Good to know some reader thinks that after 7 years of basically reformed-leaning blogging, 4 Lutheran posts qualify as somehow unfair treatment of Calvinism. And the main complaint: “cheap shots.” If you could die from irony, we could really thin out the population on the blogosphere.
When Josh is teaching, there’s a lot to learn. Enjoy the post and keep it on topic in the comments please.
4. How would a Lutheran answer the question, “How can I know I am saved?” and where would election come into the picture?
I think by this point, people know what I’d say. I’d answer by saying, “Listen to what God says to you in the Word, and believe in what he gives you in the Sacraments.” Obviously, most Christians aren’t taught to believe that the minister has any kind of divinely established mandate to forgive sins, and they mostly look at the sacraments as impositions of obligation, memorials, or divine ordinances you obey in order to testify of your own faith. We believe that God is the one testifying in the sacraments, and he’s testifying to you and to the world that your sins have been nailed to the Cross.
That’s not too far off from Reformed “signs and seals” language, but their language is tempered with limited atonement and/or conditional covenants so that there’s some kind of disconnect between between the sacraments and an objective, divine declaration of absolution and righteousness. So the signs are only “effectual” for the elect, or their promise is contingent upon good covenant standing, or something. I’ve been trying to grasp Reformed theology on this point for several years now, and I’ll just say I can’t articulate the difference well enough to satisfy any Reformed theologian, although it’s real. Their liturgical and pastoral practice makes that clear enough.
The big criticism from all the other traditions–Catholic, Reformed, Wesleyan, you name it–is that if God were to just go around recklessly forgiving sinners, if people were allowed to believe in their salvation just because Jesus got nailed to a cross, that would encourage people to sin more. The answer, of course, is putting a hedge around Jesus. Basically, you tell people they can’t have him unless they shape up. There are volumes and volumes of literature from all sides of Christianity about the conditions placed on forgiveness. Living up to covenants, doing penance, detaching your soul from sin, committing your life fully to obedience, and so on. We absolutely do not believe in that sort of thing. Jesus didn’t put covenant conditions on the paralytic before forgiving him. He didn’t tell the thief on the cross to shape up. He just absolved them. Just don’t call God a liar.
There’s an old legend in Catholicism about “Dismas,” the thief on the cross. I read it in some Catholic newspaper around Christmas time. Anyway, while the Holy Family was fleeing to Egypt, they were waylaid by bandits. The bandits were just going to take their stuff and slaughter them all, but one of them saw the cute little baby, had mercy on them, and persuaded the bandits to let them go. Because of his compassion, the Blessed Virgin prayed for him for the next thirty-plus years, so that by a combination of the nascent virtue of the thief and the intercession of the Virgin, he partly merited, and she partly merited for him the privilege of dying next to Christ and having the ability to repent and ask Jesus to remember him. The moral of the story was that if you try to be nice and ask the Virgin to pray for you, God might give you a break later on. Unlike other myths about the Virgin, this one isn’t dogma, but I think it’s illustrative of the human conscience. God can’t just forgive people without it being earned. That’s too good to be true, so it isn’t. Most people are probably thinking about what a bunch of rubes Catholics are for having made up such a silly myth to explain away forgiveness, but myths do for Catholics what clever theological explanations do for Protestants. They put that necessary hedge around the Cross so that it’s not too offensive.
Right, so where’s election come into assurance? I think you learn to be confident of your election as you learn to be confident that what God says to you in the Gospel and the Sacraments is true, and that he is indeed saying those things to you. God speaks, and you say “Amen.” I believe I’m elect, because God’s called me through the Gospel. When I hear Luke, that paralytic is me. So when Jesus says “Man, your sins are forgiven,” he’s not just saying it to the paralytic in the story, but to me and everyone else who sees himself lying helpless on that mat. So I believe in my own election, and I’m not afraid to say that.
There’s always the big question mark about apostasy. No matter what you believe about election, that one can keep you up at night. Christians who were just as good as you have fallen away, so why shouldn’t you fall away, too? I think the answer lies in the fact that God’s promises don’t come out of the sky; they’re made in the Church, because that’s where his Word is spoken. My answer to that question isn’t to try and find a logical resolution or some quality that differentiates me from them; it’s to go to church. Christians are elect because Christ is elect, and so if I decide I don’t want to be where Christ is because I think church is stupid or I’d rather live a life of flagrant sin, I’m counting myself out by my own unbelief. I know most people want a logical answer, but I just don’t have one. Keep going to church and believe what God says to you there if you want your troubles about apostasy to bother you less. That’s why it’s absolutely essential to go to a church where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution and not let unfaithful pastors stay in power. You’re killing yourself if you just go somewhere where all the pastor does is rappel down from the ceiling after a rockin’ tune by the praise band and then babbles about how to realize God’s purpose in your life.
I suppose I’m going to get accused of Arminianism or irrationality or something. Frankly, I think I can deal with that. God’s accused and absolved me of worse.
Stay tuned for more….
The Internet Monk Archives 
Patrick,
I have no problem with that. In fact I’d rather listen to Luther than any other post apostolic teacher given a choice. Was he perfect, no, but he gave Christ rather than covered him up. And as far as modern teachers go, I’d listen to ANYONE of the WHI guys over you or other “reformed” guys of our time. In fact I would entrust my entire family under them before you and your likes without a second blush. I pursue the merciful God because that’s what I need. I don’t pursue the “baptist” god or the “presbyterian” god or the “reformed” god, or some other “denominational” god. I need the God of the Cross for me and he called me by the Cross of Christ a long long long time before I even encountered you. I profess the Cross is my theology, if that makes me a “crypto-lutheran”, then so be it, I wear it with honor, in fact I boast in it. I do not let the opinions of men sway me, nor the pressures of men, nor do I even care the LEAST, truly, how you feel about it – you didn’t bleed on the Cross for me.
Good day sir,
Larry
LikeLike
>Greg:
>Ok. God Bless.
OK Eric, I’m threatening you with banning if you are this civil again. Watch your step.
LikeLike
Greg: Stop the baptism debate on my blog. If I am not making myself clear, just say so.
Eric said “OK” and “God bless.” That mean’s you get to graciously say the same thing and move on, not stir things back up.
I posted your last post, but I won’t do it again.
Say something about me sympathizing with infant baptizers and I’m banning you.
LikeLike
“Greg, You speak as though believer’s only Baptism has a spotless record in producing committed Christians who never lapse into unbelief or never darken the door of a church again. If the truth was told I’m sure the ‘retention’ rate of believer’s only Baptism is only marginally better than infant Baptism.”
I specifically raised the issue myself and answered it with 1stJohn 2:19 in my last post, so your statement is not true. Many Baptists have pointed out the same problems with manipulating unregenerate people into being Baptized in order to pad Church stats but that’s a completely different issue than the one I am addressing. The issue is that Lutheran theology says that Baptism “actually does something” the actual thing it does apparently is to impart a saving faith to the individual and they make a big deal how this shows salvation is “All Grace, All God, All the time!”. OK, so then I ask who’s fault is it if they grow up to hate God? The Lutheran position seems to indicate that God is incapable of “completing the good work He started” (Phil 1:) in the baptized infants. Any body else see a problem here?
LikeLike
Greg:
Ok. God Bless.
LikeLike
Larry,
Mike Horton and the WHI Reformed guys have been greatly influenced by Lutheranism, so their views on the sacraments is not representative of mainstream Reformed doctrine. Horton has been accused on occasion of being a “crypto Lutheran”
Greg,
You speak as though believer’s only Baptism has a spotless record in producing committed Christians who never lapse into unbelief or never darken the door of a church again. If the truth was told I’m sure the ‘retention’ rate of believer’s only Baptism is only marginally better than infant Baptism.
LikeLike
That’s good, because I am not donating any more server space to the endless Baptism debate.
LikeLike
Eric said: “If you have made up your mind that you are right and are not open to investigating another view, then endless debating and quoting Scripture is a waste of time (for all of us).”
I watched your hour long presentation and to be honest; I found it to be a very surface level, Sunday school type presentation. There was a minimum of scriptural support and a lot of appeal to “we’ve (almost) always done it this way” and “how can 75 percent of Christians be wrong?”, a smattering of OT texts and very few of the promised NT references.
You are the one who seems to have made up your mind and does not want to answer some of the tougher issues that your view naturally raises. That’s fine; but don’t try and turn this around and make it look like you have done something besides run away from answering legitimate questions. Like if Infant Baptism actually imparts saving faith to the infant and they are as a result “raised with Christ” (as your youtube teacher and yourself assert, that Rom 6: refers to infant baptism): how then do so many of these same infants grow up to be God haters? In my view I can easily point to the fact that some people who are Baptized on the basis of a false confession and then fall away never were true believers in the first place. 1John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”
Pretty hard to square that with your position. Anyway; you don’t seem the least bit interested in answering any questions, so I’ll just leave it at that and move on myself.
Greg
LikeLike
Josh S. what is the difference in the Reformed and LUtheran language on the Sacraments?
I don’t have in mind the more legalistic reformed but those that hold the Gospel in the Sacraments for us given to us (e.g. Michael Horton).
Sometimes it seems so close between the two. Without a doubt I hold to the Gospel in them, its why I’m no longer a baptist or memorial view person, I NEED the merciful God myself and have had more than my share of the devil preaching damnation to my soul in the past. The relief, Gospel, I saw in infant baptism is forever a treasured Gospel, that’s why no argument could take me back, I see Christ there in baptism for me. The Lord’s Supper between the Reformed and Lutheran is difficult for me, I admit it.
Larry KY
PS: You won’t hurt my feelings discussing this issue, truly, the merciful God is what many of us seek, regardless. It’s one of the things I love about Michaels’ web site and discussions (as opposed to some reformed and baptist blogs I’ve been around), I think, and I cannot speak for him, he seeks this way too and doesn’t have the thin skin you find in most defending their “denomination” as opposed to “where is God savingly truly for me”.
Anyway, thanks much in advance!
LikeLike
Greg:
I have Biblical support and made it easily available to you. During this entire series I have linked for you both articles and a video (that is over an hour long) that addresses the Biblical support for infant Baptism.
As I think you are aware, in the blog culture it is not appropriate to take up a lot of space with writing or quotes. What is appropriate etiquette is to link to larger articles or other resources that address issues in greater depth. This is simply out of respect to the host of the blog and the readers.
If you have made up your mind that you are right and are not open to investigating another view, then endless debating and quoting Scripture is a waste of time (for all of us). If, however, you are open, then feel free to explore these resources.
If you have resources that you want to link or recommend, please post them and, if I have not already read them, I will.
You are obviously an intelligent person and very serious about your faith. I am more than willing for you to put me in touch with materials that you feel will help me better understand what you believe and why you believe it.
On to future posts. Take care.
In Christ,
Eric
LikeLike
Erik this conversation was too one sided for my liking. You never bothered to answer any of my questions. You have no answers I assume.
The biggest problem with your position is that it lacks biblical support.
LikeLike
It’s faith alone, that is trust. And NOTHING demonstrates raw faith like an infant. They are nothing but trusters.
When I saw my first infant baptism the Gospel hit me so afresh and powerful, that infant just RECEIVING, it was just as Luther described his experience, the gates of heaven opened up. It came to me then and there all my trying to believe was unbelieving, just receive!!!
Faith of the new man is in opposition to the ‘doing’ of the old man. The old man can’t even comprehend it at all, that’s why the old man never ‘gets it’, he’s an incurrable doer. Thus, infant baptism to our old man makes NO sense whatsoever. But to the new man, the naked truster, infant baptism makes perfect sense.
In a nutshell.
Blessings,
Larry
LikeLike
Greg, are we saved by faith alone or faith plus hearing the Gospel?
LikeLike
Greg:
One final comment and then I think we can finish this discussion/debate and move onto future posts.
Here is what I believe to be the issue in regards to Salvation and Baptism:
1. God saves us. It is done solely by his action.
2. Faith is totally from God. Faith is a gift given to us.
3. God creates faith in people using his Word and Sacraments (Baptism and Lord’s Supper).
4. God sustains faith in people using his Word and Sacraments.
I understand Baptism to be the most Evangelical of doctrines. It shows that Salvation is all God. God reaches out to us. We do nothing. Baptism is pure Grace. It is completely an unearned gift.
Infant Baptism demonstrates the unearned nature of Salvation.
Infant Baptism demonstrates that Faith is completely a gift from God.
Baptism clearly demonstrates that we do nothing, can do nothing – God creates and sustains our faith. He saves us. Pure Grace.
Thanks for the discussion/debate and I look forward to reading more about what you believe in future posts.
LikeLike
Eric:
I knew you had some ulterior motive for posing all those questions and yet I answered them anyway. You OTOH, still you have not seen fit to reciprocate.
As to my position; it not mine and I clearly did not say “must”; now did I? I said It’s the normative and prescribed method found in Scripture; so you are accusing Paul of being “man-focused and man-centered” not me. Your failure to interact with the supporting Scriptures I posted make it rather obvious to me that you are looking to score some points for Lutheranism with little regard for what Scripture actually says, and that’s unfortunate.
Further to your fallacious charges: The fallen condition of man is such that we will not “hear” or “understand” the gospel apart from the illumination of the Spirit. It’s like water off a ducks back. And yes; 1Cor 1: tells us that God has chosen the foolishness of preaching to accomplish this task which He has given to His Church, so you have a bone to pick with Him as well. Salvation then is God’s gift from start to Finnish.
LikeLike
Greg:
“The normative and prescribed method for belief is to hear and understand a clear proclamation of the Gospel. Infants as far as I understand are incapable of understanding spoken language.â€
This sounds like an argument for some type of Arminianism or “decision-theology”.
“The entire process from being chosen before the foundation of the world to our ultimate glorification with Christ at the resurrection, is the sovereign work of the the Triune God.
This sounds like an argument for Calvinism.
Are you saying that the “entire process” is a “sovereign work”, but man must “hear” and “understand” the Gospel and the Gospel must be “clearly” proclaimed by another person?
LikeLike
Greg:
You say, “The normative and prescribed method for belief is to hear and understand a clear proclamation of the Gospel. Infants as far as I understand are incapable of understanding spoken language.”
So, you are saying that, ultimately, Salvation depends on us? If we have to HEAR and UNDERSTAND a CLEAR proclamation of the Gospel, you are saying three things:
1. We must HEAR (or I would suppose read) the Gospel
2. We must UNDERSTAND the Gospel
3. The Gospel must be CLEARLY proclaimed by someone.
#1 and #2 make Salvation dependent on us. #3 makes Salvation dependent on someone clearly proclaiming the Gospel (which again puts the focus on people).
Your view is man-focused and man-centered. What kind of gift is this? A gift that is only good if you can hear or read it? A gift that is only good if you can understand it? A gift that has to be clearly explained before it is given?
Salvation is entirely God’s work. We have no part in it. If we have to hear and understand it, then we have a part in Salvation. If a person has to CLEARLY proclaim the Gospel, then Salvation is (at least in part) dependent on people.
LikeLike
The problem it seems to me is that we are using “free gift” in different ways I am saying SALVATION is a free gift that is given apart from works (including Baptism) and that true apostasy is impossible. The entire process from being chosen before the foundation of the world to our ultimate glorification with Christ at the resurrection, is the sovereign work of the the Triune God. (Eph 2:, Rom 8:, John 6:, )
LikeLike
The big difference between many on many of these questions on one side or the other side and even the Gospel is seeing it as pure gift versus not a gift. Everybody kind of agrees when grossly asked “is the Gospel a pure gift sans works†ANY good protestant will parrot quickly, “faith aloneâ€, or something similar. Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist…you name it. But then trouble sets in after that. I’ll tackle a few just to show this. And I’ll stick with three, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian. And I have no intention of defending a “denominationâ€, I have no such allegiance for the sake of allegiance. Having come from atheism one is afforded a bit more ability to not “sideâ€, having been so far out from the truth, about as far as you can get. For me, the Law hit so strongly, it’s always been “where is the merciful God†and is it in Scripture. The problem with the later is ANYBODY can bend the word of God to their paradigm – it’s an odd reality.
E.g. 1 Baptism: It can be seen in for example Colossians 2:11-13. In short and nutshell. A Baptist sees there a complete divorce between baptism and the work of the Spirit. The effect of which is some other looking to “see their conversionâ€. It then fits the paradigm of “who†gets baptized. So one must look for “fruits of conversion or proofs†so that the “timing of baptism†is gotten right. These “fruits†vary from person to person and church to church depending upon the local cult. Baptism then becomes no longer point to Christ but me. If I don’t get the order right, conversion first that has faith as seen by some tangible measure, then my baptism wasn’t right or real and so I get “re†baptized when I’ve confirmed this per above again. But as you see Christ is gone from all this and I become center stage. The Christian walk becomes some form, again depending upon the local cult, of moralistic transformation. Baptism is purely subjective, dependant upon the recipients faith to exist, that is “be a real baptism†and not upon the objective Christ or the name of God. In a sense a Baptist congregation at any given time cannot be assured that what they are viewing, if consistent with their doctrine, is a baptism at all. It’s a deeper issue than just infants because the question for an adult is if the adult was baptized and then turns from the faith later was there a real valid baptism? Even if the same person later comes to faith and is “re†baptized or “baptized for the first time for real now†according to the paradigm; was the earlier baptism real at all and is this one real. Basing it always on the subjective completely empties it of anything for real faith. It always begs the question of that prior baptismal ceremony, what was it? Baptism is not based objectively upon God’s name here being really given. Then what was evoked in an apostates baptism? Is this a violation of the third commandment, evoking vainly God’s name? The Baptist fundamentally sees here a divorce between water baptism and spirit baptism and thus the former becomes a mere work of man. Consequently, typically, the “unforgivable sin†is viewed as some form of unforgivable sin if it’s understood at all. Faith is somewhat viewed as something that must be “mustered up†and heaven, via baptism does not come down entirely to the receiver but the receiver in some sense “reaches up†to “get baptismâ€. If Satan attacks a believer about this all he merely has to do is: 1. Cast doubt on his/her baptism being valid. This he does by; 2. Attaching ALL the proofs the poor believer had as to having faith before he/she was baptized. This unleashes the believer from the gift of God FOR his/her faith, baptism. The devil has them because they “have to get the timing right†and this is “gotten right†by “must needs be having faith BEFORE baptism†and this is detected by “fruitsâ€. The devil then sets the poor believer into motion of suddenly not looking to Christ but working. This takes the form of aisle walking over and over, repraying the prayer yet again, moral restoration. The believer is turned in upon themselves in the extreme over time and does not recognize that ALL of this is pure unbelief and the inward turning even if it is of the form of GREAT moral improvement is more sin and running away from God. The devil has them on the run. The Baptist would never “pull out their baptism†and use it against the devil as a sword of the Spirit and say, “no I am baptizedâ€. Rather the devil has violently grabbed their baptism like a mugger grabbing a victims hand gun and has now turned it on them. The devil has then made true baptism (Gospel) a law to chase the believer away from Christ.
A Lutheran sees there that baptism is baptism regardless of the receiver’s status. There is no real divorce or attempt to ferret this out. Baptism is purely God’s work and the giving of God’s name to which it is pure gift top to bottom. If an infant or adult later apostacizes from the faith it makes no difference as to the baptism, its still real and truly a given baptism, the real giving of the name of God. The apostate merely rejects the gift and is thus all the more damned. Baptism is purely God’s work and not man’s, its pure Gospel witness is maintained. They don’t “fly into heaven†and attempt to ferret out the difference. Baptism purely comes ALL the way down to the receiver, the receiver reaches up zero. If a believer is confronted by the devil about “their lack of fruits†or sin struggles the Lutheran merely strikes with the sword of the spirit in baptism and says, “No Satan, I am baptized and if I am baptized I have the promise and ASSURANCE of both body and soul that I am and will be saved and HAVE eternal lifeâ€. The Lutheran here is not cast upon the couch of the iron maiden of self when they’ve sinned. Strong sins does not unlatch this Lutheran from baptism where Satan gains a foot hold to drive to works, in fact baptism is used against him. Because baptism is rooted and based upon the name and promise of God and NOT the condition of the receiver yea or nea.
A Reformed person. My experience is “it dependsâ€. If they are “Baptist leaning†then they can fall into the Baptist paradigm just retaining infant baptism and Satan attacks them similarly, but sans rebaptism in their paradigm it doesn’t work as effectively for the devil. IF they are “Lutheran leaning†then they find the same strength. The reformed pull out more the covenant aspect between physical and Spirit baptism. But generally see it as a gift like the Lutherans, an objective gift. If someone rejects it later in life they too see it as a rejection of Gospel and gift and that one, if they don’t turn, is all the more damned. The reformed tend to put this rejection more in the covenant paradigm as opposed to the Lutherans. And as such there is emphasis here that baptism is the greatest gift and pure Gospel but to reject it is to despise it and despise the covenant of Grace, Gospel and thus all the more be damned by it. Those who have heard and received the good gifts of the Spirit, tasted of the age to come, if they reject it their hell will be more severe because they received. Reformed make a split between the thing signified and the real thing but yet there is still a union it not a complete divorce as in the Baptist thinking, but yet it’s not a complete amalgamation of the two.
AS to seeking out “what about infants who die…â€. Here we must look to Christ for our answer. Anytime we are posed with a question that finds no explicit answer in Scripture we must look at the revealed God, Christ crucified and risen. As Calvin said we must look to Christ and Him crucified, any knowledge of God apart from this, even if it is sought in the Bible, leads surely to an idol. Yet we will call it “Godâ€, even “the God of the bible. Luther put it stronger I think; that you must look at the revealed God whether it be about infants, predestination or election (am I). If you loose the revealed God, Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU, then you loose the hidden God. As Jesus said, “anyone who has seen ME has seen the Fatherâ€. “NO ONE has seen the Father except Him Whom He sent†and a plethora of texts not to mention, “You search the Scriptures and think that by them you have life, but it are these that continually bear witness to ME (Jesus and what HE DID FOR YOU, the REVEALED GOD). Loose the revealed God and you loose the hidden God and you will hone an idol about God concerning the unborn and your predestination and election. That’s how EASY idolatry starts and it often starts from one’s not seeing Christ in Scripture. God is not one who doesn’t punish sin as the Cross of Christ clearly reveals. NOR is God like Moloch as the Cross of Christ clearly reveals. Based on this I easily believe without doubt that God has mercy on unborn infants who die, on children and mentally handicapped who cannot ascend to faith as we regular minded adults do. One is saved through the means of faith but not BY faith. In fact Jesus said explicitly that “the kingdom of God belongs to these†and that unless adults become as these they cannot even see the kingdom nor enter it. The Cross shows both the great wrath and the even greater mercy. There is where we answer these non explicitly revealed temptations of the flesh and devil to hone an idol for ourselves and fly into to heaven on our towers of Babel trying to reach up to God but really fleeing from Him, ironically trying to seek God, so we think.
Blessings,
L-KY
LikeLike
“Are you saying that infants, babies and children CAN NOT believe?”
Don’t they have to first have some content to believe? Rom 10:14 “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”
Scripture is clear. The normative and prescribed method for belief is to hear and understand a clear proclamation of the Gospel. Infants as far as I understand are incapable of understanding spoken language.
“2. If faith is a “gracious gift of God†(as you say), are you saying that God does not give this gracious gift to infants, babies and children?”3. Are you saying God will not, cannot or chooses not?
God can do whatever he wants to but that is not what you find in scripture.
4. If it is a “giftâ€, why must one be an adult (or some “age of accountabilityâ€) to receive the “giftâ€?
I have said nothing about an age of accountability. Scripture says we need to hear and understand the Gospel to be saved.
5. Are you saying that infants, babies and children are not sinful and do not need Salvation?
Huh?
6. If infants, babies and children die before they are adults (or some age of accountability), do they go to Heaven? Hell?
I have no way of saying because Scripture is virtually silent on the issue. I have an opinion but it is just that.
4. Are you saying that all adults who receive the gift of faith “go on to manifest a life of faithâ€? If not, why not?”
Yes, but note carefully, how you posed the question. Not all who “say” LORD LORD, but according to John 6: all who are given to Jesus by the Father will come to Him and He will raise them up the last day. The number of those who are drawn is equal to the number raised because it depends on God’s ability not ours.
I hope this helps you to stop avoiding the issues and answer a few questions yourself.
LikeLike
Greg:
1. You ask, “If Baptism follows faith how do Children believe something they have never heard?”
2. You ask, “Why is it that not all children who receive the gift of salvation through baptism go on to manifest a life of faith?”
In order to better understand what you believe, I need to ask you a few more questions:
1. Are you saying that infants, babies and children CAN NOT believe?
2. If faith is a “gracious gift of God” (as you say), are you saying that God does not give this gracious gift to infants, babies and children?
3. Are you saying God will not, cannot or chooses not?
4. If it is a “gift”, why must one be an adult (or some “age of accountability”) to receive the “gift”?
5. Are you saying that infants, babies and children are not sinful and do not need Salvation?
6. If infants, babies and children die before they are adults (or some age of accountability), do they go to Heaven? Hell?
4. Are you saying that all adults who receive the gift of faith “go on to manifest a life of faith”? If not, why not?
Thanks.
LikeLike
Faith; indeed all of salvation is a gracious gift of God. (Eph 2:8-9) Specifically; apart from works like circumcision or baptism. If Baptism follows faith how do Children believe something they have never heard; and why is it that not all children who receive the gift of salvation through baptism go on to manifest a life of faith?
LikeLike
Greg:
Where does faith come from?
LikeLike
“Seriously”
Whether salvation is by faith alone or by faith plus Baptism is a very serious issue.
LikeLike
Carrie, if you’re talking about “theological correctness” in terms of rigorously developing and vigorously promoting some abstract system of human ideas, I’m with you. It’s not worth a hill of beans. But if you’re talking about actually preaching the Gospel, the one once delivered to all the saints, then there’s simply no substitute. The Gospel itself creates faith and motivates to love. Telling people how to find their purpose in life or manage their time better just isn’t the Gospel. It’s not that it makes a church “soft” or isn’t intellectually satisfying enough. It’s that it simply is not the Gospel and thus saves no one. If the Gospel is not being preached, the work of the church is not being done. Period. If the Gospel isn’t being preached, everything stops there.
I agree that commitment to the Gospel can turn into loveless commitment to abstract, intellectual correctness. But then it’s not commitment to the Gospel anymore, so the answer is not throwing out the Gospel and replacing it with self-help messages and vigorously engaging in community outreach. The answer is repentance from your pride and returning to the Gospel once again.
Those are dry verses; all, but your arguments are all wet.
Seriously.
LikeLike
Carrie:
Lutherans are operating on a completely different paradigm. As a former “evangelical†(in the American, non-denominational sense), I can tell you that the Lutheran difference is not in just a few different beliefs about Baptism, Communion, etc. It is a completely different way of viewing things.
In reference to your comments about “works†and “doing thingsâ€, one way to begin to understand this different paradigm is to understand the Lutheran doctrine of Vocation. Vocation “grants an individual a particular standing and position in relation to others within a community. Moreover, it defines how one meaningfully participates in and contributes to the life of the community. In other words, our vocation tells us who we are within our social structures of life and what kind of duties we are to be about for the welfare of the community. These features of life make demands on us to live lives of faith and faithfulness. We must trust our standing to live securely as a member and our faith is expressed, in part, by faithfully being about the tasks that are associated with our peculiar station in the community.†(Hein)
Here are two short articles:
Luther on Vocatio: Ordinary Life for Ordinary Saints
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/hein.htm
Locus and Focus: God’s Will for Your Daily Life
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/locus.htm
A great book on this issue is Dr. Gene Veith’s God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life.
Veith states: “It is odd that such a liberating, life-enhancing doctrine has become all but forgotten in our time, passed over in our seminaries, sermons, and Bible classes. But the doctrine of vocation makes up an important part of the spiritual heritage that contemporary Christians have, unfortunately, cut themselves off from and are in such great need of recovering. It is more than an understanding of work, more than the slogan that we should do all things for the glory of God, more than a vague theological platitude.
… the doctrine of vocation amounts to a comprehensive doctrine of the Christian life, having to do with faith and sanctification, grace and good works. It is key to Christian ethics. It shows how Christians can influence their culture. It transfigures ordinary, everyday life with the presence of God.â€
Carrie, understanding Vocation changes your entire paradigm and way of looking at the question of “what should I be doing for God.â€
Here is the link to his book:
LikeLike
Eric:
Those are dry verses; all, but your arguments are all wet.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. You seem to be arguing for baptismal regeneration. Put aside the problem that baptismal regeneration poses when some children who are baptized grow up to hate God. If you want to argue; (as most paedo-Baptists do) that Baptism and Circumcision are parallel then it might be a good idea to familiarize yourself with Paul’s argument in Rom 4:. He points out that Abraham was justified by faith, years before he was circumcised. There appears to be around 25 years between the two events. To say nothing of the thief who Jesus declared would be with him in paradise without being baptized. Over and over and over Paul emphasizes Faith in Christ’s righteousness as the sole basis of our justification. Baptism is obligatory for believers, but takes place subsequent to justification as an act of obedience and a public declaration of a changed heart. Notice how Paul shows the real circumcision is not the outward one of the Flesh but the inward one of the Spirit. Unlike circumcision which was an outward sing of an inward need; Baptism is an outward sign of something that has already taken place in the heart through faith.
Phil 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. 3For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4though I myself have reasons for such confidence.
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith.
LikeLike
Greg,
There is just one way of salvation. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Christ Himself is the way of salvation. Those who are members of Him share His righteousness and His eternal life. Those who are not suffer death and Hell because of their own unrighteousness. Christ is the way, and Christ is the door, and BAPTISM is what puts us into Christ, through that door, onto that way. I’ve already offered a few verses that talk about being “baptized into Christ.” Here’s another one: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). To be wearing Christ is to be saved, to be (as the hymn puts it) “dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless to stand before the throne.”
Paul and Barnabas told the Philippian jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (a), and thou shalt be saved (b).†Maybe you consider this a proof against what I am saying, but what happened next? The jailer believed (part a), and they baptized him (part b). If you doubt that exegesis, I invite you to look earlier in the book of Acts, and see what answer Peter gave on the first occasion this question was posed to one of the Apostles:
2:37) Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
You say this baptism is a baptism of Spirit, not of water. Well, it clearly IS a baptism of Spirit. The Church has always taught that. Peter taught it in the passage I just quoted: If you are baptized, you receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. All throughout the book of Acts, we see these two things linked: Baptism and the Holy Spirit. The link is so consistent that God can communicate to Peter (and through him, to the rest of the Church) that yes, the Gentiles SHOULD be baptized, by reversing the usual order of things and giving Cornelius the Holy Spirit _before_ the water. Once he saw that, Peter had no choice but to baptize them (Acts 10:44-48, 11:15-18). Your error lies not in asserting that this is a baptism of the Spirit, but in denying that it is also a baptism of water.
I’m sure the textual support you would allege for this denial is Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5, which distinguish between baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Ghost. But please note, these verses are not distinguishing only between water and the Holy Spirit, but also—and much more significantly—between the baptism of JOHN and the baptism of Christ. The difference between those two, as you should know from the fact that the Church has baptized with water from the days of the Apostles right down to the present, is NOT that John used water and Jesus uses the Holy Spirit INSTEAD, but that John used water ONLY, while Jesus uses water AND the Holy Spirit. “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God†(John 3:5).
You can see that this is true by looking again at Acts 2:38. If the Holy Spirit is the only medium of baptism, how can Peter tell these men, in the imperative, to “be baptizedâ€? What is he telling them to do? Go home and get down the jar of Holy Spirit and wash with it? And when the 3000 who believed that day were baptized, do you think it was done without water? If you are right in your beliefs, exactly how negligent was St. Peter to offer the crowd baptism (which is by definition a washing with water) for the remission of sins, and then to actually wash them with WATER immediately after they repented, without explaining to them, “Now look, guys. This water doesn’t actually have anything to do with the remission of sins. It’s merely post-hoc symbolism. The actual remission was already granted to you by the Holy Spirit, the moment you believed.â€
But check out Acts 19 if you want the clearest argument against your assumption that water pays no part in “baptism with the Holy Ghost.†In the beginning of that chapter, Paul runs into a group of people who are disciples of John the Baptist:
2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
It’s that contrast again, exactly the same distinction that John the Baptist made between his baptism and the baptism of the one who would come after him (Matt. 3:11), and that Christ repeated in Acts 1:5—NOT a distinction simply between water and the Spirit, but between John’s baptism, which WAS only a symbol of repentance, and Christ’s baptism, which GIVES THE HOLY SPIRIT. And despite the fact that these disciples of John had already been baptized once, in order to receive the Holy Spirit they had to be baptized again, in the name of the Lord Jesus. The baptism that gives the Holy Spirit IS ALSO baptism by water. In fact, the problems this passage gives to your position are even more severe than that, because it is explicitly stated that the Holy Spirit doesn’t come upon them until AFTER they have been baptized. So if the Holy Spirit Himself is the only medium of this kind of baptism, and water can’t save us, how on earth could these men have been baptized BEFORE the medium of baptism had been applied to them?
LikeLike
Josh-
I feel some sadness over our brief exchange and I realize it’s because I don’t think you’ve heard me. You’ve talked past me with some doctrinally correct pat answer each time, but never actually address my point.
Correct theology without the resulting action in the world is as dead as “faith without works.” You can get all the sacraments right and hold the proper view of justification, but if it doesn’t motivate the minister or the church body to get beyond itself it’s “no earthly good.” (Though it might be “eternally” good.)
A church that is weak on teaching but gets the “praxis” right isn’t any more in error than a church that gets the doctrine right and is weak on getting their hands dirty. And ironically, it’s the churches strongest on trying to get the beliefs right that tend to be not only the most introverted, but also the most disdainful of churches they consider “soft.”
In 30 years as a Christian, I’ve found many churches trying hard to get the beliefs right (and then defending their beliefs from other Christian beliefs) and I’ve found many churches who take their less well-defined beliefs and put them to work. One church is intellectually challenging, the other challenges our self-centerness and sin more directly. I’m not saying one is “better.” I am saying they are both incomplete. And I am saying the disdain (and judging) ought to stop.
Thank you for hearing me.
LikeLike
Greg:
Here is a video explaining how Lutherans understand Baptism and Salvation:
http://www.messiahseattle.org/education/aic/videos/lesson_10/index.htm
LikeLike
Why do you have to “rise” (get up) if the Baptism being referred to is the supernatural baptism of the Spirit and not the washing of the water and the word?
LikeLike
“Or you could read the same Apostle testifying that baptism washed his sins away (Acts 22:16) and teaching us that we rise with Christ because we’ve been baptized into His death (Romans 6:3-5, Colossians 2:12).”
If I said that then I would be saying there are more than one way of salvation. One way is to believe the gospel and trust in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus for my Justification, and then there is also the dump water on your kids head way. The baptism that washes away sin is the supernatural baptism of the Spirit which happens when a person believes.
LikeLike
Josh T.,
I don’t see how you can agree that the sacraments aren’t “finer points,” and then turn right around and say that what they ARE _is_ a “finer point.” That’s completely contradictory. It’s like saying that Christology isn’t a “finer point,” but the question, “Who was Jesus?” _is_.
> an understanding of how spiritual things work in
> a precise and perfect way
I certainly don’t claim to be able to tell you in any precise or complete fashion _how_ Baptism washes me of sin and plants me into Christ, or _how_ the bread and wine can be at the same time God’s own body and blood. I just know, on the authority of God’s own Word (where am I going “beyond the immediate biblical witness”?), that it does, and they are.
As for your speculation about Lutherans, any Lutheran who is “trusting in the bread and wine…rather than discerning Christ” is simply not listening. The ONLY reason we trust in the bread and wine is because they ARE the Body and Blood of Christ. The trust is based entirely on this discernment.
> Is there such thing as legalism in understanding
> grace perfectly?
Yes, I think there is. And I would say that non-sacramental churches fall into this danger much more easily than sacramental churches do, because sacraments are simple. You just do them. Or better yet, they are done _to_ you. Like salvation. Like with your car or your computer, you don’t have to understand _how_ it works in order for it to work. You just have to believe the promises God has made in Christ.
LikeLike
Josh T, I’m not sure how believing that baptism actually gives the forgiveness of sins is any more obtuse or dependent on immense theological sophistication than is saying that Jesus is both God and man. The problem is that these really aren’t finer points of theological sophistication. All you need to do is look at Luther’s Small Catechism, a teaching guide written for children, and you’ll immediately see huge differences between what Lutherans and Baptists believe. I think a handy rule of thumb is that if a child under the age of 12 can understand it, it’s not a “finer point.”
LikeLike
Here I think lie some of the reasons for the real-life difficulties with ecumenical efforts (including Michael Spencer’s hopes for a ‘Generous Catholicity’ and table fellowship)… both Eric and Josh S. say that the sacraments are NOT a ‘finer point of theology’. I somehow don’t think that there are many people in audience here that think either Baptism or Communion is a ‘finer point’ in the least. I would bet most of us find them quite important. The ‘finer point’ in my mind is the question of differences in our understanding of how the sacraments are to be implemented in the Church, and how the sacraments work (do they have inherent “power”? or are they “merely” symbolic and yet can still be powerful instruments for our faith in Jesus Christ?, etc.)
I realize that Christianity is both wonderfully simple on some levels and yet complicated in others. But sometimes it seems that an understanding of how spiritual things work in a precise and perfect way (that is–beyond the immediate biblical witness) becomes elevated near to (or equated with) alliegance to Christ himself. It seems that emphasis on perfection in some areas can end up being a hinderance–perhaps directing our focus not to Jesus and the cross and the kingdom of God, but inwardly to our own hearts, testing not our faith in the Person, but the perfection of our understanding of how salvation works and how sacraments fit into the scheme in order to make certain that I’m (at best) able to benefit from them properly or (at worst) that I’m not putting my soul in jeopardy.
I hate to say it,(and it’s no offense intended to you Lutherans) but I’m afraid that every theological system seems to have a way of becoming legalistic in its own fasion.
Calvinists might examine themselves, their works, to see if they’re elect.
Baptists might wonder if they prayed that sinner’s prayer just right–did I really mean it? Do I really know I’m ‘saved’?
Some extreme Arminians might be afraid of committing that one sin and then dying before repenting.
And perhaps some Lutherans–like some Roman Catholics?– might (because of a slight lack of understanding, or a lapse in judgment) be trusting in the bread and the wine in a ‘magical’ fashion rather than discerning Christ and miss out on the grace of God. (I hope I’m not mischaracterizing here).
[rhetorical] Is there such thing as legalism in understanding grace perfectly? Is there no grace for our inevitable misunderstandings of grace?
And I know am guilty myself. Lord, have mercy.
LikeLike
Greg,
> Seems odd that Paul could only remember baptizing
> a few people
I assume you’re thinking of the following passage from I Corinthians chapter 1:
14) I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15) lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
You’re reading this wrong if you think it means that Paul can’t remember who he’s baptized. He _is_ remembering. He’s naming names. “I know not whether I baptized any other” means, “I don’t think I did, but I might be forgetting someone.” Unless you have a list of another dozen folks he did baptize in Corinth, you can’t assume this shows a lapse in memory. And remember how many churches he started, and how many people he must have baptized along the way. If they started to blur together after a while, that would be only natural.
And when Paul says, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel,” you COULD assume from this that what he means is, “Preaching saves people; baptism doesn’t, so it’s not as important.” Or you could read the same Apostle testifying that baptism washed his sins away (Acts 22:16) and teaching us that we rise with Christ because we’ve been baptized into His death (Romans 6:3-5, Colossians 2:12). Then you might conclude instead that Paul took this approach because 1) anybody can do a baptism, but it takes someone with rare gifts and a special calling to explain the Gospel so well and so prolifically that people will be using your explanations as sacred writ 2000 years later, and 2) as he says in this passage, he’s worried about people putting too much significance on the MINISTER who baptized them, and dividing into sects instead of standing united in the one CHRIST they’ve all been baptized into. And that makes perfect sense. Having the local guys–the future pastors and elders–get involved administering the sacraments right from the start is a very wise plan if you’re a traveling evangelist who wants your church plants to survive and thrive in unity under local leadership after you’ve moved on.
LikeLike
Matthew 28 is not some kind of trivial exception. It’s the summary of the whole book. As the Gospels are more comprehensive than the Epistles, the baptismal language and imagery should hardly be ignored. Further, Matthew’s gospel was regarded by the early church as the chief book of the New Testament, not Romans or Galatians. Luke gives even more attention to baptism than Matthew does, describing Christ’s death baptismally and of course giving it prominence in Acts.
Paul’s words should not be taken as trivializing baptism, certainly not in the context of Eph 5:26, Romans 6, the later chapters of Acts, etc.
LikeLike
Josh said: “Carrie, with all due respect, Christ commissioned the ministry to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments.”
Acts 6: 1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
I don’t see where such a heavy emphasis on administering the Sacraments as the primary role of the Shepherd comes from in Scripture. It Seems odd that Paul could only remember baptizing a few people; if that were his primary focus and function. In fact; although Paul is obviously not saying that Baptism is not important, even obligatory for confessing believers; however as a matter of Apostolic priority, he seems to downplay it a bit don’t you think? The great commission in Matt 28: may be the exception but baptism there seems to be a consequent on discipleship not the other way around.
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.”
LikeLike
Josh T:
First, Lutherans believe that you need to believe in what the Eucharist is in order to receive any benefit from it. We would regard anyone who openly disbelieves in the Eucharist as not ready to receive it (we do not believe that the Real Presence is simply a theological opinion; it is what the Eucharist fundamentally is). This isn’t just a fellowship issue; it’s a pastoral issue.
Second, we do not believe the sacraments are finer points of theology. We believe the church lives through the means of grace, so the sacraments are fundamental. In ecumenical endeavors, they will always occupy a central role. As far as convincing other Christians of them, we see it as pretty important. The sacraments are where the Gospel is found, so we would see denial of the Gospel efficacy of the sacraments as quite detrimental to church health and Christian faith.
LikeLike
Josh T.,
I’ll take a stab at those two questions.
This concerns your second question, but I think I should state first, that the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood is not a “finer point” of theology for Lutherans. It’s quite basic. When God incarnate comes to you and allows you to put His body and blood into your mouth on a weekly basis, to convey forgiveness of sins and strength for the Christian life, that’s a BIG DEAL.
That’s why, to answer your first question, Lutheran churches that are taking their own theology seriously do not offer communion to people who don’t believe in the Real Presence. When Christ says through the pastor, “this is my body,” the pastor doesn’t have the right to give that body to someone he knows is thinking, “It’s not REALLY Christ’s body.” Especially not in light of I Cor. 11:29.
LikeLike
Michael,
I thought your comment was very insightful and touched on some things that are important in Lutheranism,;namely the “ordinariness” of Christ’s forgiveness proclaimed through the words of a minister and His promises delivered in Baptism and the Lord’s supper. Many Christians place so much emphasis on the ‘subjective’ ‘in my heart’ communication with God that the means by which He has promised to speak to us all (preached word baptism,lord’s supper) is largely ignored or subtly relegated to a back shelf. This insight touches virtually all aspects of theology and deserves further meditation
LikeLike
Ironies of ironies a Baptist friend and pastor of mine were just discussing this today. He has been accused more than once of being “Lutheranâ€, particularly in the Gospel he preaches and gives. I mean this as a serious conversation and since my own history doesn’t include other denominations I cannot speak experientially and honestly to that, only what I’ve and others similar have seen within SB and like evangelical circles. And for sake of conversation I would categorize “modern evangelical†of a broader class to which the SBC belongs, to which the problem is the same.
One of the issues he and I have experienced, separately in our previous individual SB Christian walks (he’s now independent Baptist and I’m PCA), in a nutshell was this: In the SB community broadly speaking, and many in SB circles know this themselves and honestly admit it, it’s not a knock or put down but a reality; the SB church(es) began to see a degradation over time (this varies church to church as to degree but it is organically so as a whole). But the problem was and continues to mostly be seen in terms of “moralisms†of various variety. That’s the way the problem is formulated and mostly seen. It only takes about five seconds of searching this out in general SB conversation to find this out and if you happen to even so much as ‘hint’ at it being that the Gospel is lost and being lost among it, you will get your head handed to you, even if your just trying to help honestly. However, this goes back to the entire fundamental idea of having and attempting to have a “regenerate church onlyâ€, that was his, my friend’s, assessment without my prompting it. Because the problem seen a few years ago in SB circles was that “we are baptizing too many non-believers in believers baptism†who never darken the doors of the church again and/or don’t live up to the local church laws or SB broader house rules. And this was/is measured in terms of various moralisms defined by the local church cult. So, the solution instead of being clear up and preach the real Law and real Gospel, became “how can we weed out these false professors to baptize them.†That is, more laws to detect the real Christians (the paradigm here is that Christianity slowly becomes defined as “the real Christian is truly so if he/she lives up to ______â€. Rather than the narrow path, BAM, the car was steered away from the rock wall and off over on the cliff side. Calvinism, not really John Calvin, via the TULIP, has become the vehicle for this (there are the “TULIP†lovers, then there are those who seriously read John Calvin). Because the TULIP can be a kind of strong law to move people and way to “weed out†the false professors. But it is used in this way devoid of Gospel and just becomes a BIGGER moral hammer than the standard Arminian fare, neither of which are the real Holy Law that “crushes the rock into pieces, breaking both false saints and open sinnersâ€, so that the Gospel is sweet.
This has manifest itself in SB churches, some which I belonged, in such things as elder’s being installed (or deacons and the pastor called to the same task), whose task among others is to “weed out the potential false professorsâ€, so as to purify the church and baptism once again. I’ve seen elders that set up this task as if they can really read a heart. My friend, again a Baptist pastor himself, just told me today, “I guess it has something to do with insisting on “believers/regenerate church only†in the here and now. And there’s no way around that reality.
What begins to slowly continue to be lost in all this is the Gospel. I mean it really disappears from the preaching of the Word no matter how much exegesis occurs (because law alone is exegeted from nearly every passage) and the Gospel is completely emptied from the sacraments (ordinances). While I was teaching youth back then, it always confounded me as to how we would on one hand teach the youth to “do missions†and have “youth mission tripsâ€, ostensibly to give the Gospel, but yet not have them as baptized members. That was a real head scratcher for me and I worried what we were communicating to them, “the Gospel is for those you are ‘witnessing to’ but not you, until you DO something to in essence purchase itâ€. An odd thing indeed.
However, I’ve even had conversations, and so has he, with many outside of Christianity and they always speak particularly and explicitly to evangelicals and SB in terms of “pushing their morals on everybodyâ€. Now that’s a very sad reality, because that’s the very real measurable witness explicitly spoken BACK to the church by the outside hearers as to what they are REALLY hearing from the church that apparently is being picked up on loud and clear, not reconciliation, not Christ crucified and risen FOR YOU, not the Gospel, but morals. They are not rejecting the Gospel but the “morals†of those denominations. But I’ve seen deluded pastor after deluded pastor, and I mean deluded, think they got thrown out of a church for preaching the Gospel, when all they got tossed out for, in the end, was that “their law†didn’t agree with the churches established law.
The reason I think there are no “Lutheran Baptist†is that generally speaking the Lutheran church is outwardly liturgical and it “looks Roman Catholicâ€. But the irony of ironies is that “inwardlyâ€, what is preached and taught especially THROUGH the liturgies is as far from Rome as heaven is from hell. AND the GREATEST irony is that in evangelical circles, they are inwardly just like Roman Catholicism even though outwardly, no formal liturgy and such, they are different. Rome and Evangelicals (modern usage of the term) are functionally the exact same thing, and secular society is increasingly seeing this better than the church itself cares or dares to admit.
Second, at length its hard to sustain adult only baptism with the Gospel, in fact its impossible, because it looses its Gospel import since I have “to look to myself as to possessing real saving faith first, and this I can only do by some contrived list of works that are tactile enough to show this faith so that I get the timing of baptism right for it to be baptism.†Suddenly baptism is ‘me looking inwardly’ rather than me beholding the Cross to which it is witnessing, not to me. There’s a reality to what Luther said that if we fail to baptize infants it will loose its Gospel witness for us. Ultimately, there’s no escaping it, this is why there are no “Lutheran Baptistâ€. Some reformed theology, post Calvin himself, tends to smudge this line a bit and in those circles you get some inconsistent cross overs of “reformed†and “Baptistâ€. E.g. I’ve had reformed folk more friendly to “memorial†view of the Lord’s Supper, and hostile to Luther’s real presence. But in reality Calvin was MUCH closer to Luther in principle than he would have ever been to the memorial view.
However, I have heard of at least one Baptist church applying to become Lutheran, the entire congregation.
L-KY
LikeLike
I read though the article that Eric linked to about the notion of many so-called ‘conservative Christians’ are actually compromising theologically. I agree with some of the article’s criticisms, but it leaves questions in my mind regarding Lutheran attitudes about the ‘finer points’ of doctrine — questions I think Josh S. might be able to answer well.
[As a premise to my brief questions, the article heavily criticized the well-quoted maxim, “In things essential, unity; in doubtful, liberty; in all things, charity.” I kinda think that this notion would be something that fits in well with iMonk’s ‘generous catholicity’ and how it would apply to communion table fellowship–so I wonder what the Lutheran position would be…Michael can feel free to agree or disagree with my thoughts on that.]
1) What are Lutheran attitudes toward Communion table fellowship with non-Lutheran Christians–i.e., does one have to believe in the Lutheran view of the sacraments, etc to participate in communion?
2) How essential are the ‘finer points of theology’ (such as Lutheran understanding of the sacraments) in ecumenical endeavors–and how important is it for Lutherans to persuade non-Lutheran Christians to their point of view in such matters?
LikeLike
“Suprarational” is probably a better word than “irrational” to use when describing the Trinity, but the difference is just in the connotations. Both words mean, “This does not make sense.” But the word “irrational” seems to imply that it’s therefore _wrong_, while the word “suprarational” explains, “It doesn’t make sense because it is a truth that is higher than Reason.”
Oh, and good work with these answers, Josh.
LikeLike
“I’ve been trying to grasp Reformed theology on this point for several years now, and I’ll just say I can’t articulate the difference well enough to satisfy any Reformed theologian, although it’s real.”
Yup, from the discussions I’ve had with you and John, I kind of know what you mean (being at a Baptist church heightens my own awareness of this problem). And I know, because I read it recently, that the Book of Concord teaches the necessity of faith in the proper use of the sacraments (I assume that means faith is the way we appropriate their benefits). So the difference really is quite tricky to pin down–the most obvious place is that we’d list receiving Christ as a benefit of the sacraments (and so faith is needed to take hold of Christ in the sacrament), but if that were all, our disagreements probably wouldn’t be quite so vociferous.
LikeLike
Eric-
You lost me with Todd Wilken. I am theologically conservative, as is the church I was referring to. We believe in the virgin birth, Christ as fully human and fully God, Christ’s death on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, bodily resurrection, etc. I don’t know why my post prompted you to post the article. I am just saying those who believe the Bible ought to spend more time doing what it says than *arguing* over who is “in” and who is “out.”
LikeLike
Carrie, with all due respect, Christ commissioned the ministry to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. Everything else flows from that. In fact, the apostles appointed the first deacons so that they could devote themselves to preaching.
LikeLike
Patrick: Never saw it. Repost AND send a copy to my email michaelATinternetmonkDOTcom.
LikeLike
Michael,
I posted an answer to your question this morning but don’t see it in the comments. Did my computer mess up, or did my answer fail to make ” the cut”?
Thanks
LikeLike
A liturgical and doctrinal report from an “other†Baptist church.
This Sunday morning was one of those days in which I could have fled the church as if it were the sinking Titanic. It contained most everything that never should exist in the assembly in the form presented; A potpourri of a running commentary of bad theology in the introduction, followed by a string of equally worthless bad theology choruses, the continual diatribe by inference or spoken word by the pastor that genuine Christians should always be happy, as well as that after these choruses, his message would be redundant-not necessary; A “buttering up†of the pastor by the “King James only†crowd by “Amening†everything he said, a corresponding “buttering up†of the “King James Bible†by the pastor, three unsolicited duets by an elderly couple from a fundamentalist Baptist church 35 miles West, three congregational gospel songs followed by a shortened message on the closing verses of Titus 2.
One of the attendees was a lady, probably in her late sixties, who was/is struggling with very severe depression to the point of being suicidal. She had sought relief from her depression by calling the elders of the church to pray over her the previous Sunday. It was obvious from her appearance, that she had experienced no relief. I tried to encourage her by assuring her that God was as near in these times of trial as when everything was going well, and that her depression need not be indicative of her standing with God. I also told her that I personally had struggled with depression, at times very severe, for close to 55 years. Though I do not understand why, I have, though sometimes not very successfully, learned to trust God in and through it. It nevertheless seemed that she was looking for a quick fix; a formula cure, rather than “My Grace is sufficient for theeâ€.
That was followed by dinner, only, thereafter to be buttonholed by the Baptist man who had sung, as to why he did not believe that immersion was the only legitimate form of baptism, followed by his assertion that the King James Bible was the only inspired Bible, as proven by Gail Riplinger. He seemed shocked when I informed him that I WAS NOT from the “King James only†crowd.
Why am I reporting this? Because it is indicative of how evangelicals have sidestepped the weighty things of the Faith, which include preaching doctrine, The Historic Christ, and dealing with “real†problems people encounter. Instead we revel in and banter about all the fluff that is floating about in evangelicalism, and in that process give people false truth, false faith, false aspirations and false hope. When these expectations do not materialize, we automatically assume that a lack of faith or some other sin must be the cause. Hmm… I wonder, which sins did Jesus commit to be called “…a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefâ€? By now the evangelicals, including Baptists need as much reformation as the Catholic church did in Luther’s day. May God have mercy on us!
LikeLike
I consider the matter closed. I have a great appreciation for Luther and Lutheran theology. I have read Luther’s Bondage of the Will and in fact just lent it to someone else to read. I have also read some of his commentaries as well as Bainton’s “Here I Stand” I am a regular listener of Issues ETC and the White Horse INN. I simply disagree on Scriptural grounds with the Lutheran view of the Sacraments, as would all Credo Baptists.
RE Irrationality:
Both Eric and Micheal are equivocating on the term irrational, and trying to twist its meaning to say that I am claiming that: “the Trinity can be deduced from reason”. STR is not saying that, Montgomery is not saying that, and I am not saying that. Here are the first four of eight dictionary definitions of the word “irrational” the other four deal with mathematics.
1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason.
2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment.
3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments.
4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals.
Notice there is nothing that says a doctrine, idea, or assertion of fact must be derived solely from reason. (It might be helpful to dig out a copy of Schaeffer’s “Escape from Reason” and see how he differentiates between reason and rationalism.) What the above definition does say, is that if such ideas are devoid of reason then they can be considered Irrational. Eric you have made the positive assertion that the very idea of the Trinity is irrational. It is not my fault if you are using improper and misleading language to try to score points. There is no logical contradiction contained the doctrine of the Trinity. Three whos, one what. Simple. Those are the facts. We get those facts based on revelation and they are perfectly reasonable. The Trinity can be apprehended without being fully comprehended.
Let me take this opportunity to apologize for using the word Duh in my response to Eric. I will be more respectful in the future.
LikeLike
Greg:
From Concordia’s (LCMS) Christian Cyclopedia, here is a quote about the Trinity. Just like the issues of Election and Salvation, Lutherans believe what the Scriptures teach – even when such concepts our “beyond our powers of comprehension”.
“All similes, comparisons, images, or illustrations by which men have tried to represent the doctrine of three Persons in one Godhead fail to illustrate; much less do they explain. The Trinity has been compared to fire, which is said to possess the 3 “attributes†of flame, light, and heat; but this division is highly artificial, and the comparison is altogether faulty, because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not so many attributes of God, but are, each of them, God Himself. The Trinity has been compared to the division of a human being into body, soul, and mind; but each of these constituents is not separately a human being, whereas each of the divine Persons, separately considered, is truly God.
The doctrine of the Trinity is beyond our powers of comprehension. The difficulty does not lie in the numeral terms but in the relation of the 3 Persons to each other and the way they are united in one Godhead without being only parts of it. AC I 4: “The word is to be understood as the Fathers employed the term in this connection, not as a part or a property of another but as that which exists of itself.â€
LikeLike
Todd Wilken recently wrote a great article that addresses the very important issues raised by Carrie.
Here is a link:
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/wilken3.htm
LikeLike
Josh wrote:
“You’re killing yourself if you just go somewhere where all the pastor does is rappel down from the ceiling after a rockin’ tune by the praise band and then babbles about how to realize God’s purpose in your life.”
I disagree. I was raised Presbyterian and Lutheran, I spent most of my adult life trying to figure out the “right” beliefs. I went to dynamic, Bible-believing reformed churches, attended Bible studies, and hear thousands of great sermons. I wanted to believe the right things. It seemed like the most important thing I could do. And I watched as all these intellectuals debated and talked and studied…all inside their very proper churches with their very proper music.
Then due to circumstances too involved for this discussion, my family ended up at one of the “rockin’ churches” you allude to here, complete with band and “relevant” sermons. Sometimes I did despair at the lightweight teaching. But then I noticed something I’d never seen before– the church was full of joy and community, college kids with blue hair could come join in without any raised eyebrows. Poor and middle class mingled and worshiped together. And the church gives a full 40% of its income for missions and outreach. Every year we turn our church into “GraceMart” filled with donation and serve over a thousand poor in our area with clothing, food, medicines, furniture, and appliances…all free. The members of the church actually leave the building and Bible studies and walk the walk, getting among the lost and needy. This rockin’ church has the most active outreach I’ve ever seen, and it only has about 500 members.
Right beliefs are a good thing, understanding the Bible, justification, and forgiveness are all wonderful. But too often we are too intent on making sure we are “right” that we forget to do anything we’ve been commissioned to do by Jesus.
Sometimes arguing over nuances in justification seems more like justifying inactivity and puffing up egos than worrying about obedience to God’s call for servanthood. I can’t tell you how much respect I have for the pastors and members of this “rockin” church.
LikeLike
Greg says, “Then Eric throws out the “such irrational ideas as the Trinity†comment. Wow! I am used to hearing that type of rhetoric from JW’s but not from other Christians.”
The difference is that you don’t then hear JWs follow up with the rest of what I said in my post. I believe in the Trinity.
Actually, I am very familiar with Montgomery. Michael beat me to a response, but he summed up what I was going to say:
“Montgomery and STR are ultimately wrong that the Trinity can be deduced from reason. Follow back the chain of reasoning, and you will arrive at presuppositions. Both of them know this perfectly well.”
I am a Christian debating with you (another Christian, I assume) about something we both already believe in. This is the context of the debate. Within that context, I am trying to get you to admit (which you for some reason are unable or unwilling to do) that we all believe many things that are not logical/rational and are based on presuppositions.
Greg, I am interested in your answers to the questions I have asked you in this post:
1.) Is rationality the basis for Christian belief? (i.e. What role, if any, does it play?)
2.) What is your rational explanation for the Trinity? (simply quoting Montgomery won’t do, I am waiting for your rational/logical explanation.)
3.) Why can’t you believe what Scripture teaches about Salvation, Election, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? (What stops you?)
4.) Why do you require rationality and logic only when it comes to the specific issues you disagree with in these blog posts (i.e. Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, Salvation and Election)?
LikeLike
Patrick:
>Those are very profound words and you would be wise to meditate upon them and consider them deeply.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the above statement?
Thanks.
LikeLike
From rr
“So why does it seem like the Reformed are so important? Why is there voice heard so loudly among Evangelicals?”
From Michael
“How weird are we evangelicals? Most of us wouldn’t even blink at the idea of God speaking “to our heart†about forgiveness in some extraordinary experience. But talk about the ordinary words of a minister speaking the forgiveness of Christ or receiving that forgiveness as God’s word to you in Baptism or the Supper and you get all kinds of protests.
We are strange.”
Michael, those are two discussions I would love to have after you give it some thought and grace us with your insight in a couple of posts. No pressure!
LikeLike
I’d like to state, for the record, that when I said a commenter didn’t want the Lutheran view to appear on my blog, I had misunderstood Greg’s intentions with his comments taunting and questioning me for being a Baptist who was “starry eyed” over Lutheranism. They sounded to me like a protest over the series of posts. Apparently not. My error. Greg seems to have been mistaken about Josh’s motives and I apparently was about his. He’s all for Lutheran theology being discussed at IM.
I apologize for whatever was mistakenly said subsequent to that interpretation that perpetuated the misunderstanding.
Anything further on this disagreement with Greg comes to me via email or it won’t be posted. Any further comments about me and not on the topic of the thread will be deleted.
Montgomery and STR are ultimately wrong that the Trinity can be deduced from reason. Follow back the chain of reasoning, and you will arrive at presuppositions. Both of them know this perfectly well.
Now Greg can apologize for saying “duh” to another commenter.
LikeLike
….
First I didn’t claim Josh’s entire position was irrational. I just pointed out that when he explicitly said “I know most people want a logical answer, but I just don’t have one.†(Are you guys taking notes on how to accurately quote some one?????) Then he said: “I suppose I’m going to get accused of Arminianism or irrationality or something.” I’m like thinking to myself: Huh? what do you expect?
Then Eric throws out the “such irrational ideas as the Trinity” comment. Wow! I am used to hearing that type of rhetoric from JW’s but not from other Christians. Here is a comment from one of the greatest Lutheran theologians today: Dr. John Warwick Montgomery. “The doctrine of the Trinity is not ‘irrational’; what is irrational is to suppress the biblical evidence for trinity in favor of unity. Three persons and one essence (or being) belong to different categories. They are not in contradiction with one another. I don’t know who Eric is or what level of theological sophistication he has. Perhaps he can be excused for not knowing such a basic fact but to have Micheal jump aboard as well is frankly; shocking.
This is from STR:
“If one means that the Trinity is irrational, that it violates some law of reason, then the challenge is simply false. There is no violation of the laws of reason in the Trinity. Anyone who thinks I’m mistaken on this point must identify the specific law being breached in light of the orthodox teaching on the Trinity (as opposed to some misrepresentation; we don’t believe in three gods, for example).” http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5212
….
LikeLike
rr,
Wouldn’t it be nice for Lutheranism to rub off on Evangelicals? I think that we have alot to offer. Not only a focus on Christ and His forgiveness, but the distinction of the Law and the Gospel, the doctrine of the two Kingdoms and the doctrine of vocation. As a convert to Lutheranism, I am often appalled at the lack of Lutheran imput to the discussions going on in Evangelical Christianity at large. When I first read the Book of Concord my immediate reaction was to ask “Why isn’t this doctrine being shouted from the house tops?”
Michael,
You wrote:
How weird are we evangelicals? Most of us wouldn’t even blink at the idea of God speaking “to our heart†about forgiveness in some extraordinary experience. But talk about the ordinary words of a minister speaking the forgiveness of Christ or receiving that forgiveness as God’s word to you in Baptism or the Supper and you get all kinds of protests.
Those are very profound words and you would be wise to meditate upon them and consider them deeply.
LikeLike
rr,
I pretty much am a Lutheran Baptist already. Wanna start a denomination?
LikeLike
Yeah, especially since all that “heart” language isn’t in the Bible, while the notion of the Gospel delivered to us, through ordinary means, *is.* :o)
In our very experience-driven culture, “spiritual” has been taken to mean “esoteric,” “individualistic,” and “not relating to anything in the physical realm.” Never mind the Incarnation! The great thing about Lutheran theology is how earthy and real it is, giving us heaven on earth through Christ. Good series, Josh.
LikeLike
I meant “steam-water-ice”
LikeLike
greg wrote:
“Three Persons, one Being. Duh!”
So, in other words, the “one Being” contains the “three persons.”
How can “being” that cannot be divided up with one part being distinguished from another, support the idea that within it are three distinct, distinguished “persons?”
This is not an easy road for pure rationality to travel on, and I think that is what Eric is challenging you on. If Trinitarianism is to be accepted, at some point ordinary logic has to be let go of, unless you are convinced by such simplistic analogies like fire-water-ice (which is more of a modalistic argument, anyway.)
Blessings,
Joe
LikeLike
How weird are we evangelicals? Most of us wouldn’t even blink at the idea of God speaking “to our heart” about forgiveness in some extraordinary experience. But talk about the ordinary words of a minister speaking the forgiveness of Christ or receiving that forgiveness as God’s word to you in Baptism or the Supper and you get all kinds of protests.
We are strange.
LikeLike
Josh,
I really appreciate your series. It has been very informative. Confessional Lutheranism has so much to offer on so levels, and I think it is dead on predestination. Much better than either Arminianism or Calvinism. But, hey that’s just one of the reasons I fled Evangelicalism for the LCMS. O.k., so I’m biased on all this:)
What I don’t get is why it is the Lutheran position on pretty much any theological issue is basically unknown in the world of Evangelicalism. It’s like the Lutherans are absent at the table when big theological issues are being discussed. This in part is why your series is so refreshing because when Evangelicals take about predestination it is as if the Calvinist vs. Arminian show is the only one in town. But that simply isn’t the case, and for whatever reason the Reformed are overrepresented.
Just to remind everyone of the membership numbers of major conservative Lutheran and Reformed bodies in this country, they are as follows:
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) 2.5 million
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) 400,000
Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) 331,000
Christian Reformed Church in America (CRC) 300,000
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) 70,000
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) 30,000
Now, I’m leaving out very small Lutheran and Reformed bodies, but when it comes down to it there are a heck of a lot more conservative Lutherans than there are Reformed. Same goes for liberal Lutherans and Reformed denominations too I believe. And while some Baptists and Anglicans are Reformed, they are in the minority. So why does it seem like the Reformed are so important? Why is there voice heard so loudly among Evangelicals?
Finally, while the sacraments are at the heart of Lutheran soteriology in a way that they aren’t for Reformed soteriology, could there ever be something somewhat like a “Lutheran Baptist”? If some Baptists like the TULIP, couldn’t others adopt the Lutheran position on predestination? Unfortunately, I don’t see Baptists and other Evangelicals coming over to the Lutheran position on the sacraments anytime soon. But it would be nice to see Lutheranism instead of Calvinism rub off on them.
rr
LikeLike
Greg:
That is your rational explanation? I waited two hours for you to rationally explain the Trinity and all you can say is “Three Persons, one Being. Duh!”
Just admit that you base your belief in the Trinity on faith. That faith is in the Word of God. You trust it, even when you can’t really explain how three persons can be one being.
I assume you believe that Jesus was both man and God. You believe it because the Word of God teaches that. You can’t explain, in a rational way, how it is possible to be both God and man at the same time, but you still believe it anyway.
I assume you believe that Jesus performed miracles. These can’t be explained in rational/logical ways, but you believe them because you have faith.
There are not rational and logical explanations for the Resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles and other core beliefs in Christianity. However, I assume you believe in these core teachings of Christianity.
If only you could have that kind of faith when it comes to issues like Salvation, Election, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The bottom line is that you already believe a lot of things that are not rational and logical. The big question is why do you require rationality and logic only when it comes to the specific issues you disagree with in these blog posts (i.e. Baptism, The Lord’s Supper, Salvation and Election)?
LikeLike
What can I translate your use of “Duh” into, Greg? Contempt for the other person or mocking their stupidity?
LikeLike
Three Persons, one Being. Duh!
LikeLike
I meant *our ways. It’s late and I should be in bed!
Mary
LikeLike
What is the rationale of the God of the universe becoming one of His creatures and allowing Himself to suffer and die at their hands, all in order to save them from a punishment they justly deserve?
His ways are not are ways. And I’m glad.
Mary
LikeLike
Greg:
Ok. Explain the Trinity in a rational way. How can three persons be one?
I can’t explain it; I believe it because that is what Scripture teaches.
Why can’t you believe what Scripture teaches about Salvation and Election (see my longer post above)? Why can’t you believe what Scripture teaches about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
You claim that what Josh is teaching about Salvation and Election is irrational. Yet, this is what Scripture teaches.
I trust that you believe that Scripture is the Word of God. What stops you from believing what it says? Why are you ignoring what it teaches and relying on your “rationality” and “logic”?
I hope you have not put your “rationality” and “logic” above God’s Word.
LikeLike
I’m very sorry to hear that you think the doctrine of the Trinity is irrational Eric.
LikeLike
I agree with the first part of that statement but the second half just begs the question: what do the Sacraments give you?
One gives you Christ’s body and blood for the forgiveness of sins, and the other puts you under God’s name, buries you with Christ, and raises you to newness of life.
LikeLike
Greg says “you should not be surprised when someone points out your irrationality.”
Is rationality the basis for Christian belief?
If so, what is your rational explanation for the Trinity and Jesus being both God and man?
If you can accept such irrational ideas as the Trinity, why can’t you trust Scripture?
LikeLike
OK Greg. We’ve all got the message that you’ve been mistreated and misrepresented. So now I have to quote you and what you said right out of the gate, and you can tell us all that you really didn’t mean what you said.
Your first statement:
>…Axe to grind perhaps?
That’s called ad hominem. Taking Josh’s theology and saying he’s not sincere, but actually is angry and only saying what he says because he’s pissed.
Your second statement:
>I thought you were a Baptist, Michael? If so why are you getting all starry eyed over infant baptism or sacramental-ism of any sort; whether it be Catholic Lutheran or Reformed?
You are now addressing me, questioning my commitments as if you were my judge, and saying I am starry eyed when I haven’t said a word of agreement or disagreement. YOU ARE CRITICIZING THE FACT THAT THE POST IS ON THE BLOG AT ALL>
Your third statement:
>What it looks like, is that you will take any opportunity you can, to stick it to those “TR’sâ€, even if you have to take a few shots yourself to do it.
You now take after me as if I have a ven…..whatever.
Then you take off in a long post saying people who disagree with you are wrong, and actually just not really getting what’s obvious. Almost like calling someone stupid.
Greg, my patience with you is over. I’ve given you your space and I’ve deleted a podcast for no good reason because some people might think I did something wrong, which I didn’t.
Now get on topic, drop the insinuation that I can’t post Lutheran theology and be a Baptist and that paedobaptists and real presence communers are stupid. Be constructive or move on.
LikeLike
Josh
“Listen to what God says to you in the Word, and believe in what he gives you in the Sacraments.â€
I agree with the first part of that statement but the second half just begs the question: what do the Sacraments give you?
“I suppose I’m going to get accused of Arminianism or irrationality or something.”
If you are going to say things like: “I know most people want a logical answer, but I just don’t have one.” you should not be surprised when someone points out your irrationality.
“Good to know some reader thinks that after 7 years of basically reformed-leaning blogging, 4 Lutheran posts qualify as somehow unfair treatment of Calvinism.”
Michael do you actually bother to read the comments you respond to? I’m sorry to be so picky but you just are not being careful enough to accurately represent my comments
LikeLike
From the LCMS Q & A page, here is a Lutheran answer to a question similar to the one that is the focus of this post:
“The question you are wrestling with is really the question, “Why are some saved and not others?” Theologians throughout history have referred to this question as the “crux theologorum” (“the cross of the theologians”) because of the difficulty (and from the Lutheran perspective, the impossibility) of giving an answer to this question which is satisfactory to our human reason.
Some answer this question by pointing to man’s “free will”–only those are saved who “choose” to be saved. Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible even man’s will is “dead” and powerless to “choose” God and his grace in Christ. We are saved not because we “choose” to be saved but because the Holy Spirit works faith in our heart through the Gospel (even faith is a gift!). Others answer this question by pointing to God’s sovereign will: God himself predestines from eternity some to be saved and others to be damned. Lutherans reject this answer as unscriptural because according to the Bible God sincerely desires all to be saved and has predestined no one to damnation.
So how do Lutherans answer this question? The answer is that Lutherans do not try to answer it, because (we believe) the Bible itself does not provide an answer to this question that is comprehensible to human reason. Lutherans affirm, with Scripture, that whoever is saved is saved by God’s grace alone, a grace so sure that it excludes all human “action” and “choice” but rather rests on the foundation of God’s action in Christ and his “choice” (predestination) from before the beginning of time. Lutherans also affirm, with Scripture, that those who are damned are damned not by God’s “choice” but on account of their own human sin and rebellion and unbelief. From a human perspective, there is no “rational” or “logical” way to put these two truths together. Lutherans believe and confess them not because they are “rational” and “logical,” but because this is what we find taught in Scripture.”
LikeLike
Carrie, this probably isn’t the time to debate Catholicism, but you really need to read about the debates surrounding the Councils of Florence and Trent, and you need to read the Catechism much, much more carefully. I’ll only respond to one thing, and that briefly:
Everything begins with God’s grace.
That’s not really saying a lot. In Catholic theology, the inborn knowledge of natural law is a “grace” by which Christ is present, so they’re able to say that ethical heathens are saved by grace. Even in the Council of Trent, one’s ability to merit eternal life is given by grace. In the particular myth I related, in Catholic parlance, it’s grace that God provided the Virgin to pray for this guy, and it’s a grace that God considered his mercy meritorious.
LikeLike
Apocryphal stories of Mary aside, the Catholic church does not teach that a person earns forgiveness or salvation. The Catholic church has done a lousy job catechizing it’s members since Vatican II, and I can’t vouch for what the Catholic in the pew thinks the Church teaches. But I’ve read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a beautifully written document), and I assure you it doesn’t teach that. Everything begins with God’s grace.
I have appreciated this series, Josh. I honestly had no idea LCMS was that sacramental. My husband and I were a reformed believers for over 20 years, very much into the theology and “right beliefs.” Right now I attend a Catholic Church with my husband (who joined the RCC this summer), a reformed-leaning evangelical church also with husband where our children are involved, and a small emergent church occasionally. I guess I’m “once burned, twice shy” about commitment to any body of theology right now.
LikeLike
The links here on the Internet Monk include The White Horse Inn. This radio program has three Reformed guys and a Lutheran, and they find a lot more to agree about than disagree about. Excellent program.
LikeLike
Ah, the absolute freeness of forgiveness. What a difficult concept to embrace by faith. You have nailed us! Thank you for reminding us to not place conditions on what God gives freely. I needed to hear that for the sake of my own soul, and for my preaching to the souls of those in my church. How liberating and magnifying of Christ’s grace!
LikeLike