Posted on 06/24/2017 9:53:18 PM PDT by Charles Henrickson
I do understand the point, Catholic/Lutheran conflict between the understanding of justification.
“When a man like Luther with his towering intellect, mastery of languages,”’
Luther knew two languages well - German and Latin. He was far less skilled at Greek and Hebrew. As the Jewish Encyclopedia points out:
While Luther always upheld the Bible as the basis of belief, and while he speaks very highly of Hebrew, which he calls the best, the richest, and at the same time the plainest language, he himself did not go back to the original text; indeed, he admits that he was not a Hebrew scholar, and especially that he knew nothing of Hebrew grammar (ib. lxii. 313). A Hebrew book he had received, he gave to a friend, saying, “Excedit enim vires meas” (”Luther’s Sämmtliche Werke,” ii. 612, “Briefe”). http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10196-luther-martin#anchor1
In other words, the average college educated European today probably knows as many or more languages than Luther ever did. For a far rosier assessment of Luther’s Hebrew skills see this: http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-274
“dizzying knowledge of Church Fathers’ writings”
Not so “dizzying”. Anyone who regularly prayed as a monk would know a great deal about the Early Church Fathers because their writings are included. Luther’s contemporaries often pointed out that he did not understand the Church Fathers very well. The great once-Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan knew the Fathers better than Luther ever could. . . and became an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Remember, many of the Father’s writings were not even available in published form in Luther’s day.
“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.”
You can stand with Luther. I’ll just stand with Christ and His Church instead, thanks.
“Matt 19:14,26”
Baptism still isn’t mentioned there.
“I do understand the point, Catholic/Lutheran conflict between the understanding of justification.”
No, it’s bigger than that. Like I thought: You don’t understand the point of my questions.
Nothing is bigger or more central than that.
Like I thought: You don’t understand the point of my questions.
That is what Catholics always say. When they aren't saying Justification isn't the point. It is always the point of Lutheran/Catholic dispute.
Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
“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.”
Fair enough, but the infant knows his parents. They feed him, rock him, change his diapers, and cater to his every need to keep him happy and healthy. The infant does not know God and in fact (before Baptism) really belongs to the prince of this world. You can’t have faith in what you don’t know.
“But that doesn’t mean baptism doesn’t do what the Bible clearly says it does.”
Yes, but are you saying a sacrament works without faith? The baby cannot have faith. It’s trust in its parents is NOT faith in God. It might be analogous, but is not the same.
“Furthermore, Paul compares baptism to circumcision as the new covenant. Circumcision was a covenant certainly for infants.”
Yes, and yet they had no faith at all in that either. Who had the faith? Their parents did. And Old Testament circumcision in itself had nothing whatsoever to do with the grace of Christ.
“Nothing is bigger or more central than that.”
Of course there is. The Christian world is not limited to only Catholics and Lutherans and justification is not the only doctrine. And I say that knowing full well that justification is the most important thing for each and everyone one of us. But the questions I asked touch on far more than just on justification. They also have to do with authority, sola scriptura, Biblical interpretation, tradition, logic and reason, 6 other sacraments, God’s work vs. man’s works, God’s use of the physical in conjunction with the spiritual for our salvation, etc.
“That is what Catholics always say.”
Probably because it’s always true.
“When they aren’t saying Justification isn’t the point.”
It’s not the only point.
“It is always the point of Lutheran/Catholic dispute.”
Except I already mentioned Baptists and Eastern Orthodox so your claim has been proved false already. Thanks for playing. Come back when you have another 50 cents.
>>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?
No. Baptism is a means of grace but not grace itself. Grace is the disposition of God towards sinners because of what Christ has done on the cross. You seem to think Grace is something like liquid that is poured into man in exchange for some odd Romish understanding of “faith” because like Monty Hall, God wants to make a deal with you.
For the umpteenth time, you are mindlessly repeating that infants have no faith. You do not have a scriptural understanding of faith but a colloquial understanding of it.
>>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?
Where’s your proof of every adult baptized has been given the gift of faith?
In Acts 16:25-33 it states:
About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them, and suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken. And immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s bonds were unfastened. When the jailer woke and saw that the prison doors were open, he drew his sword and twas about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried with a loud voice, “Do not harm yourself, for we are all here.” And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
All his family includes children and slaves.
>>Luther knew two languages well - German and Latin. He was far less skilled at Greek and Hebrew.
Forgive me if your assessment and “Jewish Encyclopedia’s” assessment of Luther’s linguistic skills are somewhat unpersuasive.
>>>>“dizzying knowledge of Church Fathers’ writings”
>>Not so “dizzying”. Anyone who regularly prayed as a monk would know a great deal about the Early Church Fathers because their writings are included.
Is that why the Pope had to commission the Jesuits? The Reformers were crushing the pope and his followers in theological debates because they had a better understanding of Original Languages and the patristic writing.
>>Luther’s contemporaries often pointed out that he did not understand the Church Fathers very well.
This is an argument? who, when and in what context?
>>The great once-Lutheran scholar Jaroslav Pelikan knew the Fathers better than Luther ever could. . . and became an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Remember, many of the Father’s writings were not even available in published form in Luther’s day.
What is your point? People who follow others by definition know more as a result of cumulative knowledge, time and technology.
>>>>“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.”
>>You can stand with Luther. I’ll just stand with Christ and His Church instead, thanks.
This raises the question of your ability to read and comprehend simple English sentences. Luther points us to God’s Word and the cross and away from himself. Which part of that English sentence do you not understand? Even “the Church” has failed to be faithful to God’s Word from time to time, starting with Adam to Noah to Abraham down to the present day.
It is okay if you want to advocate for your theological understanding. But you should be more concerned about your soul and whatever you want to base that assurance upon.
>>>>“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.
Promise from God does mean “MUST.” But your reasoning doesn’t mean “MUST.” The essence of Biblical faith is to believe God’s Promise as a guarantee to happen even when everything else, including your eyes and reason, says otherwise.
Well that’s the point of baptism. You’re right, the infant doesn’t know God and before baptism belongs to the prince of this world. That’s what baptism is for. And not just for infants - for adults who are baptized too.
And no, a sacrament isn’t effectual without faith. If you don’t believe, well that’s that.
If you’d like a more in depth introduction on the Lutheran view of baptism, I’d suggest this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaKs3ygMBuo (part 1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTIZrK6e-cY&t (part 2)
“No. Baptism is a means of grace but not grace itself.”
If Baptism is freely given and gives grace, it is then grace. This is why Peter says Baptism “saves you” rather than “the grace of Baptism saves you” (even though the latter would be more correct).
“Grace is the disposition of God towards sinners because of what Christ has done on the cross.”
It’s not just a disposition.
“You seem to think Grace is something like liquid that is poured into man in exchange for some odd Romish understanding of “faith” because like Monty Hall, God wants to make a deal with you.”
So you’re now going to resort to pejoratives?
“For the umpteenth time, you are mindlessly repeating that infants have no faith.”
Because that’s the truth. You keep proving it too.
“You do not have a scriptural understanding of faith but a colloquial understanding of it.”
No, the exact opposite. If you’re already resorting to pejoratives and insults, than I guess you can’t make much of an argument.
“All his family includes children and slaves.”
You repeatedly miss the point. I am not questioning infant baptism in itself. I am question the presuppositions of the Lutheran understanding of faith and grace.
“Forgive me if your assessment and “Jewish Encyclopedia’s” assessment of Luther’s linguistic skills are somewhat unpersuasive.”
I linked to another source - one with a more positive appraisal of Luther’s abilities in Hebrew and I said as much about it. Are you consistently going to get things wrong?
“Is that why the Pope had to commission the Jesuits?”
Had to? The Jesuits were formed in 1534. In 1537, the original Jesuits traveled to Rome to ask seek papal approval for their order from Pope Paul III. He gave it to them and gave permission for them to be ordained when they were judged ready by ordinaries. The official founding was in 1540. There was no “had to”.
“The Reformers were crushing the pope and his followers in theological debates because they had a better understanding of Original Languages and the patristic writing.”
Wow. You live in a fantasy world. Have a great day and read some history.
“And no, a sacrament isn’t effectual without faith. If you don’t believe, well that’s that.”
If that is so, then you must believe Lutheran baptisms of children are ineffectual since babies have no faith.
“And no, a sacrament isn’t effectual without faith. If you don’t believe, well that’s that.”
If that is so, then you must believe Lutheran baptisms of children are ineffectual since babies have no faith.
Prove your assertion that babies can have no faith.
If babies can’t have faith, then they can’t be saved.
>>>>“No. Baptism is a means of grace but not grace itself.”
>>If Baptism is freely given and gives grace, it is then grace. This is why Peter says Baptism “saves you” rather than “the grace of Baptism saves you” (even though the latter would be more correct).
You make no salient point with that verbal gymnastics.
>>>>“Grace is the disposition of God towards sinners because of what Christ has done on the cross.”
>>It’s not just a disposition.
Then what is it?
>>>>“You seem to think Grace is something like liquid that is poured into man in exchange for some odd Romish understanding of “faith” because like Monty Hall, God wants to make a deal with you.”
>>So you’re now going to resort to pejoratives?
Its not pejorative to cut to the chase: exchanging God’s doing (grace) for Man’s doing (faith). Lutherans reject that. Faith is a gift. The object of that faith is God’s faithfulness in keeping in promise for Christ’s sake.
>>>>“For the umpteenth time, you are mindlessly repeating that infants have no faith.”
>>Because that’s the truth. You keep proving it too.
The implication of your position is that infants are without hope and God’s salvific economy becomes a joke and God becomes a liar: with the claim that “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” How could the kingdom belong to them?
>>>>“You do not have a scriptural understanding of faith but a colloquial understanding of it.”
>>No, the exact opposite. If you’re already resorting to pejoratives and insults, than I guess you can’t make much of an argument.
You have yet to make a single cogent argument other than make a conclusory statement that is mindlessly repeated: children cannot have faith.
>>Prove your assertion that babies can have no faith.
He cannot. If he could, he would have done it long time ago. He repeats its as if repetition is proof. As a bonus, he cannot prove even an adult can have real faith, however it is defined.
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.