I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame.
Posted on 06/24/2017 9:53:18 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
I will also speak of your testimonies before kings and shall not be put to shame.
Ping.
I think when the chips are down, a lot of churches that were looking down their own noses at one another will suddenly find out that gospel was living at their neighbors after all, and that they had considered mountains what the Lord barely regarded as molehills.
The most faithful churches, I believe, are found at the corner of Liberality and Holiness streets.
Yes, I said Liberality in addition to Holiness. Because God is not just a demanding Judge, He is also a supplying Savior. We don’t serve a Miser in Heaven. We have found the term “liberal” applied to things that are actually licentious, that hold sin as not simply abundantly pardonable (that is God’s true liberality), but as a valid steady state in the Christian existence.
Ping!
Amen
Youngest child in our family is the only one with two middle names. We added “Augustana” because she was baptized near this date (June 23).
“Our churches teach . . . .”
“Our churches condemn . . . .”
This pattern recurs in the Augsburg Confession. But what is the weight of this condemnation? How is it executed and applied? Our churches state, as does the living Christ, what is already in effect. They say, as part of confessing the truth, “No. That is wrong. That is false.” What attaches to speaking wrongly and falsely concerning what God says of Himself?
Example, Article II on Original Sin:
“Our churches condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, thus obscuring the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits. Pelagians argue that a person can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.”
Not exactly a good way to become popular, but then popularity in the world’s terms is not what the Church is about. Suffering under the Cross is what the Church is about, along with the life of the world to come.
It was 3:00 PM on a Saturday, the time most people are watching golf on CBS Wide World of Sports, when the *Unaltered* Augsburg Confession was first read aloud publicly. It took about two hours.
Here are a few questions for Lutherans:
1) Is Baptism necessary or not? If it’s necessary, then surely it does something. What does it do?
2) If it does nothing, then why would it be required?
3) If it does something, it must be unseen rather than just a nice ceremony, so what does it do to a soul?
4) If it does something to a soul, and one would have to believe it does something positive for a soul, then why believe in sola fide since no faith is necessary on the part of the infant being baptized?
1) Is Baptism necessary or not? If it’s necessary, then surely it does something. What does it do?
Baptism is commanded by The Great Commission. It is a tangible gift by which we grasp the Promise of His Word that the water is attached to. Hence, it is a great source of comfort to those baptized as they sojourn through this life. Because you believe God’s Word regarding Baptism, you are saved. For you cannot believe that God created the world with merely His Word and selectively not believe what He says about Baptism. Either you believe God or you don’t.
1 Peter 3:18-22 says “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
It is NOT a ritual you do for God to exhibit YOUR faith in God. It is a pledge FROM God of clean conscience to you despite your many sins that Christ has taken punishment for your sins and has paid the penalty in full.
Having said that, you cannot make Law out of Gospel. Is it possible to be saved without baptism? The thief on the cross wasn’t baptized but was going to be in paradise with Jesus on the very same day. But the source of the thief’s salvation was not whether he is baptized or not, but the faith God gave to the thief who Jesus is and what Jesus did on the cross for him. That is exactly the same faith the baptized exhibits in receiving the gift of baptism. Then the baptized has a time and place of a concrete event that he remembers of the promise by God to kill his old sinful nature and resurrect him in new life DAILY.
Luther was famous for flashing his baptismal certitude whenever tempted by the devil not to believe God’s promise.
2) If it does nothing, then why would it be required?
People pervert it and turn it into something they are doing for God to exhibit their obedience (mostly to themselves and others); mostly to favor merit in man’s eyes. God is not fooled by that.
3) If it does something, it must be unseen rather than just a nice ceremony, so what does it do to a soul?
It not only saves the soul, it also serves as a public confession as well as an anchor every day and the challenges it brings including death.
4) If it does something to a soul, and one would have to believe it does something positive for a soul, then why believe in sola fide since no faith is necessary on the part of the infant being baptized?
When the infant John the Baptist was in his mother Elizabeth’s womb, he physically responds to the mere physical presence proximity of his cousin, Jesus, who was also in his mother Mary’s womb.
If you define faith as an intellectual assent to the various propositions in the Bible, then the infant may not have that kind of “faith.” You ought to think of faith as a gift from God to all people (including infants) to believe his Promises.
For even a child believes that if he cries from hunger that a mother’s breast appears out of nowhere to feed him and satiate his hunger. The child has no understanding about what milk is, it chemical composition, its nutritional value or the physiology by which it is produced or the mechanism by which it comes out of a breast or even the psychology or morality of the woman who will feed him merely upon crying. Yet, he cries in “faith” and “belief” and he is satiated. So yes, even that child has the faith that God that requires.
Thank you.
I think you’re missing the point of my questions. Does Baptism do something or not?
You wrote: “Baptism is commanded by The Great Commission.”
Thus, we can conclude it MUST do something, right?
“It is a tangible gift by which we grasp the Promise of His Word that the water is attached to.”
Gift of what? Gift = grace does it not? Yet how can a gift of grace be given to a person without faith? No child has faith. Yet Baptism is given to children by Lutherans is it not? Also, you wrote “a tangible gift by which we grasp the Promise of His Word that the water is attached to”. That MUST mean that Baptism empowers us, enables us to do it. That too must be by grace which is a strengthening, an enabling, an empowering if you will. Thus, Baptism = grace. And grace is given even to those (children) without faith.
I wrote: “2) If it does nothing, then why would it be required?”
You wrote: “People pervert it and turn it into something they are doing for God to exhibit their obedience (mostly to themselves and others); mostly to favor merit in man’s eyes. God is not fooled by that.”
Who is perverting it really? If someone believes Baptism must be done but it doesn’t do what it does, then isn’t it that person who is perverting it? We can say Baptists (oh, the irony of that name) who don’t actually believe Baptism does much of anything unseen other than officially show someone has joined an invisible Church, miss the boat on Baptism. But what about Lutherans? Again, what does Baptism do? How does it work? What makes it work? I know WHO makes it work. But WHAT makes it work? And it is a work, just not our work.
I wrote: “3) If it does something, it must be unseen rather than just a nice ceremony, so what does it do to a soul?”
“It not only saves the soul, it also serves as a public confession as well as an anchor every day and the challenges it brings including death.”
So Baptism saves a soul even though the infant possessed no faith whatsoever? So sola fide is a complete sham? And the only what a soul can be saved is by grace. If grace is given in Baptism - where the infant has no faith whatsoever - then why is it assumed by Lutherans that grace is not given in the sacrament of matrimony? Or ordination? Or anointing of the sick? And if you’re going to say, but there are Lutherans who believe it is given in those, then why do Lutherans reject them as sacraments altogether? Why would anyone theologically reject what could be a vehicle for grace as instituted by Christ?
“You ought to think of faith as a gift from God to all people (including infants) to believe his Promises.”
But there isn’t a shred of evidence that such a gift has been given to a single infant receiving Baptism. Why “ought” I think of it in that way when it misses a basic point. Could it not be Baptism itself which - being a gift as you say - makes way for faith in the child?
Baptism was always a problem for Luther. I think we can see why it was.
Faith is also a gift from God. The universe was created from nothing by the Word of God. But God can't give faith to an infant baptized by water empowered by the Words of God? So also should baptism be with held from the mentally disabled, dementia patients surely they can't understand and have faith? Scripture indicates otherwise.
Rom 9:15
Matt 9:14; 26
“Faith is also a gift from God.”
Yes, it is. Now, what’s your proof that every infant baptized has it? What’s your proof that every infant baptized has been given the gift of faith? You have none and you can not have any.
“The universe was created from nothing by the Word of God. But God can’t give faith to an infant baptized by water empowered by the Words of God?”
Again, what’s your proof that every infant baptized has it? What’s your proof that every infant baptized has been given the gift of faith?
“So also should baptism be with held from the mentally disabled, dementia patients surely they can’t understand and have faith?”
No, what’s your proof that every “mentally disabled, dementia patient” baptized has been given the gift of faith by God? Also, if the “mentally disabled, dementia patient” is an adult (and how could that not be the case really?) why would you baptize an adult who cannot ask for baptism? If someone asks for Baptism, he logically has faith.
“Scripture indicates otherwise.”
Actually, it doesn’t - certainly not in the sense you’re couching this. Romans 9:15 says absolutely nothing about Baptism. Matt 9:14; 26 is about fasting and Jesus’ words about fasting spreading throughout the world. The passage says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Baptism of people without faith in itself. I say that knowing full well that the woman with the hemorrhage story is used as a way of explaining the point about sacraments and why Christ instituted them. The passage, however, is not about the specifics of Baptism and faith.
If you don’t understand the point of my questions, then don’t “help”.
>>Thus, we can conclude it MUST do something, right?
It saves us from damnation, like Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21
>>Gift of what?
Eph 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
So, salvation is clearly a gift, not a result of works. Grace is the reason God gives us the gift of salvation for Christ’s sake. Faith, which in itself is a gift, is reason we receive grace. Faith is given to us through the means of grace, His Word preached in all is Purity and receiving the Sacraments of Baptism and Lord’s Supper (Eucharist). As a result, Christ’s innocence is imputed to us and can spend eternity in God’s presence.
>>Yet how can a gift of grace be given to a person without faith?
That is why God himself gives us the requires faith. If the faith were not a gift from God, then it becomes an accomplishment of man. My certitude of salvation is not on solid ground, now or ever, if faith were to be my accomplishment. God is not responding to us; we are responding to Him.
>>No child has faith.
That is a simple assertion that begs the question. How do you know?
>>Yet Baptism is given to children by Lutherans is it not?
Yes because God Word say so.
>>Also, you wrote “a tangible gift by which we grasp the Promise of His Word that the water is attached to”. That MUST mean that Baptism empowers us, enables us to do it. That too must be by grace which is a strengthening, an enabling, an empowering if you will. Thus, Baptism = grace. And grace is given even to those (children) without faith.
Technically, Baptism does not equal to grace. However, it is a means of grace by which God imparts the necessary faith to receive the grace. Most importantly, grace is a nothing thing. It is God’s attitude and disposition towards sinful humans.
You are twisting yourself into a pretzel because of all the Aristotelean philosophy mediated by St. Aquinas that Rome swallowed whole. The whole language of “that MUST mean...” shifts the focus to human (hence fallen) reasoning rather than God’s plain promise. Of course, this doesn’t mean we become anti-reason. However, where God’s Word speaks clearly and plainly, even if it runs against our fallen reason, we cling to His Word.
Notice your focus on “empowers” US and “enables” US. You are subtly shifting the focus away from God action to our actions. God is always the subject and we are always the object of his actions. The next step as predictable as night follows day: God slowly moves off the center of the stage and the klieg light is on us. No doubt this is flattering and gives in to the oldest temptation of Satan..”to be like God.” We then become like the over ambitious actress telling Mr. Cecille B. Demille that we are ready for our closeup since we want the drama centering on us.
Instead, God is the center of action. We merely respond to His actions in and on us and live a life of grateful response of praising, thanking and worshipping Him while helping our neighbors as opportunities arise. Any “good” we do is God doing the good through us. Any bad we do is our fault that we need to confess and accept God’s forgiveness.
>>>>>>I wrote: “2) If it does nothing, then why would it be required?”
>>>>You wrote: “People pervert it and turn it into something they are doing for God to exhibit their obedience (mostly to themselves and others); mostly to favor merit in man’s eyes. God is not fooled by that.”
>>Who is perverting it really? If someone believes Baptism must be done but it doesn’t do what it does, then isn’t it that person who is perverting it? We can say Baptists (oh, the irony of that name) who don’t actually believe Baptism does much of anything unseen other than officially show someone has joined an invisible Church, miss the boat on Baptism.
I think they have. But we pray for errant brothers that they see the wonderful gift and assurance in the Baptismal promise.
>>But what about Lutherans? Again, what does Baptism do? How does it work? What makes it work? I know WHO makes it work. But WHAT makes it work? And it is a work, just not our work.
It is God’s work. He makes it work with the power of His Word. His spoken Word, unlike our words, is constitutive. Reality comes into being as He speaks His words. Whether it is: “Let there be light....” or “this is my body given for you...” or when he says in Titus 3:4-8, “ But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” If that is not a baptismal reference I don’t know what is.
>>So Baptism saves a soul even though the infant possessed no faith whatsoever?
How do you know an infant possesses no faith? Especially, when Jesus said in Matt 11:25-26 “At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.”
Moreover, He said in Matt 19:13-15 “Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” And he laid his hands on them and went away.”
Because children lack the kind of “faith” you seem enamored with, you turned Jesus into a liar.
>>So sola fide is a complete sham?
On the contrary, sola fide is faith in God’s Word and Promise. It is the only rock solid foundation to stake one’s soul on for eternity. All others are sinking sand.
>>And the only what a soul can be saved is by grace. If grace is given in Baptism - where the infant has no faith whatsoever - then why is it assumed by Lutherans that grace is not given in the sacrament of matrimony?
Matrimony is a gift from God and should be cherished. However, it is not a mean of grace and one doesn’t get into heavy by getting married. For even heathens get married.
>>Or ordination? Or anointing of the sick? And if you’re going to say, but there are Lutherans who believe it is given in those, then why do Lutherans reject them as sacraments altogether?
Because if everything is a Sacrament then nothing is a Sacrament. There is no testimony from God’s Word that matrimony, ordination, unction etc are a Sacrament. There is nothing in the apostolic preaching and teaching that supports it.
>>Why would anyone theologically reject what could be a vehicle for grace as instituted by Christ?
You shouldn’t. Excepting the two, Christ did not institute any of the other items.
>>>>“You ought to think of faith as a gift from God to all people (including infants) to believe his Promises.”
>>But there isn’t a shred of evidence that such a gift has been given to a single infant receiving Baptism.
Aside from mere assertion, you have no answer to Jesus’ Word that Kingdom of God belong to little children and what Hebrews 11:6 says “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God”
>>Why “ought” I think of it in that way when it misses a basic point.
You ought to think that way because God’s Word leaves us no choice. Metaphysical and philosophical speculation is fun except for where God has spoken and your soul is staked for eternity.
>Could it not be Baptism itself which - being a gift as you say - makes way for faith in the child?
Indeed.
>>Baptism was always a problem for Luther. I think we can see why it was.
Baptism is a priceless treasure to Luther and those who take God at His Word. Luther’s confidence, whether he was facing the Imperial Ban by Charles V or facing Papal Bull Ex Surge Domine, was that he was a baptized child of God.
When a man like Luther with his towering intellect, mastery of languages, dizzying knowledge of Church Fathers’ writings and breath taking accomplishments in preaching, teaching, translation, hymn writing approaches God with child-like faith and points us to God’s Word and the cross and away from himself, that is where will I stand.
Hear here!
When an Org s[prinkles a baby and calls it Baptism, it carries as much weight with that child as a more thorough bath. On the other hand, when a reasoning person is Baptised by an act of their will in submitting for Baptism, a soul is in active relationship to the Lord of Heaven, not just getting a bath.
“It saves us from damnation, like Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21”
So Baptism = grace, correct? Since only grace can save us. Yet Baptism is given to infants who have no faith. So we can be saved without grace in that one limited circumstance, correct? Thus, sola fide is not as universal as some would think, correct?
Except that’s NOT what Lutherans believe - and this thread is about what they believe is it not?
“The whole language of “that MUST mean...” shifts the focus to human (hence fallen) reasoning rather than God’s plain promise.”
So a promise from God does not mean “MUST”? What good is a promise with no guarantee? I think it is not “Rome” that “swallowed” something but Wittenberg.
Here are a few questions for Lutherans:
1) Is Baptism necessary or not? If it’s necessary, then surely it does something. What does it do?
2) If it does nothing, then why would it be required?
3) If it does something, it must be unseen rather than just a nice ceremony, so what does it do to a soul?
4) If it does something to a soul, and one would have to believe it does something positive for a soul, then why believe in sola fide since no faith is necessary on the part of the infant being baptized?
1) It’s necessary in the usual course, but it’s not ABSOLUTELY necessary. That is, a person CAN be saved without being baptized, the Bible is quite clear on that. But that doesn’t mean baptism doesn’t do what Scripture says it does.
2) N/A, see #3.
3) Every time baptism is mentioned in the Bible, it says it does something. Here’s a summary:
Cleanses you from iniquity, gives you a heart of flesh rather that of stone. Ezekiel 36:25-33
Makes you a disciple of Jesus. Matthew 28:19 (with teaching)
Forgives your sins. Acts 2:38 (With repentance)
Gives you the Holy Spirit. John 3:5, Acts 2:38.
Joins you with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Romans 6:2-5, Colossians 2:12.
Washes the Church and makes her holy. Ephesians 5:25-26
Clothes you in Christ. Galatians 3:27.
Regenerates you. Titus 3:5.
4) We believe infants can have faith - not in an intellectual assent type way, but in a trust type way. Much like they can trust their parents. Can we prove it? Not really. But that doesn’t mean baptism doesn’t do what the Bible clearly says it does. Furthermore, Paul compares baptism to circumcision as the new covenant. Circumcision was a covenant certainly for infants.
I addressed the generic question of infant baptism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.