my view on baptismal regeneration is neither Lutheran nor Presbyterian... thoughts

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Assuming Lutheran baptismal regeneration is true and perseverance of the saints is true, then the two can be simply harmonized that the elect infants who are baptized receive the Holy Spirit and are regenerated at that time, while the non elect do not receive the HS. However, the point is that it is (1) not merely a sign/seal and (2) the elect receive the Holy Spirit at that time. The warning passages of Hebrews and elsewhere are then not directed at these elect people raised in the church but only for adult converts or people not raised as infants in the church who are elect, they then receive the Holy Spirit via preaching the Word. That's why they get baptized at the time they believe as adults too, they receive the HS before baptism. None of the New Testament passages in my view say that an elect believer can lose salvation as in Lutheranism but be re-grafted in , and re-justified. The reprobate are non elect who attend church for whatever reason. Another angle is that most are baptismal regeneration but a few straggler elect don't receive the HS at their infant baptism but do later via preaching, so the warning passages could be for those but that's less likely. I do not see a problem with this view as it makes sense logically. So just as Lutherans say baptism isn't necessary to be saved, I'm making the same point as them, that one can be saved from the Word only. In conclusion, perseverance of the saints doesn't contradict baptismal regeneration. I don't see why it's a must for the writers of the Lutheran Confessions (they put it in there that one can lose their salvation)

Luther and TULIP

I've been reading through "On Christian Liberty" by Luther and I read a passage that almost gave me whiplash, (if reading can do that to you!) On pg. 29 of my copy Luther says: "Should he [the christian] grow so foolish, how ever, as to presume to become righteous, free, saved, and a Christian...

www.puritanboard.com

 

[All Becomes New]

a few straggler elect don't receive the HS

This is not Biblical.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

This is not Biblical.

did u read what I wrote, I said at that time, but later through preaching. I didn't say never. Lutherans say this all the time too, "baptism doesn't always regenerate, God uses multiple means" meaning preaching. Ask a Lutheran if an adult convert receives the Holy Spirit before they're baptism, the answer is yes.
"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 8:26-40) 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."

Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Frequently asked questions about LCMS doctrine.

www.lcms.org

 

[All Becomes New]

did u read what I wrote, I said at that time, but later through preaching. I didn't say never. Lutherans say this all the time too, "baptism doesn't always regenerate, God uses multiple means"

The problem is that if even one person who is baptized as an infant becomes apostate this theology doesn't work IIRC.

I think both views are problematic. Bother baptisms always lead to regeneration (don't care if they are an infant or not) and perseverance of the saints.

Not to mention that there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible.

Of course, if you are saying that baptizing infants do not always lead to having faith, then I would agree with that. But then the question is why we should baptize infants at all? Wouldn't the argument simply be based on church tradition and not what the Bible says? That's very problematic IMO.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

The problem is that if even one person who is baptized as an infant becomes apostate this theology doesn't work IIRC.

I think both views are problematic. Bother baptisms always lead to regeneration (don't care if they are an infant or not) and perseverance of the saints.

Not to mention that there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible.

Of course, if you are saying that baptizing infants do not always lead to having faith, then I would agree with that. But then the question is why we should baptize infants at all? Wouldn't the argument simply be based on church tradition and not what the Bible says? That's very problematic IMO.

well I'm saying that we assume the NT passages are teaching that the Holy Spirit mostly regenerates in infant baptism but not always (for the elect). This Lutherans wouldn't differentiate between elect or not in baptism, that's where I'm making this more Presbyterian (my view). Lutherans only say "faith" but never "elect" in their answers, as if one can have faith but not be elect because for them u can go in/out of election which I disagree with.

 

[All Becomes New]

well I'm saying that we assume the NT passages are teaching that the Holy Spirit mostly regenerates in infant baptism but not always (for the elect). This Lutherans wouldn't differentiate between elect or not in baptism, that's where I'm making this more Presbyterian (my view). Lutherans only say "faith" but never "elect" in their answers, as if one can have faith but not be elect because for them u can go in/out of election which I disagree with.

Okay, I find the Presbyterian view on Baptism very strange in that it is based on nothing but church history.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Okay, I find the Presbyterian view on Baptism very strange in that it is based on nothing but church history.

yea for them its about the covenant blessings or community; they interpret the warning passages as directed at this category of people raised in the church who don't believe, which to me doesn't make much sense, it makes more sense to be adult converts.

 

[All Becomes New]

yea for them its about the covenant blessings or community; they interpret the warning passages as directed at this category of people raised in the church who don't believe, which to me doesn't make much sense, it makes more sense to be adult converts.

You see my problem, right? Like Presbys think we should baptize infants that doesn't lead to faith. It's a very strange view not supported by scripture. The examples we have in scripture of baptism are that it either leads to salvation or it is something we do in obedience to Christ. There are zero examples of a person being baptized as a matter of principle and then it's just whatever if they are saved or not.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

You see my problem, right? Like Presbys think we should baptize infants that doesn't lead to faith. It's a very strange view not supported by scripture. The examples we have in scripture of baptism are that it either leads to salvation or it is something we do in obedience to Christ. There are zero examples of a person being baptized as a matter of principle and then it's just whatever if they are saved or not.

yea they see it as a marker of the covenant community to correspond to the OT church where they argue that the "church" also included members who recieve some benefits but aren't elect. I agree that their view is less likely compared to the Lutheran view

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

yea they see it as a marker of the covenant community to correspond to the OT church where they argue that the "church" also included members who recieve some benefits but aren't elect. I agree that their view is less likely compared to the Lutheran view

likewise it's absurd Lutherans hold to the idea you can lose your salvation. Resistible grace is only referring to not accessing the means of grace: not going to church and plugging your ears when someone is preaching the gospel. It has nothing to do with the warning passages.

 

[All Becomes New]

likewise it's absurd Lutherans hold to the idea you can lose your salvation.

It really isn't. There are many warnings about falling away in the Bible. There would not be that much of the Bible dedicated to the topic if it was not an actual reality. I could see a couple of passages on it if it was just a warning not to apostatize, but it makes no sense why it is such a central part of the Bible. Hebrews 6:4-6 is about the clearest example of it in the Bible.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Very difficult to compare Lutheranism to Presbyterianism because there is not a drop of Calvinism in Lutheranism. So, it is unlikely you will hear a Lutheran pastor preach about the Sovereignty of God, never double predestination, and will hear "election" preached on two are three times a year, rather than two or three hundred (or thousand) times a year by a Calvinist.

As Rod Rosenblat once stated on the talk show, White Horse Inn, Lutherans are 1.5 on the TULIP scale. One point for Total Depravity, and a half a point for single predestination.

 

[All Becomes New]

As Rod Rosenblat once stated on White Horse Inn, Lutherans are 1.5 on the TULIP scale. One point for Total Depravity, and a half a point for single predestination.

No points for Irresistible Grace? I would have thought if they agreed with any of the points it would be that one.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

likewise it's absurd Lutherans hold to the idea you can lose your salvation.

Theological categories within the TULIP such as irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints and unconditional election are not found in Lutheranism as they also are not found in RCC or Orthodoxy.

Post Calvinistic movements more or less (or may or may not) have these three catagories.

One of the reasons I am a Lutheran is I don't have to deal with unique Calvinistic doctrines in my thinking. Luther set out to Reform the western church and did so. Calvinism develops a generation after Luther.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Theological categories within the TULIP such as irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints and unconditional election are not found in Lutheranism as they also are not found in RCC or Orthodoxy.

Post Calvinistic movements more or less (or may or may not) have these three catagories.

One of the reasons I am a Lutheran is I don't have to deal with unique Calvinistic doctrines in my thinking. Luther set out to Reform the western church and did so. Calvinism develops a generation after Luther.

The Walther controversy was the reaffirmation of "unconditional election". it went from intuitu fide (in view of faith) back to Calvinistic election, so at least 2/5 and my version is 3/5; with assurance; basically a 3 point Calvinist. this is a grey area though because the only denominations are Lutheran/ Reformed; I guess an Anglican denomination without apostolic succession is what I am. I see double predestination as more fitting with limited atonement and irresistible grace which aren't tenets of mine.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The Walther controversy was the reaffirmation of "unconditional election". it went from intuitu fide (in view of faith) back to Calvinistic election, so at least 2/5

I don't think so. Intuitu fidei I believe is an American issue of the 1880's and short lived.

The Brief Statement from 1932 of the LCMS:

#37 But as earnestly as we maintain that there is an election of grace, or a predestination to salvation, so decidedly do we teach, on the other hand, that there is no election of wrath, or predestination to damnation.

Back to 1.5/5