Attending An LCMS Church But Have Some Problems With Their Theology

[ViaCrucis]

Hi Steve thanks so much for your answers they were very well thought out and good.

I am Jewish Christian and I am torn between the Messianic religion and the LCMS.

1. I am not familiar with the Mikvah and I will need to do research on that. What evidence do you have from early church history that infants were baptized can you please provide me with that information?

I know that this isn't addressed to me, but as a Church history nerd I figured why not butt in where I wasn't invited (I jest of course).

The earliest uncontested explicit mention of the baptism of infants (that I am personally aware of) comes either from the Apostolic Traditions of St. Hippolytus or the works of Terullian of Carthage. It comes down to whether or not the Apostolic Traditions were composed by St. Hippolytus of Rome, or another Hippolytus (possibly from Alexandria) who composed them give or take around the same time as Tertullian.

Going with Tertullian first, he actually is against baptizing infants, though describes it as an incredibly normal practice in his time; that is, it's a very well established tradition and practice already. It is noteworthy that Tertullian's reason for being against baptizing infants has nothing to do with what Scripture says. Instead, Tertullian's entire argument rests on his personal belief that if someone sins after receiving Baptism, then they have basically almost no chance of being saved (a position that has never been accepted in the historic Christian faith). It is also important to note that at some point in Tertullian's life he converted to the Montanist heresy, a highly legalistic sect that claimed its founder and his two female partners were prophets/the literal embodiment of the Holy Spirit. And it's difficult to determine which of Tertullian's writings were written during his orthodox period, his heretical period, and/or his possible repentant period (it's unclear, but tradition suggests that Tertullian later in life finally realized the error of his ways and returned to the true faith).

In the case of the Apostolic Traditions, Hippolytus (whether of Rome or another Hippolytus) provides a simple description of how the churches are to conduct themselves regarding administering Baptism. Hippolytus specifically mentions that children are to be baptized first, and that if they aren't old enough to answer for themselves, then their parent/guardian/sponsor speaks on their behalf. Hippolytus description of Baptism is remarkable here for the fact that it is pretty much identical to how the Church has always administered the Sacrament.

In the beginning I said that these are the two unambiguous explicit mentions of baptizing infants that I'm aware of. But there are implied examples:

1) In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, composed sometime shortly after his martyrdom (150~166 AD) the very aged bishop of the Smyrnaean church declares against the onslaught of his interrogator that he has "for eight and six years served Jesus Christ, why should I now deny my God and King?". Polycarp was a man who was 86 years old at the time of his death. Decades earlier as a young bishop of of the Church in Smyrna he was friends with the aged bishop of Antioch, Ignatius. Of the authentic epistles of St. Ignatius (dated ~107 AD), there is both one addressed to the Church of Smyrna and also one personally addressed to Polycarp. For further context, Polycarp was almost certainly one of the Christians who was the original readership for the book of the Revelation, in fact it's entirely possible that Polycarp was, if not already bishop, a presbyter of the church.

2)In the writings of St. Justin (martyred 150 AD), I would need to look it up as I do not recall whether it is in his First Apology or his Dialogue, he speaks of virgins who have remained pure since their birth, as those who came to Christ in infancy and after reaching maturity have committed themselves to lives of chastity out of devotion for their Lord.

If you would like links/citations/etc I would be happy to look them up and provide them.

2. Yes I agree that my LCMS Pastor is fine with me keeping a Saturday Sabbath and obeying the dietary laws even though he does not endorse those doctrines.

Jesus taught that whoever does and teaches the commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom and that is why I feel it is so important to observe those laws.

Though understand that:

1) According to the Lord Himself that He has a New Covenant.
2) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that if there is a new covenant, than that means the former covenant has passed away.
3) In the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem ruled that none of the Mosaic Law was to be placed upon Gentile converts to Christianity except that they avoid pagan practices such as consuming food sacrificed to idols, the meat of strangled animals, and blood; and to abstain from fornication (e.g. pagan temple prostitution).
4) The Apostle Paul, frequently in his letters, is explicitly clear that any attempt to compel Gentile believers to observe the Mosaic Law is to be considered anathema and the doctrines of demons; that in the freedom of conscience that we have received in the Messiah before God, that the rigid stipulations of the Torah are not binding upon those in the Messiah; and that any imposition of such things through judgment and false expectation is wrong. The Apostle clearly and explictly condemning the judging of one's brother over matters such as foods, sacred days, sabbaths, new moons, etc.

You are entirely free in your conscience to continue to observe the Sabbath and to eat only kosher food. Do so with the blessing of God and the freedom of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Your conscience is free, and whomever the Son sets free is free indeed.

But it becomes a matter altogether different if you proceed to expect the same of your brother or sister, and then make judgments about them. It becomes even more problematic if someone believes that through works of the Law one can be, in anyway whatsoever, justified before God. For any who seeks to be justified by the Law shall be condemned by the Law; and all who seek to be righteous by their works will be condemned by their works. We are justified only by the grace of God, on account of Christ's once and perfect work alone, which God graciously, lovingly gives us through His own work and gift of faith. So that it is faithfully confessed, "The just shall live by faith" and "It is by grace that you are saved, through faith, which is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that none may boast".

If you choose by your freedom of conscience, and not by compulsion or force, to observe these things. Then, again, truly, glory be to God. But it is precisely that these are matters of personal choice and conscience, and not by moral or legal obligation, that it is to the glory of God. If you believe that these things are commanded and demanded of you, and that by these you do a righteous work for God, then you are not bringing glory to God whatsoever. You are only harming yourself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's not, but neither is Trinity or many other theological concepts we have invented words to describe. The idea of a Sacrament, something instituted by Jesus himself is of course in scripture. Hence why Lutherans only observe the two - Baptism and The Lords Supper, as these two were the two actions and observances for Christians/followers of Christ instituted by Christ himself.

That might depend on how particular Lutherans define sacraments. In the Augsburg Confession, Confession and Absolution is called a sacrament as well. There are also some Luterans that consider Holy Orders a sacrament because through ordination the obligation to forgive sins is imparted upon the ordinand.

 

[ralliann]

I know that this isn't addressed to me, but as a Church history nerd I figured why not butt in where I wasn't invited (I jest of course).

The earliest uncontested explicit mention of the baptism of infants (that I am personally aware of) comes either from the Apostolic Traditions of St. Hippolytus or the works of Terullian of Carthage. It comes down to whether or not the Apostolic Traditions were composed by St. Hippolytus of Rome, or another Hippolytus (possibly from Alexandria) who composed them give or take around the same time as Tertullian.

Going with Tertullian first, he actually is against baptizing infants, though describes it as an incredibly normal practice in his time; that is, it's a very well established tradition and practice already. It is noteworthy that Tertullian's reason for being against baptizing infants has nothing to do with what Scripture says. Instead, Tertullian's entire argument rests on his personal belief that if someone sins after receiving Baptism, then they have basically almost no chance of being saved (a position that has never been accepted in the historic Christian faith). It is also important to note that at some point in Tertullian's life he converted to the Montanist heresy, a highly legalistic sect that claimed its founder and his two female partners were prophets/the literal embodiment of the Holy Spirit. And it's difficult to determine which of Tertullian's writings were written during his orthodox period, his heretical period, and/or his possible repentant period (it's unclear, but tradition suggests that Tertullian later in life finally realized the error of his ways and returned to the true faith).

In the case of the Apostolic Traditions, Hippolytus (whether of Rome or another Hippolytus) provides a simple description of how the churches are to conduct themselves regarding administering Baptism. Hippolytus specifically mentions that children are to be baptized first, and that if they aren't old enough to answer for themselves, then their parent/guardian/sponsor speaks on their behalf. Hippolytus description of Baptism is remarkable here for the fact that it is pretty much identical to how the Church has always administered the Sacrament.

In the beginning I said that these are the two unambiguous explicit mentions of baptizing infants that I'm aware of. But there are implied examples:

1) In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, composed sometime shortly after his martyrdom (150~166 AD) the very aged bishop of the Smyrnaean church declares against the onslaught of his interrogator that he has "for eight and six years served Jesus Christ, why should I now deny my God and King?". Polycarp was a man who was 86 years old at the time of his death. Decades earlier as a young bishop of of the Church in Smyrna he was friends with the aged bishop of Antioch, Ignatius. Of the authentic epistles of St. Ignatius (dated ~107 AD), there is both one addressed to the Church of Smyrna and also one personally addressed to Polycarp. For further context, Polycarp was almost certainly one of the Christians who was the original readership for the book of the Revelation, in fact it's entirely possible that Polycarp was, if not already bishop, a presbyter of the church.

2)In the writings of St. Justin (martyred 150 AD), I would need to look it up as I do not recall whether it is in his First Apology or his Dialogue, he speaks of virgins who have remained pure since their birth, as those who came to Christ in infancy and after reaching maturity have committed themselves to lives of chastity out of devotion for their Lord.

If you would like links/citations/etc I would be happy to look them up and provide them.



Though understand that:

1) According to the Lord Himself that He has a New Covenant.
2) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says that if there is a new covenant, than that means the former covenant has passed away.
3) In the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles that the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem ruled that none of the Mosaic Law was to be placed upon Gentile converts to Christianity except that they avoid pagan practices such as consuming food sacrificed to idols, the meat of strangled animals, and blood; and to abstain from fornication (e.g. pagan temple prostitution).
4) The Apostle Paul, frequently in his letters, is explicitly clear that any attempt to compel Gentile believers to observe the Mosaic Law is to be considered anathema and the doctrines of demons; that in the freedom of conscience that we have received in the Messiah before God, that the rigid stipulations of the Torah are not binding upon those in the Messiah; and that any imposition of such things through judgment and false expectation is wrong. The Apostle clearly and explictly condemning the judging of one's brother over matters such as foods, sacred days, sabbaths, new moons, etc.

You are entirely free in your conscience to continue to observe the Sabbath and to eat only kosher food. Do so with the blessing of God and the freedom of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Your conscience is free, and whomever the Son sets free is free indeed.

But it becomes a matter altogether different if you proceed to expect the same of your brother or sister, and then make judgments about them. It becomes even more problematic if someone believes that through works of the Law one can be, in anyway whatsoever, justified before God. For any who seeks to be justified by the Law shall be condemned by the Law; and all who seek to be righteous by their works will be condemned by their works. We are justified only by the grace of God, on account of Christ's once and perfect work alone, which God graciously, lovingly gives us through His own work and gift of faith. So that it is faithfully confessed, "The just shall live by faith" and "It is by grace that you are saved, through faith, which is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that none may boast".

If you choose by your freedom of conscience, and not by compulsion or force, to observe these things. Then, again, truly, glory be to God. But it is precisely that these are matters of personal choice and conscience, and not by moral or legal obligation, that it is to the glory of God. If you believe that these things are commanded and demanded of you, and that by these you do a righteous work for God, then you are not bringing glory to God whatsoever. You are only harming yourself.

-CryptoLutheran

Isn't baptism in infants similar to circumcision? It is something that is done to the child, as the parent raising them up in the faith. We used to hear the term age of accountability. Which in Judaism bar mitsvah was the marker. Would therefore confirmation be the same for a baptised Child? The age of accountability before God?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Isn't baptism in infants similar to circumcision? It is something that is done to the child, as the parent raising them up in the faith. We used to hear the term age of accountability. Which in Judaism bar mitsvah was the marker. Would therefore confirmation be the same for a baptised Child? The age of accountability before God?

Scripture certainly draws parallels, such that St. Paul describes Holy Baptism as a spiritual circumcision "made without hands" in Colossians 2.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the phrase "age of accountability", because as a concept it is often used to deny biblical theology (e.g. Original Sin) by suggesting that a person does not become morally culpable until a certain age. Though Scripture does not suggest anything like this. While it is obvious that as a child grows up they will (under ordinary circumstances) grow up, and mature; there is no magical age where suddenly they become culpable. We instead recognize that our children need guidance from the moment they enter this world.

Confirmation isn't about an age of accountability; but one could argue Confirmation does provide for the human need of a "coming of age" ritual; it provides opportunity for the baptized to publicly, in the Church, confirm their faith. Though Confirmation was never really about a "coming of age" ritual either (though it fills that niche); as adults also are Confirmed.

Confirmation originated as Chrismation, the ancient practice of the Church where the baptized were anointed and sealed with the Holy Spirit. In the West during the Middle Ages ecclesiastical quirks developed differences between East and West. So, for example, in the East, a priest can administer Chrismation, and thus the baptized are immediately Chrismated, and then First Communion--the Eastern Churches have always communed infants and young children. In the West, however, only a bishop could administer Chrismation, and sometimes a child could be baptized and have to wait years before the bishop visited and Chrismated them. This period of waiting between Baptism and Chrismation become normal in the West, and so Chrismation became Confirmation. Thus it has been the normative practice in the West for Confirmation and First Communion to happen later when the child is entering adolescence.

There are always ways and opportunities for us to respond and affirm our faith--we do that every time we confess the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds together. We confess our faith to one another, and before the world.

To that end, it would seem to me that rather than thinking in terms of an age of accountability, to instead simply focus on bringing the child up in faith. And that is through Word and Sacrament. So don't hide your children away from the Word by putting them in a nursery. Even if they are only a month old infant, let them hear the Word in the Liturgy. Our Lord said, "Do not prohibit the children from coming unto Me"; the Lord feeds them and sustains them in their faith just as He does ours. They have whole lives ahead of them where they can confess and affirm and respond to God's love as Christian disciples in the world. But what they need is the spiritual care and love that is found in God's Household, His Church, in which God meets us in Word and Sacrament, giving us faith, justifying us freely by His grace, on account of Christ alone.

-CryptoLutheran

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Roymond]

1. Overall the Infant Baptism discussion tends to go in circles outside of Lutheran and other Traditional churches. The fact is that, from a Lutheran point of view, the scriptures certainly imply that as whole households were baptized, it is scriptural. The idea that a "whole household" did not include children is nonsense, IMO.

I never really thought about the matter until I made it from classical Greek to Koine and started in on the New Testament. The moment I encountered that word "οἶκος' in connection with baptism (Acts 15) it was obvious: either they drenched the physical building so everything was soaking wet, or they baptized everyone on the basis of Lydia's faith. The second was intriguing, the first was ludicrous.
But it makes sense when you consider that when four friends brought a friend to Jesus to be healed, and tore a whole in the roof of a house to get to Jesus (Mark 2), the text plainly says that Jesus saw "their" faith -- the faith of the friends -- and told the man "Your sins are forgiven".

2. There is nothing that says you can't keep a Saturday sabbath if you want to, but also understand it is not salvific. Lutherans believe the Sabbath is Sunday due to a number of reasons, but there really is no reason that you can't keep a Saturday Sabbath and go to church on Sunday from a Lutheran point of view, at least according to my previous Lutheran pastors. I did when I was Lutheran and do now still.

I've leaned more and more towards the Coptic tradition of keeping both days.

BTW when I was first a Lutheran a Lutheran theology professor told us that Saturday is the Sabbath while Sunday is the Lord's Day, that Luther didn't change the day, he just transferred those things associated with the Sabbath to the Lord's Day -- a subtle distinction but important.

 

[Roymond]

I'm not necessarily opposed to infant baptism but I am more or less undecided as I have not seen the scriptural evidence to support the doctrine so far.

Given the Greek in Acts 16, one of two things was true:

1. They drenched Lydia's entire physical house in water so everything was soaked
2. They baptized everyone in her household on the basis of her declaration of faith.

Number 1 is ludicrous, so we're left with 2. Given that Lydia was well-off financially, it's a near certainty that her household included infants and children. So either infants get baptized when their parents are Christian (or in this case, perhaps just one parent), or we're supposed to wash down buildings with an abundance of water.

 

[Roymond]

Where is the word "sacrament" found in scripture?

That depends on your translation! "Sacrament" means "holy thing", and is the Latin word used in the Vulgate to translate from the Hebrew and the Greek; Christians in the West picked it up from the Latin because that was what their Bibles were in after about the fourth century till about the sixteenth.
It's one of what theologians refer to as "summary words" or sometimes "theological shorthand", a word used to refer to more than one of a set of similar things. In this case, it refers to Baptism, the Eucharist, and for Lutherans that agree with Melanchthon, Confession-Absolution, and indicates things that Jesus commanded and which have a promise attached to them. Like "Trinity", it's used instead of having to restate all the details every time.

 

[Roymond]

Scripture certainly draws parallels, such that St. Paul describes Holy Baptism as a spiritual circumcision "made without hands" in Colossians 2.

I am somewhat uncomfortable with the phrase "age of accountability", because as a concept it is often used to deny biblical theology (e.g. Original Sin) by suggesting that a person does not become morally culpable until a certain age. Though Scripture does not suggest anything like this. While it is obvious that as a child grows up they will (under ordinary circumstances) grow up, and mature; there is no magical age where suddenly they become culpable. We instead recognize that our children need guidance from the moment they enter this world.

Confirmation isn't about an age of accountability; but one could argue Confirmation does provide for the human need of a "coming of age" ritual; it provides opportunity for the baptized to publicly, in the Church, confirm their faith. Though Confirmation was never really about a "coming of age" ritual either (though it fills that niche); as adults also are Confirmed.

Confirmation originated as Chrismation, the ancient practice of the Church where the baptized were anointed and sealed with the Holy Spirit. In the West during the Middle Ages ecclesiastical quirks developed differences between East and West. So, for example, in the East, a priest can administer Chrismation, and thus the baptized are immediately Chrismated, and then First Communion--the Eastern Churches have always communed infants and young children. In the West, however, only a bishop could administer Chrismation, and sometimes a child could be baptized and have to wait years before the bishop visited and Chrismated them. This period of waiting between Baptism and Chrismation become normal in the West, and so Chrismation became Confirmation. Thus it has been the normative practice in the West for Confirmation and First Communion to happen later when the child is entering adolescence.

There are always ways and opportunities for us to respond and affirm our faith--we do that every time we confess the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds together. We confess our faith to one another, and before the world.

To that end, it would seem to me that rather than thinking in terms of an age of accountability, to instead simply focus on bringing the child up in faith. And that is through Word and Sacrament. So don't hide your children away from the Word by putting them in a nursery. Even if they are only a month old infant, let them hear the Word in the Liturgy. Our Lord said, "Do not prohibit the children from coming unto Me"; the Lord feeds them and sustains them in their faith just as He does ours. They have whole lives ahead of them where they can confess and affirm and respond to God's love as Christian disciples in the world. But what they need is the spiritual care and love that is found in God's Household, His Church, in which God meets us in Word and Sacrament, giving us faith, justifying us freely by His grace, on account of Christ alone.

-CryptoLutheran

-CryptoLutheran

It's worth noting that the Bar Mitzvah is a late development in Judaism; it was probably practiced in Luther's time, though the first reference to it is only in the century or so before so it may not have been widespread. Along with the idea of an "age of accountability", it arose from the influence of rationalism and later of humanism on the Jewish faith -- age of accountability can be argued from the scriptures but it never plays any significant role.

That's a good discussion of how Chrismation in the West diverged from the ancient practice; I'll just note that the Eastern church even regards it as an aberration!

So it's really a human institution, a way of saying, "We have trained this person and tested, and found that he/she is ready to take charge of his/her own spiritual life."

 

[FaithT]

1. Overall the Infant Baptism discussion tends to go in circles outside of Lutheran and other Traditional churches. The fact is that, from a Lutheran point of view, the scriptures certainly imply that as whole households were baptized, it is scriptural. The idea that a "whole household" did not include children is nonsense, IMO. That along with the ancient tradition implies it was this way from the start. Also, you seem to agree with some Jewish practices, it would stand to reason that as the Jewish practice has also always been to immerse infant converts in the Mikvah, it would also be so in the Church as the Baptism is a extension of the use of ritual cleansing.

2. There is nothing that says you can't keep a Saturday sabbath if you want to, but also understand it is not salvific. Lutherans believe the Sabbath is Sunday due to a number of reasons, but there really is no reason that you can't keep a Saturday Sabbath and go to church on Sunday from a Lutheran point of view, at least according to my previous Lutheran pastors. I did when I was Lutheran and do now still.

3. Lutheran theology, like most of Christendom, believes the dietary laws were abolished for all Christians, and never applied to Gentile Christians anyways. That said, there is no reason you can't keep the dietary laws if you wish to, I would assume, so long as you believed it had no bearing on your salvation.

May I ask if you are a Jewish believer or just someone that leans towards some Jewish practices?

Whew! I don’t keep the old dietary laws and after rereading the OP I thought maybe the LCMS is supposed to.