Clarifying Lutheran Soteriology

[bcbsr]

I'm not a Lutheran, and I'm not here to debate. I would just like to have some Lutheran clarify what appears to me to be contradictions in the Lutheran faith so I can have a Lutheran understanding of Lutheranism.

Concerning Infant Baptism:

And if infants are saved apart from hearing the gospel, then what of Rom 10:13,14

"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?
And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?​

Frequently Asked Questions | Doctrine - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod says, "Baptism through the Word creates the faith necessary to receive salvation for infants."

What does "through the Word" mean in the context of infant baptism?

It also says on that site, "It must be remembered that the only theological distinction between the spoken Word of the Gospel and Baptism is that the sacrament includes a visible element; hence, our Lutheran fathers commonly spoke of Baptism as “visible Gospel.”"

Seems to me there's a big difference between the two. One involves hearing actual words and believing them. The other, as in the case of infant baptism, has nothing to do with hearing words and believing those words, but simply involves getting wet in a religious ceremony.

What do Lutherans actually mean by "faith" in the context of infant baptism? They claim faith is impart to the unbelieving infant in an involuntary action, but what is that "faith"? What do you mean by "faith"?

Is salvation contingent upon one's involvement in a religious ceremony? If so what's the difference with those who claim that one must be circumcised to be saved? Is it simply that the ceremony is different? Is that it?

Concerning "Decision Theology"

Sola fide - Wikipedia
Lutherans reject the "decision theology" which is common among modern evangelicals.

Yet Luthers believe that a person can "decide" not to believe, thus viewing salvation as contingent upon one's "decision". Can a Lutheran resolve this apparent contradiction?

 

[FireDragon76]

By God's Word, the entire universe was created. It seems to me his Word is effectual whether or not a person understands it. The Word created us and can re-create us.

People can come to faith through hearing the Word, but this doesn't negate the power of baptism. At baptism, an entire religious community gathers around their faith in the Gospel and the promises of Christ, I think God is perfectly capable of working through that means to bring a child to an adult faith.

The faith Lutherans are primarily concerned with is fiducia, which means trust. Assensus, mental assent or agreement, in itself is not salvific, since even demons have this kind of belief (James 2.19). Fiducia is not dependent on having a particular intellectual capacity.

In response to the rejection of "decision" theology:

People are not responsible for their salvation but they are responsible for their rejection of the Gospel. It's really not so complicated. Lutherans emphasize a passive reception of salvation, and salvation is not a choice. Jesus is already the Savior of the entire world- salvation was finished 2,000 years ago at Calvary. In the sacraments, that benefits of salvation are made present and applied to my own life.

 

[bcbsr]

By God's Word, the entire universe was created. It seems to me his Word is effectual whether or not a person understands it. The Word created us and can re-create us.

People can come to faith through hearing the Word, but this doesn't negate the power of baptism. At baptism, an entire religious community gathers around their faith in the Gospel and the promises of Christ, I think God is perfectly capable of working through that means to bring a child to an adult faith.

The faith Lutherans are primarily concerned with is fiducia, which means trust. Assensus, mental assent or agreement, in itself is not salvific, since even demons have this kind of belief (James 2.19). Fiducia is not dependent on having a particular intellectual capacity.

In response to the rejection of "decision" theology:

People are not responsible for their salvation but they are responsible for their rejection of the Gospel. It's really not so complicated. Lutherans emphasize a passive reception of salvation, and salvation is not a choice. Jesus is already the Savior of the entire world- salvation was finished 2,000 years ago at Calvary. In the sacraments, that benefits of salvation are made present and applied to my own life.

Thanks for responding. However, in my mind, your response hasn't resolved the contradictions I spoke of.

You haven't clearly spoken to the issues I brought up regarding infant baptism. And concerning "decision" theology it seems to me you're saying that a person is both responsible and not responsible for their salvation, which to me is a contradiction.

I hope there is another Lutheran on the Forum who can be clearer in their explanations. For I don't want to misrepresent to others how Lutherans handle what others may see as obvious contradictions with their theology.

As for James 2:19, Luther rejected James as an "epistle of straw" and that which contradicts Paul. Though I understand that Lutheranism are not actual beliefs of Martin Luther, but more a sort of cherry picked derivation of his beliefs, which again to me is a kind of strange - identifying oneself as a "Lutheran" while disagreeing with Martin Luther, the founder of Lutheranism.

Also can a Lutheran recommend another Lutheran forum in which I might ask these questions?

 

[FireDragon76]

Lutheranism isn't always clear, that's precisely the point. Unlike the Reformed faiths (by which I include every other form of evangelicalism in the US), there is a generous acceptance of mystery and apparent contradiction. Lutheranism is the least western in its mindset of any Protestant faith.

Most people who come to Lutheranism do so because of a great deal of study- especially history and the theological debates within the Church, they are convinced it is the same faith as that of apostles, martyrs, and saints throughout history. They may feel other Christian denominations lack a sense of tradition and rootedness, something a confessional approach to the Christian faith takes care of. Like Luther, there is more often a pastoral need to find liberation in the Gospel of grace. Lutheran apologetics are not going to focus on the point-for-point apologetics so popular among other evangelicals. In many cases, the non-Lutherans are simply focused on the wrong issues, they miss what Lutheranism offers.

 

[Mediaeval]

In baptism God speaks to us through water. As in the proclamation of the Gospel, baptism says to us: "You are a beloved, redeemed, forgiven child of God in Christ."

 

[TurtleAnne]

I am actually brand new to the Lutheran approach, but here is what I have found so far on this topic:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (age not specified, just "all nations" which could be taken to mean everybody, regardless of age)

Luke 18: Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (seems to imply that infants and little children can receive the kingdom of God, implied as in explicitly stated)

Acts 2: Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (seems to imply that God can call children to receive the Holy Spirit, to be baptized)

Titus 3: But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (possibly implying that one way or another, what happens spiritually in baptism is something that Christ gives to you, not something you take from Christ, which would then furthermore imply that an infant, or anyone for that matter, doesn't need to willfully be taking anything during baptism)

Psalm 51: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (seems to imply that infants are born into sin, due to inheriting the original sin)

John 3: Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (so if infants are born into sin, and they cannot see the kingdom of God without being reborn of the Spirit, which is thought to happen via a water baptism, then baptizing an infant doesn't seem to be all that crazy)

Mark 9: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. (implies that little ones can believe in Jesus)

Now as far as possible contradiction issues, we can look at

Mark 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (previously in this post, scripture establishes that infants and little children can receive the kingdom of God, can be called by God to receive the Holy Spirit, that everybody in all nations in general are to be baptized, that little ones can believe in Jesus, and so on, in addition to establishing that infants have been born into sin by default - therefore it could be interpreted that Mark 16 is not saying that baptizing infants is pointless because they cannot believe, since scripture establishes that they can, but rather that the people assisting in the infant being baptized simply won't know if the infant believes or not, only God and Jesus will know that, but if the infant were to believe, they are then also baptized)

So therefore,

Titus 3: But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (seems to imply that if some scriptures seem to support infant baptism and some Christians want to do this for their infants, then just chill out and let them, leave it to God to guide them)

 

[faroukfarouk]

I am actually brand new to the Lutheran approach, but here is what I have found so far on this topic:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (age not specified, just "all nations" which could be taken to mean everybody, regardless of age)

Luke 18: Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (seems to imply that infants and little children can receive the kingdom of God, implied as in explicitly stated)

Acts 2: Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” (seems to imply that God can call children to receive the Holy Spirit, to be baptized)

Titus 3: But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (possibly implying that one way or another, what happens spiritually in baptism is something that Christ gives to you, not something you take from Christ, which would then furthermore imply that an infant, or anyone for that matter, doesn't need to willfully be taking anything during baptism)

Psalm 51: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (seems to imply that infants are born into sin, due to inheriting the original sin)

John 3: Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (so if infants are born into sin, and they cannot see the kingdom of God without being reborn of the Spirit, which is thought to happen via a water baptism, then baptizing an infant doesn't seem to be all that crazy)

Mark 9: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. (implies that little ones can believe in Jesus)

Now as far as possible contradiction issues, we can look at

Mark 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (previously in this post, scripture establishes that infants and little children can receive the kingdom of God, can be called by God to receive the Holy Spirit, that everybody in all nations in general are to be baptized, that little ones can believe in Jesus, and so on, in addition to establishing that infants have been born into sin by default - therefore it could be interpreted that Mark 16 is not saying that baptizing infants is pointless because they cannot believe, since scripture establishes that they can, but rather that the people assisting in the infant being baptized simply won't know if the infant believes or not, only God and Jesus will know that, but if the infant were to believe, they are then also baptized)

So therefore,

Titus 3: But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned. (seems to imply that if some scriptures seem to support infant baptism and some Christians want to do this for their infants, then just chill out and let them, leave it to God to guide them)

Here another passage that might be of interest:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

(Acts 2.41-42)

 

[TurtleAnne]

Here another passage that might be of interest:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

(Acts 2.41-42)

I think I'm at least mostly on the same page as FireDragon76, in regards to the meaning of "word" in the given context, but I am still studying and absorbing new (to me) scripture, so it is a work in progress (probably will be all my life, actually).

As far as the "epistle of straw" remark, I did a search for it and found this: Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw" - Alpha and Omega Ministries

It seems to be intended as a primer for debate, though what I wanted to get out of it was an understanding of what Luther really thought. For me personally, as I explore my way down this path, it's okay if Luther stumbled around a little bit. He was just a human. For me personally, "Lutheran" describes a method of approach, just like any of the other named approaches, not a worshiping of Luther, himself.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I think I'm at least mostly on the same page as FireDragon76, in regards to the meaning of "word" in the given context, but I am still studying and absorbing new (to me) scripture, so it is a work in progress (probably will be all my life, actually).

As far as the "epistle of straw" remark, I did a search for it and found this: Six Points On Luther's "Epistle of Straw" - Alpha and Omega Ministries

It seems to be intended as a primer for debate, though what I wanted to get out of it was an understanding of what Luther really thought. For me personally, as I explore my way down this path, it's okay if Luther stumbled around a little bit. He was just a human. For me personally, "Lutheran" describes a method of approach, just like any of the other named approaches, not a worshiping of Luther, himself.

Just to reiterate, I'm not Lutheran, and I would not want to be thought of as somehow trying represent Lutherans. I do think James White, whose A & O Ministries you mention, has written some really good material.

 

[TurtleAnne]

Just to reiterate, I'm not Lutheran, and I would not want to be thought of as somehow trying represent Lutherans. I do think James White, whose A & O Ministries you mention, has written some really good material.

Well I appreciate your help none the less. I don't think any can be worse than I am, myself, trying to jump in and discuss when I haven't even attended my first Lutheran sermon yet. I'm very eager to discuss and learn, though. I've been feeling so excited I could just about burst waiting for Sunday to get here.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

In baptism God speaks to us through water. As in the proclamation of the Gospel, baptism says to us: "You are a beloved, redeemed, forgiven child of God in Christ."

Is debate permitted on this sub-forum?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Well I appreciate your help none the less. I don't think any can be worse than I am, myself, trying to jump in and discuss when I haven't even attended my first Lutheran sermon yet. I'm very eager to discuss and learn, though. I've been feeling so excited I could just about burst waiting for Sunday to get here.

Well, you know the Scriptural maxim!

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5.21)

 

[Mediaeval]

What do Lutherans actually mean by "faith" in the context of infant baptism? They claim faith is impart to the unbelieving infant in an involuntary action, but what is that "faith"? What do you mean by "faith"?

Faith is the "default" position for infants and children presented for baptism (Luke 1:44, e.g., and, as TurtleAnne already mentioned, Luke 18:16). In other words, believers should not classify their children as unbelievers, unless they grow up and actively rebel against the faith, in which case they would be not merely unbelievers, but also apostates.

 

[Mediaeval]

Is debate permitted on this sub-forum?

I'm hazy on the rules but I think this forum is more of a support community than a forum for debate. At the very least you would have to start a new thread with a new OP. Technically, if I'm not mistaken, only Lutherans are allowed to respond to the OP. Moderators?

 

[Tigger45]

Nonmembers posting in other Christian Communities or Faith Group sub forums are not allowed to debate or teach within said sub forums. Only fellowship posts are allowed. Especially when another nonmember is looking for clarity of that faith groups teachings to avoid causing confusion. @jimmyjimmy would be better served by starting a new thread in the Denomination-specific sub forum.

 

[bcbsr]

Faith is the "default" position for infants and children presented for baptism (Luke 1:44, e.g., and, as TurtleAnne already mentioned, Luke 18:16). In other words, believers should not classify their children as unbelievers, unless they grow up and actively rebel against the faith, in which case they would be not merely unbelievers, but also apostates.

What is the Lutheran view of the children of unbelievers? If an infant of unbelievers is baptized, say by some relative, would the infant be classified as a "believer" according to the Lutheran faith?

 

[bcbsr]

In response to the rejection of "decision" theology:

People are not responsible for their salvation but they are responsible for their rejection of the Gospel. It's really not so complicated. Lutherans emphasize a passive reception of salvation, and salvation is not a choice. Jesus is already the Savior of the entire world- salvation was finished 2,000 years ago at Calvary. In the sacraments, that benefits of salvation are made present and applied to my own life.

But under Lutheran soteriology isn't the infant's salvation contingent upon the "decision" of the parents to have him baptized. Or is it more like the Presbyterian faith in which the infants of believers are assumed to be saved, apart from water baptism, but are nonetheless water baptized as a sign that they are saved rather than baptism being the cause of their salvation?

 

[Mediaeval]

But under Lutheran soteriology isn't the infant's salvation contingent upon the "decision" of the parents to have him baptized. Or is it more like the Presbyterian faith in which the infants of believers are assumed to be saved, apart from water baptism, but are nonetheless water baptized as a sign that they are saved rather than baptism being the cause of their salvation?

Those are great questions. I can only give a Lutheran answer, as I am not sure it is possible to give a definitive Lutheran answer whenever the subject is not specifically addressed in the Book of Concord.

Generally speaking, Lutheran doctrine is rather open-ended and less systematic, as is the case with its cousin Anglicanism. This approach contrasts with Presbyterian doctrine, where the system is all, and all must be subordinated to it. Speaking as a former Calvinist and Baptist, one of the things I like best about the Lutheran approach is its acceptance of Biblical statements as they stand while the concern to systematize them is secondary.

As far as the children of unbelievers are concerned, we would make no judgments, as per St Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:13. But if such a child were baptized into the Triune name, the baptism would be regarded as valid, and the child would be considered a member of Christ’s body, the Church. Beyond that, not many additional judgements could be made in such an irregular situation.

There is a sense in which one could say that the infant’s salvation is contingent upon the parent’s decision to have him baptized, but it would be the same sense in which one could say that the infant’s salvation is contingent upon the parents’ decision to introduce the child to the Gospel. In either case, it is the faithful God Himself working through such means. Meanwhile, He has promised that “to such children belongs the kingdom,” so there is no panic over baptism, only comfort and assurance, both to Christian parents concerning their children and to the children themselves as they grow up and reflect upon the objective meaning of their baptism.

 

[FireDragon76]

But under Lutheran soteriology isn't the infant's salvation contingent upon the "decision" of the parents to have him baptized. Or is it more like the Presbyterian faith in which the infants of believers are assumed to be saved, apart from water baptism, but are nonetheless water baptized as a sign that they are saved rather than baptism being the cause of their salvation?

Baptism is not merely a sign, as in the Baptist or Presbyterian churches. Cause is closer. However, it would be more precise to say it is the means by which God gives us Christ's own merits, by baptizing us into his own death and resurrection. That is how we are justified, in baptism we are united to Christ. My pastor says he'ld love to do what a lot of Roman Catholics are doing, having an immersion baptistery, just so the symbolism of immersion is there. But the amount of water isn't what makes this sacrament effectual, it is God's promise.

Justification in Lutheranism is a lot about belonging and being accepted, including having the rites of the Church done on our behalf, with the pastor and congregation acting on behalf of God, doing God's work. Justification is far less individualistic than the Baptist or some Presbyterian approaches, where our relationship to God is completely unmediated. That's why I would say in this sense, Lutheranism is not Protestant.

 

[Mediaeval]

That's why I would say in this sense, Lutheranism is not Protestant.

Have you read Phillip Cary's paper? Why Luther is not Quite Protestant: The Logic of Faith in a Sacramental Promise
Or his follow-up address, Sola Fide: Luther and Calvin? http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/carysolafide.pdf