"Confessing the Faith with the Augsburg Confessors" (Sermon on Psalm 119:46)

“Had you made a single point, your claim could have theoretical plausibility.”

I made many points. You simply reported to insults and pejoratives.

“You can question whatever you want. You make no effort at defining how you understand terms like faith and grace and where you get your understanding of those terms from.”

You need definitions of faith and grace in this situation? Get real.

“You just assume your presuppositions and private definitions are authoritative.”

And Luther and Lutherans don’t have presuppositions and private definitions which they’ve puffed up into being “authoritative”?

“Hence, you are impervious to dialog.”

No, I just asked questions that you cannot answer.

“Besides, you haven’t the foggiest notion of Lutheran presuppositions about what God reveals in Scripture and how reason aides in understanding of Scripture when used properly: specifically, reason used ministerially and not magisterially.”

Actually, having gone through all 50 some odd volumes of Luther’s works published in English and a number of Lutheran works in German or English I do indeed have a “notion of Lutheran presuppositions about what God reveals in Scripture and how reason aides in understanding of Scripture when used properly”. I still remember the Library of Congress call number for Luther’s works in English (BR 330 .E5 1955).
That’s exactly why I knew what questions to ask and I knew Lutherans would not be able to answer them with anything approaching a logical answer. And you fulfilled my expectations perfectly by not being able to make a logical argument. Thanks.

>>I made many points. You simply reported to insults and pejoratives.

You start and end with bald faced assertion that Infants cannot have faith.

>>You need definitions of faith and grace in this situation? Get real.

You are suffering from avoidance.

>>And Luther and Lutherans don’t have presuppositions and private definitions which they’ve puffed up into being “authoritative”?

Of course they do. They do “get real” by explicitly stating them. You are not even aware of your own presuppositions.

>>>>“Hence, you are impervious to dialog.”

>>No, I just asked questions that you cannot answer.

You made a claim that infants have no faith. You have zero basis for that belief other than ultimate “faith” in the power of your reasoning.

>>Actually, having gone through all 50 some odd volumes of Luther’s works published in English and a number of Lutheran works in German or English I do indeed have a “notion of Lutheran presuppositions about what God reveals in Scripture and how reason aides in understanding of Scripture when used properly”. I still remember the Library of Congress call number for Luther’s works in English (BR 330 .E5 1955).

I am impressed.....not.

>>>>That’s exactly why I knew what questions to ask

Little kids in catechism class ask these questions...i wouldn’t be too impressed with asking questions.

>>>>and I knew Lutherans would not be able to answer them with anything approaching a logical answer.

Its more the case of not listening on your part.

>>>>And you fulfilled my expectations perfectly by not being able to make a logical argument.

You are the one unable to answer the question: what is the status of the souls of infants that die? If you reject that those infants are unaffected by Original Sin and not headed to hell, then you are a colossal waste of my time.

>>I used basic reasoning. See the posts where I described what infants can and cannot do. These things are known. There’s no disputing this.

I am disputing it as far as God’s ability to give saving faith to Infants. The fact they can’t control their bowels or speak or reason is irrelevant to the critical question.

>>>>“You have the impossible task of proving a negative: Infants cannot have faith.”

>>It’s not impossible when it is universally known. There are no dragons is not an impossible case of “proving a negative”. There are no dragons and everyone knows there are no dragons.

I am part of the universe and I don’t know that. Besides, it was “universally known” at once that the earth was flat.

>>We know what infants can and cannot do.

That is wholly irrelevant to what God gives to Infants in Baptism.

>>I am more than happy to stipulate that God may make a special revelation to some children,

And what is that worth?

>>but that is apparently EXTREMELY if we look at who has claimed such a thing. Infants know nothing about God for they can only know about that which they can see or feel and to a lesser extent hear.

You aren’t even attempting to reason from Scripture. You speaking on behalf of Infants is slightly comical.

>>Infants, again, unless God makes a special revelation of Himself to the child, are introduced to the very concept of God by their parents. It’s simply irrefutable.

I refute it.

DOES MY BAPTISM COUNT

1: NOT ON FAITH, BUT PROMISE

There are those nowadays who refuse to baptize infants and also re-baptize adults who were already baptized as infants. This practice is based upon the passage “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). According to this passage—so they conclude—a person may not be baptized unless he first has faith.

This seems a bit rash, for how can the faith even of adults who are to be baptized be known? Do those who practice baptism in such a way insist that the faith of an adult be known with certainty? But how can anyone know that? Have they become gods so that they can examine the content of people’s hearts?

Now, if they cannot possibly know who has faith and who doesn’t, how can they insist that a person have faith before a baptism is performed? Since they then too baptize without the knowledge of whether or not the person they are baptizing truly has faith, aren’t they really, by refusing to baptize infants, arguing against them- selves?

Would baptizing someone whose faith is uncertain be any better than baptizing someone who has no faith? Both such baptisms would not be in accordance with the passage, “Whoever believes and is baptized.”

I know, you argue that adults are able to confess their faith. But the passage does not read, “whoever confesses...,” but “whoever believes.” A person may indeed know someone’s confession with certainty, but never his faith indeed know someone’s confession with certainty, but never his faith. “All men are liars” (Ps 116:11); “God alone knows the heart” (1 Kings 8:39).

Knowing what someone says is not the same as knowing what someone believes. So if a person whose faith is unknown is never to be baptized then no one must ever be baptized. You could baptize someone a hundred times a day and still never know of his faith with certainty.

So how can anyone baptize an adult who has been baptized as an infant with the idea that a knowledge of faith must be certain? The very same passage, “whoever believes...” stands powerfully against such a practice. It speaks of a certain faith. Yet the content of the heart is hidden, even for those who would practice what is called “believer’s baptism.”

This even applies to cases where the person himself is uncertain. Suppose a person wonders if he possessed faith when he was baptized as a child. So he concludes he must be baptized as an adult just to be sure.

But now, what happens, if, the very next day, the devil attacks his heart so that the faith upon which he was baptized as an adult comes into question? He says to himself, “I know I have a genuine faith today, but I’m not sure about yesterday. I will be baptized again; the first two must not have taken.”

Do you think the devil can’t do this? Learn to know him better. He can do far more than this. And then, what if the devil goes after the third and the fourth baptisms in the same way? He would love it. He has done this very thing to me and many other people in the matter of the confession of sins. We could never sufficiently confess our sins, so we sought one absolution after another, one father confessor after another. There was no rest. We wanted to make everything depend on the completeness of our confession. These people who practice believer’s baptism want to base everything on a certain knowledge of faith.

What will this lead to?

Continuous baptisms with no end in sight. So this line of argumentation is hopeless. Neither the person baptizing nor the one being baptized can ever have certainty if a baptism is valid only with faith as a precondition. The passage “whoever believes” is actually more strongly in opposition to those who re-baptize adults than against those who practice infant baptism.

Still some insist on believer’s baptism. They don’t want to believe witnesses,1 since they are human. Yet they believe themselves, human as they are. And what they believe—the existence of faith—cannot even be known. They have become more than human and capable of seeing the heart as if their own faith were a more certain thing to them than the witness of Christendom.

So if those who practice believer’s baptism really want to use this passage “whoever believes,” then they must condemn even more strongly the practice of baptizing adults who were baptized as children. A person cannot know of faith with certainty. The one baptizing can’t, nor can the one being baptized.

This is especially true in trial and danger. Sometimes a person who thinks he has faith has none, while someone who doubts and believes himself especially weak stands strong. This passage “whoever believes” simply does not compel us to determine who does and who doesn’t possess faith. All it does is make clear that if one is to be saved he must truly have faith and not be a hypocrite.

He is not to think he can place his trust in his baptism while rejecting faith. It doesn’t, after all, say “Whoever knows that he has faith,” or “If a person knows that someone else has faith,”but “Whoever has it...”Whoever has faith, has faith. A person must have faith, but this is not something we can know of another person with certainty.

1 Another argument made for re-baptizing adults, and addressed by Luther earlier in a section of the work not included here, is that people who witnessed an infant baptism ultimately could not be trusted. Thus later in life, when the only evidence remaining for an infant baptism was the word of the witnesses to the baptism, how could anyone be sure that they had ever been baptized?

2 INFANTS CAN INDEED HAVE FAITH

Besides this, no one can show that little children do not possess faith. The practice of baptizing children has been received from the early church. So why should anyone change it, especially on the basis of such a doubtful principle?

If someone wants to alter or abolish an ancient practice, he ought, at least, to show that it is against the Bible. Christ said that what is not against us is for us (Luke 9:50). We ourselves have abolished the sacrifice of the Mass, monastic life, and clerical celibacy. But we have done this by showing how they are contrary to clear and certain scripture. But lacking that, we certainly ought to have allowed them to continue.

How can they prove that infants are not able to have faith? What portion of the Bible can be the basis for this belief of theirs? They think it is true just because infants cannot yet speak or think like adults. But this is an unsure principle, no, an entirely false one. It is nothing on which to base belief.

Meanwhile, we can produce all sorts of scripture to show that infants can indeed have faith. The Bible shows that they can have faith even when they can neither think like an adult nor speak.

For example, we read that the Jews offered their sons and daughters as sacrifices to the false gods (Ps 106:37-8). In doing this, they were said to have poured out innocent blood. Now, if it was innocent blood, then the children must have been pure and holy. But how could they be pure and holy without faith and the Holy Spirit?

What about the slaughter of the innocents? The children Herod slaughtered were not more than two years old. Clearly, they lacked adult intellect or language. Yet they were holy and eternally saved.

Furthermore, Christ says in Matthew 19:14 that the kingdom belongs to little children. John the Baptist, even while yet in his mothers womb (Luke 1:41), was able to have faith. At least it certainly seems so to me. Now, you might say that John the Baptist was a special case. You might believe that his situation does not prove that all infants, when baptized, can have faith. But I’m not trying to show that all infants can have faith. All I have to show is that the basis for this re-baptizing is false. That basis is that it can be proven that infants “cannot” have faith. But if John the Baptist, not yet born and without speech or thought, could have faith, then it must be directly contrary to the Bible to say that this is not possible. All I have to show is that the basis for this re-baptizing is false.

If it isn’t against the Bible that an infant can have faith, but in fact, is in accord with it, then you have a problem: The very basis of this practice of re-baptizing, namely, that infants cannot have faith, must be the thing that is against Scripture. This must be recognized from the outset.

If I have proven to you, with these scriptures, that baptized infants may indeed have faith, who will convince you otherwise? And if you are not sure, why be so quick to say that the baptism of an infant is worthless? You don’t know. You can’t know.

3 IN BAPTISM, CHRIST COMES TO US

What if, in baptism, all infants not only have faith, but as much faith as John the Baptist had in his mother’s womb? We surely can’t deny that the same Christ is present and comes to us in baptism. In fact, the One who comes to us is the very baptizer who came to John in his mother’s womb. He speaks just as well through the mouth of the priest now as he did through the mouth of his mother then.

Now, if Christ is present, if it is He that speaks and baptizes, then why should the Holy Spirit and faith not come to the infant? This is what happened with John the Baptist.

The One who speaks and is present is just the same in John’s case as today
in John’s case as today. It is Christ, who acts and speaks. He tells us, through Isaiah (55:11), that his word does not return empty.

Now, marshal just one passage that proves infants cannot have faith in baptism. I have produced many that prove they can. The Bible may not set forth exactly how this happens. It is unknown. But it is certainly sensible to contend that it is so.

Besides, Jesus commanded that the little children be brought to him. He took those children up in his arms, kissed them, and said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to them (Matt.19:14). It is a remarkable stretch to argue that Jesus wasn’t speaking of little children, but of humility. The text doesn’t say they brought humble people to Jesus. It says they brought little children.

Furthermore Jesus didn’t say “Let the humble come to me,” but, “Let the little children come to me.” So when He says “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” and “Their angels behold the face of my father,” we have to apply these words to the children about whom he just spoke. The more so because he then says we ought to become like these children.

Would Jesus have given us an evil model to imitate? If children were not, by faith, holy, then he would not have said “you have to become as little children.” No, he
would have said, “You have to be different than little children.”

So these super-spiritual people cannot turn these little children into the notion of humility without treating the text with complete arrogance. The words simply stand too obviously and powerfully there before the eyes.

A few will likely counter that the Jewish children were holy by virtue of being circumcised and thus could be regarded as holy when brought to Christ. But what if there were also little girls among these children? Little girls weren’t circumcised.

Obviously, they brought both boys and girls to Jesus. The text doesn’t specify that only boys were brought, so we have no right to exclude the girls. We have to let the word “children” stand, both boys and girls. These children were not called blessed just because they were circumcised. It was because they came to Christ.

They came from the Old to the New Testament. The words declare “Let the little children come to me, for of such is the kingdom of God.” In other words, the kingdom of God consists in the coming of these little children to Jesus. As they were brought and thus came to Christ, they were blessed, since he then took them up in his arms, blessed them, and gave them the kingdom.

Therefore, I will let rave whomever wishes. I hold yet, as in the sermons I have written, that the surest baptism is infant baptism.

For an older man may deceive and come to Christ like Judas did, and allow himself to be baptized. An infant, however, cannot deceive and comes to Christ in
baptism, as John the Baptist came to him, and as the little children were brought to him, that his word and work might come upon them, touch them, and make them holy. His word and work cannot return void, and here it is applied exclusively to an infant. If it would fail here, then it would fail everywhere and be useless, which is impossible.

It can’t be denied that the psalmist was talking about little girls when he reported that the Israelites offered their daughters to the gods of Canaan (Psalm 106:37). He called the blood shed in that case “guiltless” blood. But, of course, these girls were not circumcised.

Moses also commanded, in Leviticus 12:5 that little girls, like the boys, were to be offered to God. Thus, they too were to be purified and redeemed. Infant boys were the ones circumcised, yes, but it is clear that the infant girls were nevertheless partners in that circumcision. God said to Abraham in Genesis 17:7, “I will be the God of your descendants and circumcision will be a covenant between me and your descendants after you.” Now, infant girls are also the descendants of Abraham. God is also their God, as this passage shows, even though they are not circumcised, like the boys.

Do you believe that in circumcision God received both boys and girls? Was he not the God of both? If so, why should he not receive our infants in the covenant of baptism? He has promised to be not only the God of the Jews, but also of the gentiles (Romans 3:29).

In particular, he is the God of Christians, that is, of believers. If infants, both boys and girls, became God’s children in circumcision, on account of the faith of Abraham from whom they were descended, then how much more ought baptism make each one God’s child for the sake of Christ’s merits? It is, after all, Christ to whom they are brought and by whom they are blessed. The foundation of these re-baptizers is everywhere unstable and they build upon it in a discreditable manner.

4 INFANTS ARE A PART OF “ALL NATIONS”

“But,” you say, “there are no examples of the baptizing of children in the gospels or epistles; and he has not specifically commanded that little children be baptized.” Well, he also hasn’t specifically commanded that old men or old women be baptized either, or anyone in between for that matter. I suppose we will have to baptize no one.

But he has commanded that “all nations” be baptized. He excluded no one. Thus, Matthew 28:19, “Go, therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them....” Now, infants are a significant portion of “all nations.”

We read, also, in Acts (16:15), and in St. Paul’s epistles (1 Cor. 1:16), how the apostles baptized entire households. Now, infants are Infants are a significant truly a significant portion of a household. It certainly appears that Christ, making no exceptions, commanded the apostles to baptize and teach all nations.

The Apostles, for their part, seem to have done exactly that, and baptized everyone present in the household. Nor did they neglect the possibility that someone like these super spiritual people might try to make a distinction between young and old. Thus, they amply answered elsewhere, making clear that there is no distinction or discrimination of persons among Christians (Romans 10:12). St. John (1 John 2:13) also clearly writes of how little children “know the father.” It is obvious that infant baptism comes from the apostles, as St. Augustine also asserts.

These Re-baptizers treat everything so carelessly. They are unsure of their own argumentation and find themselves in direct opposition to such significant passages. They are forced to teach this distinction in the church between young and old, a distinction God has not made.

But even if they didn’t believe in the complete sufficiency of these passages we have noted, they at least should consider how powerful they are, and ponder them. These passages strongly suggest that the whole foundation for re-baptizing is unsure. Now, if the portion of “all nations” foundation is unsure, then the practice is false for in divine matters one must deal not with the unsure, but with the sure.

You see, a Re-baptizer knows that John had faith and was holy when Christ came and spoke to him through the mouth of his mother. If he is the least bit tractable, then he has to see that a little child also can have faith when he hears Christ’s voice from the mouth of the one who is baptizing him. Christ himself is speaking. His word is not impotent.

So the Re-baptizer ought to acknowledge that it certainly is possible that this infant has faith. One cannot deny the possibility and scripture in no way speaks against it. So if the Re-baptizer does not have a good reason for denying it, then the very foundation of his re-baptism crumbles. It must, because he must first prove that little children are unable to have faith. Thus, it seems clear to me that such reasoning is unsure. It is more than unsure. It is arrogant.

5 BAPTISM IS GENUINE FOR ITS OWN SAKE

But what if we were to concede that infants have no faith? This still wouldn’t prove that they ought to be baptized a second time. What if it turned out later that they believed and confessed the faith?

So it really wouldn’t even be enough to prove that infants don’t have faith. It would also have to be shown why this fact should lead someone to baptize them a second time.

Someone will say that the infant’s baptism is not genuine without faith. Why? It is a baptism. It is genuine for its own sake, even if it is not genuinely received in faith. If the word of God is spoken and everything is done that belongs to a baptism, just as if faith were there, why is it not a baptism?

If a thing is genuine of itself, it doesn’t have to be done again just because it was not, at first, genuinely received. If the reception of the thing is what is not genuine, then the reception is what must be changed.

The misuse of a thing does not change what the thing is. In fact, without the thing being what it is in the first place, there can’t even be a misuse!

So if faith comes ten years after baptism, why should a person be baptized again? Hasn’t the original baptism turned out to be entirely sufficient? Such a person now has faith. Isn’t faith the very thing baptism advances?

Faith isn’t for the sake of baptism, but baptism is for the sake of faith.
sake of faith. If faith is created, then baptism now has the very thing that belongs to it and re-baptism is pointless.

Consider this: A young woman marries a man but in her heart she has no love for him. She marries him for other reasons. She actually tells a lie when she recites her vows. Is she an honorable wife before God? Of course not. Yet, after a few years have passed, she develops for her husband a deep, abiding love. Now, tell me, should there be a new engagement, new vows and a new wedding? Will someone argue that the previous engagement and wedding were nothing? He would be thought a fool. Yes, the thing was wrong originally, but it turned out well and the man whom she had married in secret dishonor, is now her beloved husband.

What if an elderly man allowed himself to be baptized under false pretenses, then, a year later, came to faith? Dear friend, do you really think that such a man should be baptized again? His was a genuine baptism, he just didn’t receive it genuinely.

So does his lack of faith destroy the genuineness of his baptism? Is human misuse and evil stronger than God’s good, imperishable ordinance?

God made a covenant with the children of Israel on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 34:10). Now, some of the Israelites didn’t receive that covenant well. They received it without genuine faith.

Suppose those same people later came to faith? Should the original covenant God made be deemed invalid? Should God appear over and over again on Sinai, for each one, to make the covenant again?

God commanded the preaching of his ten com- mandments. Now, some people who hear them preached don’t heed them. They listen, but they don’t take them to heart.

So are the ten commandments to be regarded as invalid? Are they of no benefit? Should God keep giving new commandments instead of the first ones? Or is it not enough that people repent and obey the com- mandments God gave first?

It seems a peculiar thing that God’s eternal word should change and become something new every time man’s heart changes. No, it remains a single word, and
strong, precisely so that it can be a sure reliable rock to which fickle man may return.

Suppose someone swore an oath of obedience to an earthly Lord, but with the secret intention of killing him. However, after three days, he repented and committed himself to genuine heartfelt obedience. Should he now, in such a case, swear a new and different oath?

His allegiance is now from the heart. It was his heart’s allegiance, not the oath, that was defective.

If this is the way it’s going to be, then we will struggle continuously to baptize enough. We will never stop. I will have to take the passage “Whoever believes and is baptized...” and make it my rule. If I find a Christian, fallen or faithless, I will say “This man is without faith, so his baptism is invalid. I must baptize him again.” And if he falls yet again, I will say, “Look, he is faithless, so that previous baptism must be invalid and we have to baptize him a third time.”

And that’s the way it will be. As often as he falls, or even doubts his faith, I will say, “He doesn’t have faith, therefore his baptism is invalid. He must be baptized again both now, and as often as is necessary, until he never falls. He must satisfy the passage `Whoever Tell me, what Christian will ever be baptized sufficiently?
believes and is baptized.’” Tell me, what Christian will ever be baptized sufficiently? Whose baptism will ever be certain?

But isn’t it possible that baptism itself could remain sufficient and valid even if a Christian fell from faith, or sinned, a thousand times in one year? Could it not be enough for him to repent and return to the faith, without having to be baptized again? Why should his first baptism not be valid and sufficient if, afterward, he became a genuine believer?

You see, when it comes to a lack of faith and baptism, it doesn’t matter if the lack of faith happens to be before baptism or after it. It is still a lack of faith. It is the same situation either way.

According to the foolish reasoning of these Re- baptizers, it is the baptism that must be changed, not the person. This is how they understand “Whoever believes and is baptized.”

6 MISUSE DOES NOT DESTROY VALIDITY

So I say this: Even if the Re-baptizers could prove their impossible contention, namely, that children are unable to have faith, what would they have really proven in the end? Only that there is a misuse of the valid baptism that God gave. They wouldn’t have proven that the baptism itself lacked validity.

So if something is to be changed, it is the misuse, not Misuse does not change the valid baptism. Misuse does not change the essence of a thing. Gold does not become straw if a thief steals the essence of a thing it and misuses it. Silver does not become paper just because a usurer gains it in some dishonest way.

These Re-baptizers are, therefore, actually acting against God, sense, and nature since they fail to distinguish between baptism and its misuse. They only try to show its misuse. They want to change it just as heretics do with the gospel. The heretics understand the gospel falsely and therefore misuse the hearing of it. So they rush to change it and make a new gospel.

When one attempts to correct these Re-baptizers, they act poorly, blaspheme and shame God’s own ordinance. They call it an invalid baptism either due to human misuse or impiety, though they are unable to prove either.

There is this devilish spirit of human works within them. It may talk about faith, It may talk about faith, but it means works. but it means works. It compels poor people, under the name and appearance of faith, to trust in what they do.

It is just like under the papacy when we were compelled to attend the Lord’s Supper for the sake of obedience, as though it were our own work. No one was moved to attend by a desire to taste of faith. Yet, in the sacrament, the work had been done and completed for us.

These Re-baptizers are also compelling works. They want a person to trust in the fact that his baptism was correctly conducted.

In truth, though they outwardly praise faith, they really don’t deal with it at all. For as we already mentioned, they could never baptize anyone if they actually demanded certainty of a person’s faith as a precondition.

As to those being baptized, if they were not actually trusting in their own works, or if, at least, they earnestly sought faith, they wouldn’t allow themselves to be re- baptized. Why? Because the same word of God was present in the first baptism. That spoken word remains and stands firm. It is there for them to trust. Water was already poured over them. Of this, also, they can be certain.

These realities are present to be grasped in faith. Even if the same words were spoken one hundred times, they would be the words already spoken the first time. Their power is not f rom constant repetition, nor f rom speaking them anew, but f rom the command they be spoken once.

7 RE-BAPTISM: A SUPERIOR RIGHTEOUSNESS?

It is the genuine masterpiece of the devil to lure a Christian from the righteousness of faith to the righteousness of his own works. He did this to the Galatians and the Corinthians who had a proper faith and conducted their lives by it (Gal. 5:7). Now, he sees that the Germans have come to know Christ through the gospel. They have faith and are righteous before God because of it. So he rushes in to tear them away from such a righteousness and lead them to re-baptizing, as though it were a superior righteousness. In this way, he makes them deny the former righteousness as unsuitable. Thus they grasp a false righteousness.

What can I say? We Germans are, and remain, true Galatians. The very act of being re-baptized speaks against the faith formerly held. It is a condemnation of what was previously believed and declares it to be sin.

This is the most terrible of things. Paul said that the Galatians who allowed themselves to be circumcised were cut off from Christ. He said they were making Christ a servant of sin if they allowed it (Gal. 5:2).

Satan has us in mind with all of this. He wishes to call our teaching and spirit into question. Perhaps we were not genuinely baptized, he says. But a person can know a tree by its fruit (Matthew 7:17,18).

Neither under the papacy, nor among the hordes, have we seen those who so powerfully set forth and handle scripture as do those on our side. This is by God’s grace. And it’s not the least of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10).

At present, we are observing among these Re-baptizers a phenomenon that is a genuine fruit of the devil. Some of them are now abandoning wives and children, houses and homes. They don’t want to live under any temporal authority whatsoever. St. Paul had something to say here: “Whoever does not care for his own family has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim. 5:8). In 1 Corinthians 7:13 he taught that one Christian spouse ought not abandon the other even if an unbeliever. Christ also taught that marriages ought to be preserved intact where there is no adultery (Matthew 19:9). Thus, we teach that such institutions should not only be allowed to continue, but must be upheld and honored.

We are to practice faith through love, and live in peace. This certainly causes no uproar and no one can fairly complain about our teaching in this respect. Yes, the papists do try to blame every calamity on us, but others can judge whether this is fair. Even the consciences of our accusers may well come to our defense.

8 THE ONE BAPTIZING NEED NOT HAVE FAITH

We must also, at this point, discard a notion promoted in this connection, namely, that a baptism is not valid if the priest or someone else doing the baptizing, doesn’t have faith. Even if St. Peter himself baptized someone, a person could not know whether, at that exact moment, St. Peter believed or doubted. No one can see the heart.

This same sort of thinking is what animated the Donatists in an earlier age. They, too, re-baptized people when they noticed that a few priests were not holy. They began to make the validity of the baptism dependent on the holiness of the baptizers.

Christ certainly didn’t. He based it upon his word and command.

Actually, our Re-baptizers are tempted to take the position of those who reject the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. They claim that truth and scripture compel them, but it isn’t so. It offends them that just any person, sanctified or not, may consecrate the elements in holy communion. They act as if everyone in the world is convinced that they themselves are pure and holy and have faith. Yet they are really knaves who rush to judge the holiness of others, not noticing the log in their own eyes (Matthew 7:3).

But we contend that St. John wasn’t ashamed to hear the word of God from Caiaphas. He praised it as a prophecy ( John 11:51). Moses and the children of Israel received prophecy from the godless Balaam. They regarded it as the word of God (Numbers 24:17). St. Paul made use of the heathen poets Epimenides and Aratus. He regarded their sayings as the word of God and praised them (Acts 17:28, Titus 1:12). Christ commanded that the people heed and obey the godless Pharisees. They sat on Moses’ seat (Matthew 23:2).

So we ought to let God judge an evil life, and not be If a teacher is evil, and not be turned away by it. On the other hand, when their word is godly, despite their godless life, it should evil, not his teaching please us. If a teacher is evil, it is he himself who is evil, not his teaching. If he teaches rightly, then we are rightly taught.

The pious Magi did exactly the same thing (Matthew 23:2). 2:4 ff.). They heard the word of God as quoted from Micah. But it came through Herod, a wretched king. Herod, for his part, had heard it earlier from the godless chief priests and scribes. Nevertheless, on the basis of this word, the Magi traveled to Bethlehem. There, they found Christ. It did not hinder them in the least that they had heard God’s word only through Herod, a man who wished to murder Christ.

So we have to confess that the Re-baptizers possess the word of God in other articles of the faith. Whoever hears these from them and believes will be saved. This would be true even if they were all unholy heretics and blasphemers of Christ.

It is no small grace that God gives his word also through evil and godless men. It is perhaps better than when he gives it through those who are holy. In such cases, it can happen that the imprudent fall away and rely more on the holiness of man than on the word of God. When that happens, men are elevated to a greater position than God and his word.

This isn’t a danger when the preacher is Judas, Caiaphas, or Herod. Of course, this is no excuse for an unholy life, though God can certainly use such lives for his purposes.

Now, if someone who is godless can possess and teach God’s word, and that word remain valid, why couldn’t he baptize and administer the Lord’s Supper and these also remain valid? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that it is a greater thing to teach God’s word than to baptize. If the greater would be valid, despite a godless heart,
why not the lesser?

We have pointed out already that if one must know the faith of the person baptizing before the baptism is valid, then no baptism would ever be valid. So I ask, Have you been baptized again? Yes? How do you know that your baptism is valid now?”The man who baptized you is a believer? How do you know? Have you seen his heart? So your position is as firm as butter in the sun.

9 CHRIST COMMANDS THAT BAPTISM OCCUR

Our teaching, on the other hand, is based on the strongest and surest possible foundation. God has made a covenant with the entire world. He will be their God. This the Gospel declares when Christ commands that the Gospel be preached to all the world. The prophets of the Old Testament made this clear in a multitude of ways.

As a sign of this covenant, Christ instituted, commanded and directed that all nations be baptized. Matthew 28:19 stands firm: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father etc.” This is just as God did when he made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. He promised to be their God and gave, as a sign of the covenant, circumcision. (Genesis 17:7,11)

Our foundation is solid and sure. We baptize not because we are sure of faith, but because we are sure of the command of God. We know he has both com- manded baptism and wishes us to have it.

Even if we were never sure of faith, we could always be certain of the command of God. God has established baptism. He has set it forth publicly before all the world. We cannot fail in this confidence because God’s command cannot deceive. On the other hand, he hasn’t commanded anyone to place such confidence in his own faith.

It is, of course, true that a person ought to have faith when he is baptized. But he shouldn’t be baptized on the basis of the certainty of faith’s presence.

There is a big difference between having faith and making trust in its presence the measure of the genuineness of a baptism. Anyone who bases the validity of his baptism upon the presence of faith will not only be uncertain, but even an idolater, a denier of Christ. What he is doing is having faith in what is his own, namely, a gift given him by God, and not on the basis of God’s word alone.

Someone else might put faith in his own strength power, wisdom or holiness, which are also gifts of God. But it would be the same thing.

But a person who is baptized on the basis of God’s word, that is, on the basis of his command, even if faith is absent, has a genuine baptism. It is valid and sure because God commanded it.

Now, to be sure, it isn’t a benefit to the one who lacks faith. It isn’t a benefit precisely because he lacks faith. It is, however, a baptism. It doesn’t become invalid, unsure, or nothing just because he lacks faith.

If that were the case, if everything not of benefit to unbelievers became nothing or invalid, there would be nothing at all that remained valid or good. Just think, the gospel is commanded to be preached to all the world. It doesn’t benefit those without faith. So is it invalid? Unsure? Nothing? God himself is of no benefit to those without faith. So is there then no God?

Suppose, now, an elderly man asks to be baptized. “I want to be baptized,” he says. So you ask him “Well, do you have faith?” This is exactly what Philip asked the jailor in Acts 8:37. We also commonly ask the same thing today. Now, should this fellow say “Oh my, yes, I can move mountains with my faith.” No, he ought instead to respond:

“I do believe, yet my faith is weak and unsure. I wish to be baptized because God has instituted it. He wants me to do this. I will do it because he has asked. In time, my faith will do as it is able. But if I am baptized on the basis of God’s institution, then I know I am baptized. If, instead, my baptism were only valid based on the quality of my present faith, how would I know that tomorrow I would not be found faithless and thus un- baptized? What if tomorrow Satan were to attack me and says that perhaps I had insufficient faith at the moment of my baptism? No indeed. Since God has commanded it, that is certain enough for me. Of course, the benefit of baptism is surely bound to my faith and to me. If I lack faith,baptism is of no use to me. If I possess faith, then it is. But baptism itself is not invalid or unsure on this basis. It’s validity and certainty rests upon the certain word and command of God.”

A person, likewise, can say of his infant baptism:

“I thank God and am happy that I was baptized as an infant. What God has instituted has been accomplished. This is true whether I have faith or not. God’s institution gives validity to my baptism. Thus, it is valid and sure. God strengthen my faith, whether strong or weak this day, and make me sure with respect to it.”

But faith is always lacking, since when it comes to faith we have enough to learn for an entire lifetime. It can happen that a person can say `Look, faith was once
present but is no longer.’ But baptism lacks for nothing. No one can say always lacking `Look, there was once a baptism, but it is no longer there.’ Baptism still stands because the institution of God still stands and what has been done according to his institution both stands and will remain.”

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.