Lutheranism on Baptism

[Josiah]

.

There are several foundational points necessary to understand in order to understand the Lutheran perspective on Baptism. I will convey these as 5 "points" Some Christians disagree with one or more of these and thus disagree with the conclusion Lutherans reach on this topic. My point here is not to convince or convert (indeed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a synergist/Pelagian to accept the Lutheran perspective) but to help to understand the Lutheran perspective.



Point One Monergism


I can't stress enough that Lutherans are "monergists."

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. 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.




Point Two "Means of Grace"


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.



continues below.....





.

 

[Josiah]

Point Three: Epistemology


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.



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 below....



.

 

[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 below....



.

 

[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....es

A couple of notes: The koine word "kai" ("and" in some of the above verses) does not indicate or imply order or sequence (nor does it in English) and it is grammatically wrong to infuse that meaning into the word. It is also significant that in some of the above, the koine word for "washing" is baptizing.


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.




Since Lutherans use universal, historic, ecumenical Tradition to help us understand Scripture, that too is important (albeit UNDER Scripture)....

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 (including very early) 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." There is NOTHING from NO ONE before the Anabaptist in the 1500's that indicates that baptism is only an inert, ineffectual ritual or "an outward sign of inward faith." Universally, baptism is seen as something God uses to accomplish something. The universal, early understanding is quite remarkable! Could everyone have been wrong in their understanding of the words of Scripture for 1500 years? Absolutely (and occasionally, Lutherans think they were) but the "burden" (if you will) seems to rest with proving that point.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

.

Does Scripture (or Tradition) mandate that one FIRST attain the age of X or FIRST chant the 'Sinner's Prayer' or adequately respond to an Altar Call before they may be baptized?


No one for 1500 years could find any such mandate or prohibition. No one since has either. Thus, Lutherans answer this new question with a resounding "no." The only prohibition Tradition has placed on this is parental consent. This is because of the Commandment that we are to honor parents and that parents (especially the father) is "in charge of" the spiritual life of their children. Thus, from at least the year 110 AD, Christians have held that we are not to circumvent the authority of the parents over their own children but must have parental consent. Until the Anabaptist movement of the 16th Century, there was no mandate as to age, gender, race, color, IQ, education, social or economic status or anything related to altar calls.



SOME anabaptists (the Anti-Paedobaptism folks) pin everything on the claim that "Every baptism in the Bible is of one over the age of X who FIRST professed Christ as their personal Savior." Lutherans have 2 "problems" with this claim:

1) It's wrong. There are several examples where we know NOTHING about the receiver of Baptism, only they were in the "household" (oikos) of a believer. Thus, the claim is simply wrong. Now, one cannot turn it around and show that children WERE included in the few examples of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the pages of the New Testament but that doesn't make the opposite the case.

2) It's bad epistemology. We are to follow the TEACHINGS of the bible, not the EXAMPLES in the Bible. See points 4 and 5 above If we can do only what is exampled in the Bible, then we can't post on the internet, can we?


SOME Anabaptists pin everything on the claim that the word "kai" in koine Greek MANDATES sequence so that, quoting SOME (but not all) verses, they insist that FIRST we must believe and FIRST we must repent. Problem is: the word in no way means or implies sequence. There are 3 koine Greek words that carry the meaning or implication of sequence (usually translated into English as "then") but NONE of those words are found in any sentence where the word "baptism" is also used. This is imposing something upon verse(s) that simply isn't there, a radical case of eisegesis rather than exegesis. The whole claim simply is entirely absent, the whole prerequistist is missing.


Does Scripture specifically state, "And this includes CHILDREN"? No. However, there's also no verse that says "and this includes women, this includes African Americans, this includes blonde haired persons, this includes Methodist, this includes fat people...." When Jesus said, "Love even as I first loved you" we don't come up with DOGMAS that insist, "This excludes Spanish speaking people because it doesn't say it includes them." When God said, "Thou shall not steal" we don't create new dogmas that "this doesn't include business owners because God nowhere said it does." When God said, "Thou shalt no commit adultery" we don't make new Christian Dogmas of "But this doesn't mean college guys because God said nothing about college guys." When Jesus said, "Go and make disciples of all people" we don't make new Dogma that "this doesn't include Koreans because God never mentioned Koreans."


Some people will also CLAIM that in the early church, all were over the age of X and first said the Sinner's Prayer (and interesting use of Tradition often by people who claim they reject it).... insisting infant baptism is a new practice. This is simply historically false and entirely, wholly baseless. We can trace infant baptism back at least to 63 AD - well within the age of the Apostles and before most of the NT was written. History actually shows that prohibitions on babies was not the practice until the Anabaptist movement began in Germany in the 16th Century, it is anti-paedobaptism that is the new invention. Indeed, the very rare cases where this view was expressed prior to the Anabaptists, it was immediately and universally rejected (even declared heresy). The clear and universal history is that at least from 63 AD on, babies were regularly baptized.



I hope this helps.



- Josiah




.

 

[TurtleHare]

Nice!

TLDR; version is this

QUESTION: Can you please clarify the Lutheran view of Baptism and its purpose? Does the child become a Christian when baptized?

ANSWER: Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

The Bible tells us that such “faith comes by hearing” (Rom. 10:17). Jesus Himself commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God (Matt. 28:19-20).

Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12.13).

Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include “conversion” and “regeneration.” Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant.

We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt. 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15).

The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die.

Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word.

Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:37) for the purpose of confirming and strengthening faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.

The LCMS does not believe that Baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. All true believers in the Old Testament era were saved without baptism. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of Baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God).

Still, Baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has His precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere “ritual” or “symbol,” but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins. https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#purpose

 

[Lamb]

reach:

Preach it!