Baptism

[kenrapoza]

Hi Folks!

Greetings from one of your next door neighbors from the Presbyterian forum. I had a couple of questions about the Lutheran view of baptism. It is my understanding that Lutherans view baptism as imparting faith and regeneration to the infant who receives it and that you typically would not speak about salvation apart from baptism as they're almost inseparately linked. I'm interested in knowing more about your theology in this area.

Since baptism is a New Covenant sacrament adminstered to babies, how do Lutherans view regeneration under the Old Covenant? Was there another sacrament that imparted faith?

The reformed don't really hold to baptismal regeneration, but we do see a direct link between circumcision under the Old Covenant and baptism under the New Covenant. Circumcision was obviously not applied to all babies (e.g., girls), so we see the link as being covenantal rather than regenerative. Do Lutherans also see a connection between the two practices or are they wholly separate?

My last question is that Lutherans (like us reformed) are strong believers in sola fide. How do Lutherans view the faith of an adult convert prior to baptism? Since there are people who ostensibly place their faith in Christ who weren't baptized as an infant, do Lutherans recognize the validity of that faith if they have not yet been baptized? Is there a change in the nature of that person's faith after baptism?

I apologize if these questions are worded in an awkward manner. I'm probably missing some Lutheran theological categories. These are honest questions for fellowship and mutual understanding. After all, we are all Reformation Christians!

BTW, I am a pretty avid follower of Issues, Etc. One thing that most Christians could really learn from Lutherans is the centrality of Christ and the cross!

I look forward to the fellowship!

Ken

 

[BigNorsk]

Hi Ken,

Nice to have some good questions.

It's probably clearest in the is baptism necessary when you look at a Dogmatics book like Piepers or Muellers. In that they classify things. We see those the Bible teaches as fundamental doctrines, those necessary for salvation.

The Sacraments are secondary fundamentals. They save, but they are not absolutely necessary.

Here is why. They are the gospel. The gospel is both the source and the object of saving faith. That is true whether it is spoken, written, or seen. It is true in all it's forms. He that believes will be saved.

Can we believe on our own? No, I would guess you believe in the total depravity. So we are changed through the gospel into believers.

Is everyone who ever sat and heard the gospel saved? No, I wouldn't think they are. Neither would everyone ever baptised be saved. Again, they are the same.

Faith before baptism? Certainly that is possible and certainly those people are saved. The grace such a person would receive through baptism wouldn't be grace that justified him but it certainly would be grace to strengthen him and sanctify him. Our need for grace does not end at the moment of justification but we needs God's grace as we are santified.

Back to again it's similar to a sermon. One person might be justified because he comes to saving faith through that sermon, another might have been a true believer and saved for years, and he is not justified through that sermon but sanctified, strengthened by God's grace.

Hope that helps.

Marv

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

There are real barriers for the Reformed to understanding Lutheran baptism. And so it seems as much explanation and sound doctrines that can be brought to help will be lost in this bias towards infant baptism.

1) It seems like a Catholic magic ritual. But that is only because baptism was a part of the new Testament church way before there even was a Catholic Church. Read Acts. Whole families were baptized. Let the children come to Me became an important part of why the early church baptized children.

2) Decision theology. A man's will must be involved. Really? What if you were an eight day old male born in the covenant of faith? Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again. When you are born either physically or spiritually, your will is not all that important. It depends not on the flesh of man but on God's will. He is carrying out what He said He would do from eternity through the means of sacraments.

3) When you take your kids home from the hospital, what do they have to know before you love them, accept them as your own? Or is it because you gave them birth that they can make demands such as feed me, clean me, feed me, clean me? You can intellectually make yourself dizzy thinking about how a child can have faith. You are made a child of God because God willed it through the use of Christian parents and a Christian Church. The components are rather simple.

4) The sacrament of Baptism is nothing more than the promise of God applied with the visible element of water. That promise is also known as the Gospel. Adults can understand the Gospel.....hearing it produces salvation! For someone joining the Lutheran Church as an adult they would be instructed first and then receive Baptism if they had never been baptized. But Lutherans recognize all baptisms done in the Trinity formula in any Christian Church.

5) The Enlightenment churches (those church bodies that formed after the Age of the Enlightenment period) place more of an emphasis on man's will and actions and step away from the sacraments of having any real value. Calvin and Zwingli were very rational in their attempts at understanding God. Calvin was a lawyer and thought like a lawyer even in his theology.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Cos

 

[Tangible]

Hi kenrapoza.

Lutherans make a big deal out of their baptism. We are constantly encouraged to "remember your baptism" as a way of refocusing ourselves on our identity in Christ. In the Small Catechism we are directed to daily and continually drown our old Adam in the waters of our baptism so that the new man may arise.

What does such baptizing with water mean?

Such baptizing with water means that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts; and that a new man daily come forth and arise, who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.

Where is this written?

St. Paul writes, Romans 6:4: “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death, that just as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Here are a few links that will give you some of the historical Lutheran statements regarding baptism.

The Small Catechism - The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

The Large Catechism - of Baptism


Here are a few more recent statements.

What About Holy Baptism? (Dr. A.L.Berry, past pres of LCMS)

Baptism FAQs (LCMS website)

What the Bible and Lutherans Teach (Harold A. Essmann - WELS)

Communicating Baptism's Power (Bryan Gerlach - WELS)

Issues, Etc. Articles Archive: Baptism (Google search - 138 hits)

 

[wildboar]

I was baptized in the Lutheran church but spent most of my life outside of it, mostly due to decisions on the part of my parents. When I became an adult I became more and more interested in theology and began reading quite a bit. I joined a Presbyterian Church (PCA) and ended up leaving for the PRC and eventually the URC but now find myself after studying more back in the Lutheran church (LCMS) so I think I have some understanding of where you are coming from.

First of all, the split between Reformed and Lutheran churches didn't really have to do with baptism. There were plenty of Reformed theologians during the period of the Reformation who held to some form of baptismal regeneration. By the time of the Synod of Dordt the majority believed that children of believers were ordinarily regenerated prior to baptism but some held that they were regenerated some time after and there were still some who believed that they were regenerated at the time of baptism. The same is true in the Presbyterian tradition. One of the guys who wrote the article on baptism for the WCF wrote a book defending the idea that elect infants were regenerated at the time of baptism. Unfortunately modern Reformed and Presbyterian theologians in most of the conservative churches no longer tolerate this view because they are reading the confessions through the lens of one of their favorite theologians and not for what it is--a consensus document.

I'll write more later, I have to get back to work.

 

[Miknius]

The reformed don't really hold to baptismal regeneration, but we do see a direct link between circumcision under the Old Covenant and baptism under the New Covenant. Circumcision was obviously not applied to all babies (e.g., girls), so we see the link as being covenantal rather than regenerative. Do Lutherans also see a connection between the two practices or are they wholly separate?

We see the circumcision as an Old covenant sacrament, because it's the event were the child was made a heir of the promises of the covenant. It may seem to be a problem that there isn't a similiar sign for the girls, but we must follow the Bible on this and not our own reasoning

Gen. 17: 10 this is My covenant which ye keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every male of you is to be circumcised;

 

[wildboar]

The Scriptures speak of the preaching of the Gospel, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as all being for the remission of sins. So although baptism is necessary for salvation it is not absolutely necessary. A person could come to faith and be killed prior to baptism and still receive eternal life. Of course, if a person claims to believe but refuses baptism you have to wonder if the person really believes. Why would you neglect one of God's good gifts if you believe Him?

The issue of baptism is simply one of the ways in which the different ways that Reformed and Lutherans read Scripture becomes apparent. Lutherans are more open to the idea of paradox. They affirm what Scripture affirms and deny what Scripture denies without trying to construct an elaborate system. Calvinism and Arminianism are both attempts to construct a logical system that is more easily digestible to the human mind. When I was in Reformed circles I was amazed at how quick some were to condemn others who held to a slightly different brand of covenant theology--an issue that is not addressed by the Reformed confessions. But both parties had gone down roads of logical deduction that diverged from one another at a certain point. Their differences were not due to a different understanding of particular passages of Scripture but upon different logical inferences that they had come to accept somewhere along the development of their system.

When Reformed folks defend infant baptism their first inclination is to jump to circumcision and the covenant. Generally Lutherans will appeal to Matthew 28 and explain that babies are part of the nations.

Depending upon what circles you frequent, either the sovereignty of God or covenant theology is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures by Reformed folks. Lutherans view the Scriptures as being all about Jesus and so view the covenant as being chiefly with Jesus.

On my own blog, I wrote an article called Our Unreasonable Faith that I think demonstrates the Lutheran approach to theology.

 

[kenrapoza]

First of all, thank you to everyone for the helpful responses!

Hi Ken,

Nice to have some good questions.

It's probably clearest in the is baptism necessary when you look at a Dogmatics book like Piepers or Muellers. In that they classify things. We see those the Bible teaches as fundamental doctrines, those necessary for salvation.

The Sacraments are secondary fundamentals. They save, but they are not absolutely necessary.

Here is why. They are the gospel. The gospel is both the source and the object of saving faith. That is true whether it is spoken, written, or seen. It is true in all it's forms. He that believes will be saved.

Can we believe on our own? No, I would guess you believe in the total depravity. So we are changed through the gospel into believers.

Is everyone who ever sat and heard the gospel saved? No, I wouldn't think they are. Neither would everyone ever baptised be saved. Again, they are the same.

Faith before baptism? Certainly that is possible and certainly those people are saved. The grace such a person would receive through baptism wouldn't be grace that justified him but it certainly would be grace to strengthen him and sanctify him. Our need for grace does not end at the moment of justification but we needs God's grace as we are santified.

Back to again it's similar to a sermon. One person might be justified because he comes to saving faith through that sermon, another might have been a true believer and saved for years, and he is not justified through that sermon but sanctified, strengthened by God's grace.

Hope that helps.

Marv

Hi Marv,

This is a very interesting post. It echoes many of the same beliefs of the Reformed/Presbyterian. We stress the sacraments as God's word made visible, and that God's word always accomplishes what it set out to do. We generally don't explicitly affirm baptismal regeneration because we leave the exact relationship between faith and baptism more in the realm of mystery and in God's hands. There is a bit of a spectrum within the history of the reformed/presbyterian doctrines, some lean towards it and others sound almost Zwinglyan when they speak about baptism.

I think the more mainstream view within the reformed community is that baptism is a sign and seal of God's covenant and that baptism places the person within God's covenant community wherein the benefits of the Gospel are manifested and there is salvation. What you've expressed sounds pretty similar, would you agree?

 

[kenrapoza]

There are real barriers for the Reformed to understanding Lutheran baptism. And so it seems as much explanation and sound doctrines that can be brought to help will be lost in this bias towards infant baptism.

1) It seems like a Catholic magic ritual. But that is only because baptism was a part of the new Testament church way before there even was a Catholic Church. Read Acts. Whole families were baptized. Let the children come to Me became an important part of why the early church baptized children.

2) Decision theology. A man's will must be involved. Really? What if you were an eight day old male born in the covenant of faith? Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again. When you are born either physically or spiritually, your will is not all that important. It depends not on the flesh of man but on God's will. He is carrying out what He said He would do from eternity through the means of sacraments.

3) When you take your kids home from the hospital, what do they have to know before you love them, accept them as your own? Or is it because you gave them birth that they can make demands such as feed me, clean me, feed me, clean me? You can intellectually make yourself dizzy thinking about how a child can have faith. You are made a child of God because God willed it through the use of Christian parents and a Christian Church. The components are rather simple.

4) The sacrament of Baptism is nothing more than the promise of God applied with the visible element of water. That promise is also known as the Gospel. Adults can understand the Gospel.....hearing it produces salvation! For someone joining the Lutheran Church as an adult they would be instructed first and then receive Baptism if they had never been baptized. But Lutherans recognize all baptisms done in the Trinity formula in any Christian Church.

5) The Enlightenment churches (those church bodies that formed after the Age of the Enlightenment period) place more of an emphasis on man's will and actions and step away from the sacraments of having any real value. Calvin and Zwingli were very rational in their attempts at understanding God. Calvin was a lawyer and thought like a lawyer even in his theology.

I hope this helps.

Peace,

Cos

Hey man thank you for the response! However, it seems that the cautions you provided would be more applicable against the contemporary evangelical church rather than the reformed. In general I agree with your post and echo your warnings. The reformed are not like contemporary evangelicals, we believe the sacraments are more than memorials, that it is God's effective Word. In other words:

1.) We also hold to infant baptism and don't consider it to be catholic in the roman sense

2.) Agreed! Remember, we're Calvinists...we completely reject decision theology

3.) I would essentially agree with you here

4.) Those sentiments are very similar to how we describe baptism in my church (PCA)

5.) Agreed about the post-enlightenment churches. But that doesn't really apply to Calvin. Remember, Calvin is the one who said of the sacraments:

"Now if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either the mind to comprehend or my words to declare. . . . I rather experience it than understand it” ( Institutes 4.17.32).

Again, thank you for the clarification! I'm enjoying the dialogue.

 

[kenrapoza]

Hi kenrapoza.

Lutherans make a big deal out of their baptism. We are constantly encouraged to "remember your baptism" as a way of refocusing ourselves on our identity in Christ. In the Small Catechism we are directed to daily and continually drown our old Adam in the waters of our baptism so that the new man may arise.



Here are a few links that will give you some of the historical Lutheran statements regarding baptism.

The Small Catechism - The Sacrament of Holy Baptism

The Large Catechism - of Baptism


Here are a few more recent statements.

What About Holy Baptism? (Dr. A.L.Berry, past pres of LCMS)

Baptism FAQs (LCMS website)

What the Bible and Lutherans Teach (Harold A. Essmann - WELS)

Communicating Baptism's Power (Bryan Gerlach - WELS)

Issues, Etc. Articles Archive: Baptism (Google search - 138 hits)

Hey man thanks for the links! What I gathered from them is that Lutherans don't hold to a "strict" baptismal regeneration but leave it more in the realm of mystery - very similar to confessional reformed. Do you think that is a fair statement?

 

[kenrapoza]

We see the circumcision as an Old covenant sacrament, because it's the event were the child was made a heir of the promises of the covenant. It may seem to be a problem that there isn't a similiar sign for the girls, but we must follow the Bible on this and not our own reasoning

Gen. 17: 10 this is My covenant which ye keep between Me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every male of you is to be circumcised;

Interesting, do Lutherans see a continuity between the two sacraments? What is the typical Lutheran view of Col. 2:11-12?

Thanks!

 

[kenrapoza]

The Scriptures speak of the preaching of the Gospel, baptism, and the Lord's Supper as all being for the remission of sins. So although baptism is necessary for salvation it is not absolutely necessary. A person could come to faith and be killed prior to baptism and still receive eternal life. Of course, if a person claims to believe but refuses baptism you have to wonder if the person really believes. Why would you neglect one of God's good gifts if you believe Him?

The issue of baptism is simply one of the ways in which the different ways that Reformed and Lutherans read Scripture becomes apparent. Lutherans are more open to the idea of paradox. They affirm what Scripture affirms and deny what Scripture denies without trying to construct an elaborate system. Calvinism and Arminianism are both attempts to construct a logical system that is more easily digestible to the human mind. When I was in Reformed circles I was amazed at how quick some were to condemn others who held to a slightly different brand of covenant theology--an issue that is not addressed by the Reformed confessions. But both parties had gone down roads of logical deduction that diverged from one another at a certain point. Their differences were not due to a different understanding of particular passages of Scripture but upon different logical inferences that they had come to accept somewhere along the development of their system.

When Reformed folks defend infant baptism their first inclination is to jump to circumcision and the covenant. Generally Lutherans will appeal to Matthew 28 and explain that babies are part of the nations.

Depending upon what circles you frequent, either the sovereignty of God or covenant theology is viewed as the central message of the Scriptures by Reformed folks. Lutherans view the Scriptures as being all about Jesus and so view the covenant as being chiefly with Jesus.

On my own blog, I wrote an article called Our Unreasonable Faith that I think demonstrates the Lutheran approach to theology.

Hey thanks for the link to your blog! However, I think I would have to respectfully disagree. I wouldn't say that doctrines such as the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ are unreasonable, they are a mystery. The idea that Tritheism is more reasonable because (1+1+1 = 3) displays the flaw in the analogy, not the Trinity. One could simply say that more appropriate expression would be 1x1x1 = 1. It may be beyond our comprehension how God is singular in nature but plural in person, but that doesn't mean it is illogical. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it unreasonable, it means that we are finite. We try to express what God has revealed to us, and we may not be able to fully comprehend it, but that doesn't make it inherently unreasonable.

Another thing I must mention is that unbelievers don't refuse the gospel because it's unreasonable and they are reasonable. They refuse the gospel because their wills are in bondage to sin, they are full of corruption their natures are inclined against God. They use their reason in the service of rationalizing away God's rule, in accordance with their corrupt nature. Paul teaches us in Rom. 1 that all people know of God and His glory: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). The problem is not the reasonability of the gospel, but that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

But we may be saying the same thing in different ways. Surely the gospel, though being the wisdom of God, is foolishness to men. In this sense it is unreasonable to natural man. That the kingdom of God would begin in weakness and not in political power is certainly not in line with our expectations. The cross looks like weakness and foolishness, but it is the power of God unto salvation. Is this what you're saying?

I apologize for the long-winded response to your blog post, I'm not at all trying to be abrasive but just trying to make sure I understand what you mean and not misinterpreting you. I bet we are essentially making the same point! Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood.

I agree that there are reformed people who try to over-analyze what God has not clearly revealed. I also agree that there is a tendency in reformed circles to try to wrap everything up into a neat package. But I don't think that's inherent in the theology, but a flaw in how people approach it.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond!

 

[kenrapoza]

Multi-Post!

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Hi Folks!

Greetings from one of your next door neighbors from the Presbyterian forum. I had a couple of questions about the Lutheran view of baptism. It is my understanding that Lutherans view baptism as imparting faith and regeneration to the infant who receives it and that you typically would not speak about salvation apart from baptism as they're almost inseparately linked. I'm interested in knowing more about your theology in this area.

Since baptism is a New Covenant sacrament adminstered to babies, how do Lutherans view regeneration under the Old Covenant? Was there another sacrament that imparted faith?

The reformed don't really hold to baptismal regeneration, but we do see a direct link between circumcision under the Old Covenant and baptism under the New Covenant. Circumcision was obviously not applied to all babies (e.g., girls), so we see the link as being covenantal rather than regenerative. Do Lutherans also see a connection between the two practices or are they wholly separate?

My last question is that Lutherans (like us reformed) are strong believers in sola fide. How do Lutherans view the faith of an adult convert prior to baptism? Since there are people who ostensibly place their faith in Christ who weren't baptized as an infant, do Lutherans recognize the validity of that faith if they have not yet been baptized? Is there a change in the nature of that person's faith after baptism?

I apologize if these questions are worded in an awkward manner. I'm probably missing some Lutheran theological categories. These are honest questions for fellowship and mutual understanding. After all, we are all Reformation Christians!

BTW, I am a pretty avid follower of Issues, Etc. One thing that most Christians could really learn from Lutherans is the centrality of Christ and the cross!

I look forward to the fellowship!

Ken

1) Back
2) Lutherans view the sacraments in relation to the promise that accompanies them. In the case of baptism, we have the promise that those who believe and are baptized will be saved. With circumcision the promise was related to the Abrahamic Covenant, so that is how it could sacramentally be viewed within Lutheran theology. Would I call it then regenerative and faith giving....
3) Lutherans have never been as in to covent theology as reformed have. However, we do recognize the relationship circumcision had in the OT as baptism has in the NT, that is, an act of adoption and an act bound to a promise.
4) Lutherans do recognize faith and salvation can exist outside of baptism, and certainly before baptism. Baptism is among the means of grace because it is a form of proclamation. Therefore someone could certainly come to faith through another means of the gospel by which the Holy Spirit calls us to faith. You were accurate in mentioning that Lutherans do not like to talk about salvation outside of baptism because we are under the view that if you come to faith, why would you not want to be baptized?
5) Thank you for your kind words about us silly Lutherans. Indeed sometimes I think we have the best kept secret in Christianity in the theology of the cross. Unfortunately this is because we often abandon our own prized theologies for more well-known ones (or at least Lutheran adaptations of popular theologies). So many Lutherans in the world today don't even realize what a treasure of theology we possess.
6) Feel free to visit again.

Pax

 

[Miknius]

Interesting, do Lutherans see a continuity between the two sacraments? What is the typical Lutheran view of Col. 2:11-12?

In Col. 2:11-12 Paul teaches that baptisms regenerates and that it is the circumcision of the new covenant.

 

[kenrapoza]

5) Thank you for your kind words about us silly Lutherans. Indeed sometimes I think we have the best kept secret in Christianity in the theology of the cross. Unfortunately this is because we often abandon our own prized theologies for more well-known ones (or at least Lutheran adaptations of popular theologies). So many Lutherans in the world today don't even realize what a treasure of theology we possess.

Pax

Yes, the theology of the cross is one of those concepts that has become very dear to me and has revolutionized the way I view many issues. It's become pretty central to my thinking.

6) Feel free to visit again.

Thanks! I would like to! It's not all that easy to find genuine reformation Christians.

 

[wildboar]

Hey thanks for the link to your blog! However, I think I would have to respectfully disagree. I wouldn't say that doctrines such as the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ are unreasonable, they are a mystery. The idea that Tritheism is more reasonable because (1+1+1 = 3) displays the flaw in the analogy, not the Trinity. One could simply say that more appropriate expression would be 1x1x1 = 1. It may be beyond our comprehension how God is singular in nature but plural in person, but that doesn't mean it is illogical. Just because we don't understand something doesn't make it unreasonable, it means that we are finite. We try to express what God has revealed to us, and we may not be able to fully comprehend it, but that doesn't make it inherently unreasonable.

Another thing I must mention is that unbelievers don't refuse the gospel because it's unreasonable and they are reasonable. They refuse the gospel because their wills are in bondage to sin, they are full of corruption their natures are inclined against God. They use their reason in the service of rationalizing away God's rule, in accordance with their corrupt nature. Paul teaches us in Rom. 1 that all people know of God and His glory: "For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Rom. 1:21). The problem is not the reasonability of the gospel, but that we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18).

But we may be saying the same thing in different ways. Surely the gospel, though being the wisdom of God, is foolishness to men. In this sense it is unreasonable to natural man. That the kingdom of God would begin in weakness and not in political power is certainly not in line with our expectations. The cross looks like weakness and foolishness, but it is the power of God unto salvation. Is this what you're saying?

I apologize for the long-winded response to your blog post, I'm not at all trying to be abrasive but just trying to make sure I understand what you mean and not misinterpreting you. I bet we are essentially making the same point! Please accept my apologies if I misunderstood.

I agree that there are reformed people who try to over-analyze what God has not clearly revealed. I also agree that there is a tendency in reformed circles to try to wrap everything up into a neat package. But I don't think that's inherent in the theology, but a flaw in how people approach it.

It would depend on how reason is defined and so forth. I was using the strong language to make a point. Strictly speaking God is not unreasonable but He is unreasonable because of our own limitations. Reformed groups vary in how rationalistic they become but I think the seed is there in their confessions. The limited atonement is a good example. The Scriptures speak of those who deny the Lord that bought them and use various other phrases to speak of those who apostacize but the Calvinist insists that Christ never died for these people because of a series of logical inferences that are being made about election and how God's mind works. I contend that we can know nothing about God except what He has chosen to reveal to us and should never be arguing against the plain teachings of Scripture based on our logical inferences. The same is true of the sacraments. The Lutheran position is really the only position based on the actual words of Christ. The Calvinist is based on inferences based on their own understanding of Christology and the Roman Catholic position is based on Aristotelian metaphysics.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

5.) Agreed about the post-enlightenment churches. But that doesn't really apply to Calvin. Remember, Calvin is the one who said of the sacraments:

"Now if anyone should ask me how this takes place, I shall not be ashamed to confess that it is a secret too lofty for either the mind to comprehend or my words to declare. . . . I rather experience it than understand it” ( Institutes 4.17.32).

Again, thank you for the clarification! I'm enjoying the dialogue.

Calvin follows logical extensions everywhere; hence his approach to theology is much the same as a lawyer. He puts, binds, restrains Jesus to the right hand of God and therefore, he argues, he can't be at the Lord's Table at your church, my church, and everywhere else that is having communion that day. So he gives the sacrament a spiritual motion that eliminates the necessity for Jesus to be "present" because he restrains him with the impossiblity.

Calvin loved the sacraments but you have to go beyond that and find out how he defined the elements and solved them in his mind. Luther follows a more mystical approach, since he was a monk and never a lawyer, this is easier for him. Jesus said it, and he believed it. No, we don't understand this of course, we believe it cause Scriptures declare it. A widely different path from what Calvin and the Reformed Church as a whole have been rather consistent following eve5r since.

I don't think Calvin ever solved the appearance of Jesus in His physical body in the room with the disciples. Jesus' physical nature never confined Him then and it, logically, does not now. But this does not stop Calvin from approaching the Lord's Supper in his own understanding. "This is My body given for you" was in Calvin's Bible too as well as Luther's and probably even yours.

Peace,

Cos

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Insightful posts!

 

[HereIstand.Todd]

Insightful posts!

I have been watching the Adult infomation class online from the Messiah Lutheran Church website. This is a well taught and very informative class from the Lutheran understanding of the bible.

If you would like to view these go to The Messiah Lutheran website from Seattle. I can't actually post the link here since I am new.