all be Lutherans in heaven so it's not too critical that we are on this side.

Since I started attending an LCMS parish, I've read and studied the 3 vol. set of books that are used to teach theology to pastors at the seminary, as well as 3 or 4 other LCMS doctrine books. Much of this with my pastor. And I'm studying toward becoming a Deacon and I've taken the theology class for that. There are things I struggle with (what the Confessions say about the Pope delayed my Confirmation by at least a year; there are numerous things in the Confessions that I've struggled with). There are some things I'm more passionate about (Justification/Sanctification.... Communion come to mind), frankly Baptism wouldn't be high on that list... I'm not at all sure I agree with the LCMS praxis on female pastors and I DO disagree with it (at least officially) on "fellowship" (including Communion participation). You mentioned a couple of well known LCMS men - THEY would be more likely to convey the straight "party line" (in classic Lutheran ways). I often refer folks to a couple of websites (Steadfast Lutherans for example) for better sources. But here I tried to answer the question you asked, which is what the LCMS says (not what I might) - not that there's a significant difference, I'm just not so solid and confident - and I've done so in MY language and terms since you choose to ask ME. But of course, what always attracted me most and what I've studied the most, is where Lutherans and Catholics are different, not where there is largely agreement.

Back to the task at hand.... when time permits.


Thank you!


- Josiah



.

 

Perhaps we've just phrasing all this differently....

Baptism is necessary (period?) because it is mandated (Baptists call it an ordinance - something required); the Lutheran talk of 'necessary' is because of that biblical position AND in opposition to the Anabaptists who prohibited it (and in Luther's view, despised and rejected it). I guess I could say it is "necessary" in the same sense that preaching/teaching/evangelism is. But it is "essential" to divine GIFTS (such as faith, life, justification, forgiveness, Holy Spirit) in the sense that without it, God is impotent to do anything but damn, impotent to bless? Absolutely not. As I've tried to convey, WE are bound to the Means of Grace we are commanded to administer, but God is not bound to such (or anything else, I suppose, lol). Can God give faith to one who lacks all the Means of Grace? Yup, John the Baptist in his mother's womb might actually be a recorded example of just that. Can He grant His gifts to one never baptized? As I've siad, yes - in fact we have a LOT of examples of that in the Bible - the Thief on the Cross, the Apostles, The Virgin Mary, all the OT Saints. But THAT said, that doesn't mean that ergo we should forbid all the Means of Grace from being administered OR argue that the Means of Grace are all a waste of time or that they are incapable of being used by God. Again, is Billy Graham WRONG to preach the Gospel because it seems not EVERYONE who hears it THEREFORE gains all divine gifts?

Baptism is seen by Lutheranism as A Means of Grace.

A Means of Grace is "a tool in the hands of the Carpenter" which - in and of itself in just an inert physical reality - but in the hands of the Carpenter, miracles can be done, beautiful things created. Man was made from the dust.... Jesus healed a blind man using a mud ball. God has GIFTS to GIVE us..... among them are faith, life, justification, forgiveness, the Holy Spirit. He CAN (and no doubt occasionally does) grant these by pure fiat but it seems usually He uses the tools that He has commanded us to extend.

Yes, God may use ONE among these. He may use ALL of them. Again, we are bound to the means, He is not.

There's a tension here. On the one hand, Lutherans embrace that we're dealing with a divine miracle here..... and there is much where we simply do not know all the mechanics of the HOW He does it (seems to be like that with miracles, lol). There are those who line up "parts" and insist on a chronological sequence (and there can be some Scriptures applied to that), but Lutherans seem to prefer to leave that alone. GOD DOES IT,period. And yes, Lutherans tend to see the giving of faith, of spiritual life, forgiveness, of the Holy Spirit and of Justification (narrow) as a "set" if you will - these gifts come wrapped in the same box, lol.

On the other hand, we are apt to say that repentance (in the fullest sense) is something only a believer can do. A dead atheist - with no life, no faith, no acceptance of God, no Holy Spirit, no acceptance of divine will or wisdom or Law or justice or even existence - is not going to recognize he has offended the loving/wise/holy God.... turn to that God in remorse.... turn to the Blood of the Lamb for forgiveness.... and look to the Holy Spirit for direction and a new life - all aspects of repentance. Yup, I guess that MIGHT be seen as THEREFORE coming after life, faith, justification, the Holy Spirit but that's not how Lutherans speak of it. I could do some speculating and theorizing but I'm be very unlutheran if I did, lol.

Of course repentance belongs not just to justification but also sanctification, since we continue to see even after being forgiven.

Yes. Both are means of grace. Indeed, Luther stresses that "the power" of Baptism comes from the Word

A frequent "quote" of Luther is, "Be bold where Scripture is bold and be silent where Scripture is silent" (actually, there's no evidence he ever said that, lol). There ARE things were we can be bold - and are. Jesus is the Savior. The Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life, etc. But sometimes we aren't told things.... sometimes there is silence.... sometimes a question (maybe even a good one) isn't answered. There, Lutherans are apt to leave the issue alone.... and accept what IS stated... "as is" (if you will)... even though we can't wrap our brains around that. That's what I mean by mystery. And yes, we CAN affirm that God performs miracles - even if we can't explain how. Jesus gave sight to that man using a mud ball - HOW I don't know, but he DID.

I've been TRYING to address just that.... And it would depend on what that parish means by necessary. One that declares that God cannot and does not use baptism for anything would be violating the Lutheran Confessions and we believe Scripture and Tradition. One who argues that Baptism is optional for us - similar to whether parents use cloth or disposal diapers - that would be violating the Lutheran Confessions and we believe Scripture and Tradition. If a parish argued that one must be baptized or God is impotent to give His gifts, that too would be violating the Confessions and we believe Scripture and Tradition. There are great promises attached to Baptism (see post 20, point 6 I think on that) - and that is affirmed. We try not to put things upside down or inside out or turn Gospel into Law. And there is an attempt to say what Scripture says - and leave it there.


I HOPE that helps a BIT....


Thank you for the conversation.....


- Josiah

 

Anabaptists, as I understand it, not only DID forbid baptism for those regarded as too young (known to day as the "ANTI-paedobaptism view), but they opposed and rejected and denounced the baptisms of everyone - insisting that all needed to BE baptized. I see your point, that from THEIR perspective, they weren't denouncing the baptisms of all Christians, they just held that such wasn't baptism at all and shouldn't have been allowed. But yes, they did forbid baptisms for a very large percentage (quite likely the majority) of people in Europe (most dying before the age of 8) perhaps forbidding them to be baptized.

In fact, as I understand it, that's how they got their (less than flattering) name - because in the few of all other Christians, they were RE-Baptizing (since the first was legit) but of course the Anabaptist denounce and rejected and opposed the "first one" so they were not RE-baptizing anyone, they were BAPTIZING all they could for the first time (they accepted the "baptist" part of the name, just not the"ANA" part, lol). If I'm wrong, I apologize and stand corrected. It doesn't change the Lutheran pov, however.