Lutheran Perspective on Baptism

[Josiah]

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this.

Let me make clear too that there are several issues here: The MODE of baptism (whether pouring, for example, is permissible), the THEOLOGY/MEANING/VALUE of Baptism, and the issue of whether infants and children are welcomed or prohibited from it.



Point One

I can't stress enough that Lutherans are "monergists." Without this understanding, the Lutheran perspective is incredible. The Anabaptist change flowed from their radical synergism, and the Lutheran retension flows from radical monergism.

Lutheranism was "born" out of Luther's great biblical, theological and especially pastoral concern over what the Indulgence sellers were preaching about justification... He felt that their sermons about how what WE do (specifically, buying indulgences) is what justifies us was NOT biblical and NOT Catholic (big "C") - it was a violation of the Council of Orange and was essentially a form of Pelagianism. At first, it was not Indulgences (or even Purgatory) that concerned him (that came pretty fast, however, lol) but the pelagianism and gross synergism... that souls were being terrified and directed AWAY from the Cross and to the mirror, away from what Christ did to what we do.

THAT issue would continue to be the centerpiece of the Lutheran Reformation. Yes, within a couple of years, there were a number of "issues" on the table (Baptism NOT being one of them)... and I think a solid argument could be made that the biggest real division was over ecclesiology, but BOTH 'sides' kept justification at the forefront, and of course eventually, at Trent, it was THIS issue which the RCC made the centerpiece of the division. But all along, remember - Luther was bold in confidence that he was actually upholding the Catholic position, protecting the Catholic view.... and that Catholicism simply went astray on "the chief article of faith."

For Luther (and Lutherans), this is central and key. In terms of Justification (narrow) - Jesus is the Savior (and thus Jesus does it, gives it) and the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life (and thus the Holy Spirit does it, gives it). Monergistic. ANYTHING that looks, smells or even implies synergism (in this topic) gets a pretty bold and negative reaction (maybe 95 Thesis posted on your church door). In this way, I think Lutheranism and conversative, traditional, confessional Reformed theology are pretty much on "the same page." Since both of us consider this "the chief article" and both are pretty passionate on this, we are close brothers (maybe even twins, just not identical twins, lol).

Lutherans view almost everything through this "lens" and truth. Lutheran theology is solidly "arrow down", how God is the active one, God is the giver, God is the one who blessed - out of His unconditional love, His endless grace, His boundless mercy. The question is just not asked, "What does the dead atheist do to cause God to.......?" Or "how does the Dead Atheist contribute to......?" Those kinds of questions (in this topic of Justification) just aren't on our "radar".... and when others raise them, we kind of go "tilt" - we just don't even know how to take that.

I've never brought up this topic with Anabaptists (I've found it to be unfruitful) but I have - at times - been drawn into it by things Anti-Peadobaptists at times post. The "new" alternative view of Baptism was invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century not because they found some verse all Christians before missed but because they were radical synergists and infant baptism (as understood by Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans) conflicted with their radical synergism, mandating a reinvention of baptism. But in many ways, it is an impossible discussion because we start from different points and look at this from different perspectives. For Lutherans, NOTHING in justification is about what we bring to the table, NOTHING to do with what the receiver must first do or deserve or merit or be able to accomplish. For Lutherans, that ANY has faith is a PURE divine miracle and free gift. We see no reason at all why God would be rendered impotent by a baby (although we might by some self-confident dude with 5 Ph.D.'s and an IQ of 200) - indeed, Jesus seems to praise the faith of babies. We simply view everything in terms of Justification from a very sharp focus of monergism. And that includes Baptism.





Continues in next post....




.

 

[Josiah]

Point Two

Lutherans (like Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and most Reformed) affirm that God USUALLY does His work "via means." He doesn't HAVE to (always seems silly to tell God what He CANNOT do), but He usually does. This includes Justification. Most faith communities call these, "The MEANS OF GRACE." To stress, no one claims God HAS to use these (John the Baptist came to faith in the womb before he was born, probably "immediately" - without any means), but He usually does. And typically, the ministry He calls us to do involves these, the application of these.

What exactly is and is not a "Means of Grace" is a question Lutherans like to avoid - simply because there's not a nice list of these in Scripture (or even in Tradition - more on that later). There seems to be pretty catholic agreement that the Gospel (the presentation of such) is one such means. Scripture is pretty clear that God uses this ("my word shall not return to me void but SHALL ACCOMPLISH ALL FOR WHICH I SENT IT). Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans (and beyond) would include the Sacraments here. Some would even include prayer, loving service, moral "light shining in the darkness" as means of grace. My parents tell me that they sang "Jesus songs" to me when I was still in the womb and clearly they understood that as something God might use for His purposes (relevant perhaps because it was a very problematic pregnancy). Again, MUST God use any at all? Nope. Does He usually? It seems so.

My Lutheran teachers have all calls these "tools in the hands of the Carpenter." (Assuming Jesus was a carpenter, lol). TOOLS. In an of themselves, impotent and inert - very earthly. But in the hands of God - able to be used to accomplish what He desires. I think of Jesus performing a miracle of sight by using a mud ball, lol. Catholics understand this whole issue similarly.

Now.... where it gets "tricky".... is a practical consideration: Does the application of a "Means of Grace" MANDATE that God uses it to give and/or strengthen faith? To grant justification? To bless? Is it possible that Billy Graham preaches the IDENTICAL SAME WORDS to ten thousand people - and some (eventually) come to faith via the Means and some don't? Does this mean the Means is ineffectual? Does this mean Billy Graham was wrong to preach since there's no MANDATE that God MUST therefore bless the receiver via that sermon? Are WE bound to apply the Means even if God is not to use them? Ah... we'll get to that.... much later.... there's a LOT to consider before we get there.



Continues in next post...

 

[Josiah]

Point Three:

Discussions often get "bogged down" with variant epistemologies (what is the SOURCE and/or NORM for one's position). It's often a reason people "talk past" each other. So I need to address this before we proceed....

Luther coined the term "Sola Scriptura" but the reality is, there are countless understandings and definitions of it. Luther meant this PRIMARILY as the final canon in the norming of deputed doctrines (and sometimes practices). Three things are needed: 1) ALL "at that table" accept full accountability - accepting their pov could be wrong, 2) A canon that all "sides" accept as a reliable standard or rule (and the more objective, the better), 3) An arbitration that all will submit to. Luther meant "Sola Scriptura" primarily in this second aspect; it is the objective rule ("straight edge") or canon ("Measuring stick") or norm (plumbline, what something must be aligned with) in the process of determining correctness. Positions (especially doctrines in dispute) are to be "held up" to Scripture as the final norm. While the word "sola" (only or alone) is used, actually Luther accepted other things too but all UNDER Scripture (some argue that a BETTER title would have been "prima scriptura" but what is is).

SOMETIMES there is a second aspect, that Scripture is not only the norma normans ("the norm that norms") or canon, but also the SOURCE of doctrine. For most Protestants, this seems to be THE meaning but for Lutherans, this is a secondary point (sometimes, not a part at all). Lutherans tend to understand "Sola Scriptura" every much like the written Law in the "Rule of Law." But again, the idea that therefore it's also the SOURCE is found in Lutheranism.

And it should be noted that what is NOT stated is often as normative as what IS stated. Luther is credited with saying, "Be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent - and both are equally important!" (There's zero evidence he ever said that, but it is quite in line with what Luther held). Lutherans might ask, "Where does God say THAT?"

But the point I need to make is this isn't as simple in Lutheranism as some like to make it (or as it might be among others). Lutherans bring a number of things to the "table", not JUST the Bible. The Bible foremost (absolutely), the Bible above everything else, but other secondary things. Because Lutherans hold that the Scriptures are not the personal, private possession of any one person or denomination (God gave it to ALL His children!) and the "job" of interpreting and applying it is not the task of any individual person or denomination (thus the frequent mention of Ecumenical Councils, the Church Fathers..... the great interest and study of church history). When discussing the WORDS on the page of Holy Scripture, Lutheran will ask "How has this been understood?" They will look to see if there is an ancient, historic, ecumenical consensus (and perhaps even a declaration of such in an Ecumenical Council). The WORDS on the page are the canon and are primary, but Lutherans often will look to the whole church for insight into how it is to be understood and applied. Thus, while Scripture is the canon, Tradition does play a role (even if secondary). Tradition (and the Councils) CAN be wrong (a point Luther made often) and thus is UNDER Scripture, but he did point a lot to the Councils, Fathers, etc. When Luther rebuked the RCC over the theology in selling Indulgences, he pointed primarily to the Council of Orange and the repudiation of Pelagianism.

Thus, when Lutheran look to Baptism, we will look first of all to the WORDS in the Bible - noting what IS stated and what is NOT stated. AND, under that, we will look to how Christians understand and apply that - in practice giving more importance to those closest to the time of Jesus (the earlier the writing, the more weight it tends to be given in practice). Side point: Not only do Lutherans give more "weight" to Tradition than most Protestants, we give less "weight" to "reason"or "logic" (especially than do some Reformed Christians), hesitant to "connect the dots" or submit Scripture to our reason, philosophy, etc. We at times come to the "table" with variant epistemologies.

Some anti-paedobaptist not only have a different view of justification (perhaps being synergists rather than monergists - see post # 3) but also have a different epistemology (making this discussion VERY difficult!). They may dismiss Tradition entirely, often holding that each individual person is led by the Spirit and each individual uniquely has the "task" of interpreting Scripture, and hold it's entirely irrelevant if their pov is brand new. I'm going to quote a number of Church Fathers and note church history in later posts..... some will dismiss all that entirely whereas Lutherans consider such relevant, even important.



Continues in next post...

 

[Josiah]

Point Four (Praxis)

Lutherans usually agree that praxis (practice) is also accountable (some include it in "Sola Scriptura").

Some (particularly some coming out Reformed roots) take the view that a practice is FORBIDDEN unless the Bible clearly authorizes it and/or gives a positive example of such being done. Others (including Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican) take quite the opposite view, that a practice is permitted unless it is clearly forbidden by the words of Scripture or illustrated in a negative way as something to not do.

Lutherans lean toward the "permitted" view, but not absolutely. The TEACHINGS of the Bible can give insights that might encourage or discourage certain practices. And they often look again to Tradition to see what the universal, historic, ecumenical example is (as long as it is not forbidden or Teachings seem to make it quite problematic).

Lutherans would point out that if we adhere to be rubric of "all is forbidden unless specifically authorized" then the VAST majority of what Christians do in Sunday worship would be forbidden (including worshipping on Sunday). And I'd add, we couldn't be posting on the internet!

But we see this "tension" among Christians..... The "FORBIDDEN" unless the bible CLEARLY authorizes view on one side, and the "ALLOWED unless the Bible clearly states otherwise" view on the other. Lutherans are neither absolutely, but lean a lot on the "allowed" side. People bring their views on this WITH THEM (examined or not, conscience or not) as we come to discuss this issue. To understand the Lutheran view, we need to be aware of how Lutherans approach this.



Continues in next post...

 

[Josiah]

Point Five (Mode)


Lutherans have no mandate regarding HOW to apply the water in Baptism or regarding the QUANTITY of the water or anything regarding the QUALITY of the water (if it need be "holy" for example). All these are unstated. All these issues are regarded as "adiaphora" (matters about which there is no mandate or dogma). Lutherans don't insist HOW MUCH water must be involved anymore than we insist HOW MUCH bread and wine must be consumed in Communion or HOW it must be distributed. The custom is typically pouring or sprinkling, but this is only a matter of custom and not teaching or mandate. Luther PERSONALLY preferred dipping almost entirely (often the Eastern Orthodox practice) and often says so, but this PERSONAL advise of Luther was never embraced by Lutheranism (and rarely practiced).

Lutherans disagree with the Anabaptists that the word "baptize" MUST mean and EXCLUSIVELY mean full immersion. It CAN have that meaning but not necessarily. We'd note many Scriptures, but just a very small example would be Mark 10:38-39, Luke 12:50, Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Romans 6:3-4 and many more. Some would note Ezekiel 36:25-27 which from the earliest church was seen as a "type" fulfilled in Baptism (and note the point of sprinkling and the coming of the Holy Spirit); a verse used in the Early Church. I'm no expert in koine Greek ... and there are MANY resources on the web if one wishes to read all the arguments here, but Lutherans are of the view that the TITLE here does not mandate full immersion. And we see nothing that suggests that other modes of application and quantities of water are forbidden (again, what is NOT said is often considered).

Lutherans tend to look to Tradition for help here, to see the universal, historic, ecumenical CONSENSUS of God's people. The Didache, dated to the first century by most modern scholars is of enormous value because in it we see a first-century catechism for catechumens which was most likely penned before all of the books of the New Testament were even written. And what do we find concerning baptism? "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: . . . baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living [“running”] water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (7:1).

St. Hippolytus (A.D. 215) is unclear as to which manner of baptism he prefers. He appears to recommend immersion but makes it clear that immersion is not essential to the sacrament when he says: "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available." (The Apostolic Tradition).

St. Cornelius (A.D. 251) writes in very plain terms, in his Letter to Fabius of Antioch: "As [Novatian] seemed about to die, he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring.”

Tertullian (A.D. 205), mentions “sprinkling” as a valid form for baptism, even though he evidently (from his writing) preferred immersion: "There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible." (On Baptism).

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."



Continues in next post....

 

[Josiah]

Point Six

Is Baptism simply an inert, ineffectual action or rite? A ritual act that accomplishes nothing, that God never uses for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that it actually can accomplish something, that God can use it for something?

I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate the first. But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different. Let's look at those (hopefully the program here will bring them up for you to read)...

Acts 22:16

Acts 23:8

Romans 6:3-4

1 Corinthians 6:11

1 Corinthians 12:13

Galatians 3:26-27

Ephesians 5:25-27

Colossians 2:11-12

Titus 3:5

1 Peter 3:18-22

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication. And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual.

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.



Lutherans of course also look to Tradition (especially early tradition) to see the witness of Christians. Indeed, we find none who view Baptism as just an inert ritual, but great things are ascribed to it. Below is just a tiny sample....

The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130) “This means that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.”

Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140?): "they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive.”

St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 160?) "And we, who have approached God through Him, have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and those like him observed. And we have received it through baptism, since we were sinners, by God’s mercy; and all men may equally obtain it."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?). "And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith."

St. Irenaeus (A.D. 190?) "“Now, this is what faith does for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles, have handed down to us. First of all, it admonishes us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became incarnate and died and raised."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal."

St. Clement of Alexandra (A.D. 215?) "For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font."

St. Cyprian (A.D. 255) responding to a man who was asking him the specific question of whether or not the pouring of water in baptism would be valid: "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought about those who obtain the grace of God while they are weakened by illness – whether or not they are to be reckoned as legitimate Christians who have not been bathed with the saving water, but have had it poured over them."

There are countless more. My point here is not the individual things here said, but the unavoidable and universal affirmation that Baptism is not an inert, ineffectual, mere ritual... and nowhere do we see any sense of it as some "outward ritual indicating an inward decision." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something.




Continues in next post....

 

[Josiah]

Is Baptism simply an inert rite? A ritual act that accomplishes nothing, that God never uses for anything? Perhaps symbolizing stuff or reminding of stuff but ineffectual of anything? Or does Scripture suggest that it actually can accomplish something, that God can use it for something?

I can find no Scriptures that state or indicate the first. But there are several, that when taken together, suggest something quite different.


Let's look at some....

John 3:5, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins."

Acts 22:16, "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on his name."

Romans 6:3-4, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

1 Corinthians 6:11, "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

1 Corinthians 12:13, "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and were made to drink of one Spirit."

Galatians 3:27, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Ephesians 5:25-27, "Husbands love your wives, as Christ love the church and gave himself up for you, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish."

Colossians 2:11-12, "In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

Titus 3:5, "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit."

1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you."

I admit no ONE verse above is indisputable or perspicuous, but together there is a strong indication. And of course we find nothing that indicates that it is a inert, ineffectual, useless ritual....

We need to also consider that Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church gave great importance to this! Jesus places it along side of (and seemingly equal to) teaching in the Great Commission, for example. It seems less likely that it would be regarded as so critical if it is an inert, ineffectual ritual that changes and accomplishes nothing at all.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Below is meant to address the issue of whether those under a certain unknown age are unable to be given faith by God....

Matthew 18:6, "If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin..."

Mark 10:13-15, "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have Him touch them, but he disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Acts 2:38-39, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off for all whom the Lord our God will call."


It should be noted that Lutherans see repenting - teaching - baptizing as a SET (so to speak) but do not impose a chronology on it - as if God must bless and act in a certain sequence. The "saints of old" (OT) believed in a Messiah yet to come.... the saints of today (NT) believe in the Savior having come... but the chronology isn't essential, God is blessing. Lutherans also understand faith as essentially reliance and trust - not as cognative understanding, thus it is not relevant to Lutherans if the receiver is has attained some unknown quantity of information or some unknown quanitity of intellectual/philosophical "understanding." Scripture says that no one can even say "Jesus is Lord" without the Holy Spirit so enabling - no one - regardless of whether such is 80 years old or 80 hours old, if such has an IQ of 800 or 80. Faith is the work of God, the gift of God. Understanding (to the extent it ever happens - and that ain't much, lol) often follows faith. Lutherans note that the 3 koine words that can mean "then" never appear in any baptism text, the word typically is "kai" which is the most general connective word of that language - it does not impose some chronology on God.

I would add (just on my own, lol) that Judaism was certainly not the individualistic mindset that we Westerners inherited from Rome (and got multiplied in the Enlightenment), Jews and Christians "worked" with a very community, family, US perspective. Thus all the "baptized with her household...." statements. This obsession of "Jesus and ME" i is overblown, IMO - and needs a major dose of balance. I even think of the last of the 10 plegues of Egypt where the first born (of ANY age, education, IQ, etc.) was literally saved from death because of the faith and obedience of the parents... THEIR faith that believed, that killed the lamb, that put the blood on the doorpost... caused God's wrath to pass over their child (regardless of this child's faith, age, education, IQ) and for God's blessings to be poured out on the family - and the people of God. WEIRD given our very modern, western, Roman uber-individualism but quite in keeping with the Jewish sense of communion, community, family, people.

And to me, the question of whether children can believe is .... misplaced, especially since no one can. The real question is: can God give faith to little children?




- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Can the faith and actions of a parent result in God blessing their children?


Consider the last of the Seven Plagues of Egypt......

 

[Josiah]

Church Fathers and Councils on Infant Baptism...


The earliest explicit record of a baby being baptized is from the year 140 AD and it comes from one of the greatest and most esteemed Church Fathers, Irenius who states in A.D. 189 that he was baptized shortly after birth and was born in A.D 140.


Hippolytus:

“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given also to infants. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).


“The Church received from the apostles the giving of baptism also to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does an infant approaches more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5 A.D. 253).


Gregory of Nazianz

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal of baptism because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly I respond. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28). A.D. 388


John Chrysostom

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors it bestows! For this reason we baptize also infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).


Augustine

“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for infants, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39
[A.D. 408]).

“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that an infant is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born” (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).

“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses also into infants. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).


Council of Carthage V

“Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt the abandoned children were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the North African legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians” (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).


Council of Mileum II

“Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle Paul says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the catholic church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith also infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration” (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).



.

 

[MennoSota]

There are several points, they are to be taken TOGETHER, they will mean several posts (since post length here is restricted). I share NOT with the goal of changing anyone's mind on this but to share the perspective of Lutherans on this.

Let me make clear too that there are several issues here: The MODE of baptism (whether pouring, for example, is permissible), the THEOLOGY/MEANING/VALUE of Baptism, and the issue of whether infants and children are welcomed or prohibited from it.



Point One

I can't stress enough that Lutherans are "monergists." Without this understanding, the Lutheran perspective is incredible. The Anabaptist change flowed from their radical synergism, and the Lutheran retension flows from radical monergism.

Lutheranism was "born" out of Luther's great biblical, theological and especially pastoral concern over what the Indulgence sellers were preaching about justification... He felt that their sermons about how what WE do (specifically, buying indulgences) is what justifies us was NOT biblical and NOT Catholic (big "C") - it was a violation of the Council of Orange and was essentially a form of Pelagianism. At first, it was not Indulgences (or even Purgatory) that concerned him (that came pretty fast, however, lol) but the pelagianism and gross synergism... that souls were being terrified and directed AWAY from the Cross and to the mirror, away from what Christ did to what we do.

THAT issue would continue to be the centerpiece of the Lutheran Reformation. Yes, within a couple of years, there were a number of "issues" on the table (Baptism NOT being one of them)... and I think a solid argument could be made that the biggest real division was over ecclesiology, but BOTH 'sides' kept justification at the forefront, and of course eventually, at Trent, it was THIS issue which the RCC made the centerpiece of the division. But all along, remember - Luther was bold in confidence that he was actually upholding the Catholic position, protecting the Catholic view.... and that Catholicism simply went astray on "the chief article of faith."

For Luther (and Lutherans), this is central and key. In terms of Justification (narrow) - Jesus is the Savior (and thus Jesus does it, gives it) and the Holy Spirit is the Lord and GIVER of spiritual life (and thus the Holy Spirit does it, gives it). Monergistic. ANYTHING that looks, smells or even implies synergism (in this topic) gets a pretty bold and negative reaction (maybe 95 Thesis posted on your church door). In this way, I think Lutheranism and conversative, traditional, confessional Reformed theology are pretty much on "the same page." Since both of us consider this "the chief article" and both are pretty passionate on this, we are close brothers (maybe even twins, just not identical twins, lol).

Lutherans view almost everything through this "lens" and truth. Lutheran theology is solidly "arrow down", how God is the active one, God is the giver, God is the one who blessed - out of His unconditional love, His endless grace, His boundless mercy. The question is just not asked, "What does the dead atheist do to cause God to.......?" Or "how does the Dead Atheist contribute to......?" Those kinds of questions (in this topic of Justification) just aren't on our "radar".... and when others raise them, we kind of go "tilt" - we just don't even know how to take that.

I've never brought up this topic with Anabaptists (I've found it to be unfruitful) but I have - at times - been drawn into it by things Anti-Peadobaptists at times post. The "new" alternative view of Baptism was invented by the Anabaptists in the late 16th Century not because they found some verse all Christians before missed but because they were radical synergists and infant baptism (as understood by Catholics, Orthodox and Lutherans) conflicted with their radical synergism, mandating a reinvention of baptism. But in many ways, it is an impossible discussion because we start from different points and look at this from different perspectives. For Lutherans, NOTHING in justification is about what we bring to the table, NOTHING to do with what the receiver must first do or deserve or merit or be able to accomplish. For Lutherans, that ANY has faith is a PURE divine miracle and free gift. We see no reason at all why God would be rendered impotent by a baby (although we might by some self-confident dude with 5 Ph.D.'s and an IQ of 200) - indeed, Jesus seems to praise the faith of babies. We simply view everything in terms of Justification from a very sharp focus of monergism. And that includes Baptism.





Continues in next post....




.

Your first point is incorrect. The vast, vast majority of Lutherans are synergists who fit very well with Arminians.

 

[Josiah]

Responses to Anabaptist Tradition Objections….


The views above are the historic ones. But in the 16th Century, the Anabaptists objected and created several new dogmas/traditions. Most of these flow out of their conviction that God does not bless (or do anything) unless the recipient has done their “part”. The Anabaptists were radical synergists, and this strongly influenced their new traditions regarding Baptism.

There is an underlying theology among the Anabaptists that Baptism essentially does nothing. It is “an outward sign of an inner accomplishment," "A symbol of an earlier achievement." Generally, nothing is done to support this dogma but it underpins the various traditions below for which this Christian movement is known.


The point HERE is not to debate these various Anabaptist traditions (begin a specific thread on that if you wish), ONLY to very quickly and briefly share a LUTHERAN response. Start a different thread if you want to have a discussion on these reactions.



Age Mandate (Anti-Paedobaptism)

The tradition: This is the dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any under a certain (not disclosed) age is attained. The Anabaptists characterized the historic view as “Paedo Baptism” (“Paedo’ is a very generic and general term for an age range; it can be any below 20 but more typically before puberty); they objected to CHILDREN being baptized, those "too YOUNG"). They insisted that one must do things … and they must be “old enough” to do these, thus an minimum AGE exists which must be achieved before their supposed "prohibition of Baptism" is removed. “A baby… infant… child…. Young person… is “too young” to do x,y,z.” The point is always “is one old enough.” Age is the issue.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any mandate or prohibition or prerequisite stated regarding age vis-à-vis baptism. Nowhere in Scripture was anyone denied baptism because of their age. It should be noted too that infant baptism likely dates to 69 AD and appears to have been universal and unchallenged for 1500 years; no one noticed anything in Scripture that forbids those under the not disclosed minimum age. Few Baptists today teach this.


Repentance mandate (Repentance Baptism).

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any until they have adequately repented of their sins. Aspects of what exactly is repentance and what is “adequate” are generally unstated.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any such mandate vis-à-vis Baptism. Nowhere in Scripture is it shown that anyone was ever denied baptism because they had not “adequately repented.” No such case is known prior to the 16th Century. It does seem that repentance and Baptism are connected (as are several things) but never is chronology stated (never is even a word for “then” appear in any Baptism text). The connection is not challenged, the chronological mandate is the new invention. The definitive word is "and" and not once "then." "Kai" connects.


Profession Mandate (Credobaptism).

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that we are forbidden to baptize any unless they have adequately shown that they are among the Elect and/or have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. This is generally the most embraced of these Anabaptist/Baptist Traditions.

Reaction: Nowhere in Scripture is there any such mandate vis-à-vis Baptism. Nowhere in Scripture is it known that anyone was ever denied baptism specifically because they had not first adequately proven their election and/or choice of Jesus. We can see examples where it seems they were first believers, but not every case can that be shown and never is it stated such is required. This prerequisite never existed for 1500 years.

Immerson – Only Baptism

The tradition. This is the dogma/tradition that every part of the recipients body must be under and fully covered by water or it is an invalid Baptism. Along with Credobaptism, this is very stressed (in spite of this actually doing nothing, yet the MODE is absolutely critical).

Reaction. While the Baptism of Jesus was probably by immersion (as were most of the Jewish baptisms) and there is some evidence this was the preferred mode in the early centuries of Christianity, nowhere does Scripture state this is a requirement. There is no evidence that a baptism was declared invalid because some part of the person’s body didn’t get wet. We have statements from the second century specifically indicating that pouring is permitted. Lutherans simply regard the mode as non-dogmatic, a matter of adiaphoron. We do not object to immersion, only to a dogmatic mandate of immersion ONLY (all other modes and quantities of water are forbidden and invalidates it).


The Premise….

The underlying theology is that God does not bless (or do anything) unless the recipient first does his part. So the whole idea that God would do (well, anything) to a baby perhaps sleeping through the whole things was repulsive to the Anabaptists. Their theology required that the recipient first DO or achieve something and "cooperate." But the above four traditions are defended more often by another common Anabaptist belief: That we are mandated to DO exactly as we see modeled in the Bible and are forbidden to do otherwise. This, we not only get "How can one below this age DO x,y,z?" But we also get, "Where in the Bible do we see examples of x,y,z being done? The apologetic rests on both of these.

Lutherans reject both premises. Since Lutherans are monergists (coming at all this in the exact OPPOSITE direction as the radically synergistic Anabaptists), the cooperation of the recipient is not our focus (see post #1), thus the first synergistic premise is rejected by Lutherans. Also, as explained above, while Lutherans do not ignore examples, they are not binding to us (or I could not be posting on the internet, lol). We note that there are no clear examples of anyone being denied baptism because of their age, etc. But for Lutherans, examples reinforce what the Bible teaches, not replace it. I'd note too that actually, no Baptist does Baptism the way it is modeled in the NT.... if they did, they would disallow Gentile administers, disallow plastic tanks behind a curtain, etc. And they would not give Communion by passing around little cut up pieces of white bread and little plastic cups of grape juice to women and kids - NONE of that even once modeled in the NT. The premise is simply invalid. I could note that every post at CH is in English (I could prove that; no one can prove every baptism was of one over the age of X), but does it logically follow that THEREFORE, it is dogmatically forbidden to post on the internet in any language other than English, that the use of English is mandated? Obviously not. The premise is unbiblical and illogical. Examples can reinforce a teaching, they are not substitutes for teaching. See post #4 above.


Again, the purpose of this post is NOT to "open a can of worms" but ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY to very briefly and quickly share a Lutheran perspective on the objections to our view and practices. The goal is only to clarify the Lutheran perspective.



Thank you.


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

To clarify.... as a Lutheran.... I do NOT regard the baptisms of others to be wrong or invalid. I'd ONLY question those where a non-trinitarian dogma exists (as with LDS baptisms). I fully and completely accept the baptisms of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Methodist, Baptists, Pentecostals and anywhere that water was applied in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I'm not on the side dogmatically declaring most baptisms to be invalid and disallowed (all of them prior to the 16th Century).