Problem with Lutheran baptism teaching!

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

MarkRohfrietsch said:
While this may be no consolation. we are to have faith in God's promises, one of these promise of Grace in baptism. I believe that you do trust in God's Word; God's Word also tells us a bit about logic and wisdom. First Corinthians, Chapter 1 speaks of both baptism and wisdom; let's look at verses 18-31 (blue highlights are mine):

[/b]It is about faith, not wisdom or logic. If we preceive that something is logical, in reading above, there is a good chance that we may have it wrong.

Logically, Calvin argued against the real presence in the Eucharist saying that since Christ is bodily in heaven, his body and blood can not logically be present on the Altar in the Mass, so he therefore dismisses the plain speak of the Bible where Jesus Christ Himself says that it is; and the Apostles back it up in Scripture as well.

Seems to me that most times when logic is applied to faith, it's like trying to mix oil and water... one is not compatible with the other.

Have faith, and trust in the Holy Spirit to enliven that faith within us all.

Mark

That's a great response Mark. I am very appreciative of your time. I agree that the Gospel is not completely logical, nor does it have to be. I will reexamine the issue in light of the scripture you presented, but I want to be clear (because I think I wasn't): I was not trying to say that every teaching has to be completely logical in the same sort of mathematical way that 2+2=4. The Trinity disproves that. What I am saying though is that teachings have to at least be logically consistent with what the Bible teaches. I think we can both agree about that.

The issue then is...Does Luther's teachings on predestination, regeneration in baptism, and salvation by faith alone through Christ alone fit in scripture logically? You say that they do and I will reexamine it again based on what you and others have said here....My current feeling, however, is that it's very hard to reconcile all of that. I am going to look at it again though!

LilLamb219 · May 8, 2014

jinc1019 said:
What I am saying though is that teachings have to at least be logically consistent with what the Bible teaches.

Lutherans believe what scripture teaches. That is why we are Lutheran. To come here and say that maybe we're not being consistent with what scriptures teach is insulting and against site rules.

jonathan1971 · May 8, 2014

jinc,

Are you attending a Lutheran church? If so did you ask the pastor about your concerns?

Tangible · May 8, 2014

It seems as though your question is not so much about baptism as about election.

Scripture clearly teaches that God will preserve us in Christ, that he will seek out the wandering sheep, that nothing can snatch us out of his hand.

This is a word of Gospel for those who fear that something they may have done has separated them from the love of Christ.

Scripture also clearly teaches that it is possible for a person who once was in Christ by faith to come to the point that faith in Christ is rejected, that they deny Christ before men and are thus denied by Jesus before his Father.

This is a word of Law for those who may be straying from the faith, who may be living in unrepentant sin, and those who may be flirting with ideas from false religions.

The bottom line is this, that scripture clearly teaches that saving grace is irresistible, while it simultaneously teaches that saving grace can be resisted.

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

LilLamb219 said:
Lutherans believe what scripture teaches. That is why we are Lutheran. To come here and say that maybe we're not being consistent with what scriptures teach is insulting and against site rules.

With all due respect, if you are insulted by the reality that some people don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible, then you must be insulted by all non-Lutherans? I obviously am not trying to insult anyone...I am just trying to understand. Part of that process is asking questions, making observations, giving my view so that everyone here understands where I am coming from. That's how reasonable people discuss and relate to each other and I don't think I have been insulting at all. In fact, no one else has accused me of it....If I have insulted you, I apologize. Again, all I am trying to do is understand a teaching that you yourself admit is a "paradox," which is a fancy way of saying that it doesn't make any logical sense, which is exactly the comment you are accusing me of insulting you with.

The real issue at this point is NOT "does this teaching make sense?" It's really: "Do the plain words of the Bible say what Lutherans claim they do and should we listen only to the plain words?" Those are reasonable questions for you and others here to pose and it's something I am going to reexamine. But again, for you to say I am insulting you for saying that this is all very confusing is really unfair when you already admitted these teachings were a paradox.

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

jonathan1971 said:
jinc,

Are you attending a Lutheran church? If so did you ask the pastor about your concerns?

I am not attending a Lutheran church...I have been moving around a lot lately so it has been tough. I have attended several and have reached out to a local pastor though. Thank you for the suggestion!

Tangible · May 8, 2014

It may be something like this: A king's son and heir decides to run away and lives the rest of his life as a pauper in a foreign land. At any time he could return and claim the crown, and yet he dies drunk in a ditch.

Or it may be like a king's son runs away and goes to live with the king's enemy, to whom he swears allegiance and is adopted as a son and heir of his rightful father's enemy.

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

Thank you for responding. I will address your points below!

It seems as though your question is not so much about baptism as about election.

This is partially true. In Lutheran theology, baptism is part of the salvation process, so election and baptism are linked in that way. For me, I don't have a problem accepting the claim that the Bible could teach BOTH election for the elect and also teach that those who are not elected are not predestined to damnation. I am still weighing the biblical evidence on that, but I can accept that paradox should I find the Bible teaches it.

The real issue for me is reconciling the notion that God can predestine someone, call someone, regenerate them in baptism, AND still that it's possible for that person to fall away. That seems completely contradictory, but as you mentioned, you believe it because you believe the Bible teaches it and not because "it makes sense."

Scripture clearly teaches that God will preserve us in Christ, that he will seek out the wandering sheep, that nothing can snatch us out of his hand.

I agree.

This is a word of Gospel for those who fear that something they may have done has separated them from the love of Christ.

I agree.

Scripture also clearly teaches that it is possible for a person who once was in Christ by faith to come to the point that faith in Christ is rejected, that they deny Christ before men and are thus denied by Jesus before his Father.

I agree BECAUSE I believe it's possible for someone to have faith and not be in the elect (because that person is not elected to persevere in that faith).

This is a word of Law for those who may be straying from the faith, who may be living in unrepentant sin, and those who may be flirting with ideas from false religions.

I agree.

The bottom line is this, that scripture clearly teaches that saving grace is irresistible, while it simultaneously teaches that saving grace can be resisted.

This is where I need to go back and reevaluate the teachings of the Bible. I agree with nearly everything you have said up to this point. At this point though, you are essentially saying that the Bible teaches that God is both completely sovereign when it comes to the elect and NOT completely sovereign. I will reevaluate the evidence more clearly in light of everything you have said! I appreciate your input.

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

Tangible said:
It may be something like this: A king's son and heir decides to run away and lives the rest of his life as a pauper in a foreign land. At any time he could return and claim the crown, and yet he dies drunk in a ditch.

Or it may be like a king's son runs away and goes to live with the king's enemy, to whom he swears allegiance and is adopted as a son and heir of his rightful father's enemy.

You are right and I agree with these analogies. The difference though is that in this case...the King actually has the power to predestine the son to return, to see all that ever happens in the future and to spiritually regenerate that person. This is why I need to reevaluate the Bible on this.

Tangible · May 8, 2014

I encourage you to continue to search the scriptures. I would advise one caveat, though. I have seen people use a hermeneutic that basically says that if the bible seems to be saying opposite truths about a subject, then either one set of verses or the other must not be correctly understood.

The scriptures never contradict themselves, but there are instances where two words are given on a subject that when taken together produce a paradox.

I would suggest not necessarily pitting one scripture against another, but striving to understand that God's Word is given to us in both Law and Gospel, that God may be speaking to different audiences with these different words, and that the only true interpretation of a passage is the one that includes the context in which it is found.

I don't know if anyone has pointed the following out to you, but it may be of some assistance in sussing this out: cruxtheologorum.html

cerette · May 8, 2014

jinc1019 said:
That's totally fair...I just don't see how the Lutheran position makes any sense. Why would you believe it if you don't think it's logical? I am not saying every aspect of faith makes sense...I know it doesn't. But when Luther argues that babies are saved when they have faith and argues that predestination exists and argues that saved people can fall away but it has nothing to do with God, then there is no logic in that position. I don't see how he could come to that conclusion. I am sure you will say it's biblical, perhaps I need a better Bible-based argument...I just don't see how it can be reconciled logically. I am not evaluating God's teachings, I am evaluating Luther's understanding of those teachings and trying to understand why he came to the conclusions he did!

A logical impossibility would be to say both the "positive" and "negative" about the very same point.
Example: Anna eats the apples ("positive") AND at the same time Anna does not eat the apples ("negative").
What is it with Biblical baptism that you think is a logical contradiction?

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

cerette said:
A logical impossibility would be to say both the "positive" and "negative" about the very same point.
Example: Anna eats the apples ("positive") AND at the same time Anna does not eat the apples ("negative").
What is it with Biblical baptism that you think is a logical contradiction?

I am not allowed to debate or teach contrary to the confessions of Lutheranism in this thread, but in order to explain myself...

It's logically impossible that God can predestine someone, call them, regenerate them in baptism, and that it's possible (and does happen) for that same person to fall away from the faith until death. Is someone is predestined to salvation, they can't also be capable of falling away without radically changing who God is (which Lutherans do not do).

So if you are SAVED in baptism and predestined even before that, how can you fall away? That's one of the major problems. Another, and the one I was primarily concerned with when I started this thread, is simply trying to understand how a person could be saved in baptism and then fall away...but I think this point has been cleared up in this thread using scripture and logic.

jinc1019 · May 8, 2014

Tangible said:
I encourage you to continue to search the scriptures. I would advise one caveat, though. I have seen people use a hermeneutic that basically says that if the bible seems to be saying opposite truths about a subject, then either one set of verses or the other must not be correctly understood.

The scriptures never contradict themselves, but there are instances where two words are given on a subject that when taken together produce a paradox.

I would suggest not necessarily pitting one scripture against another, but striving to understand that God's Word is given to us in both Law and Gospel, that God may be speaking to different audiences with these different words, and that the only true interpretation of a passage is the one that includes the context in which it is found.

I don't know if anyone has pointed the following out to you, but it may be of some assistance in sussing this out: cruxtheologorum.html

I will read your link over carefully!

Thanks again. -Justin

GratiaCorpusChristi · May 8, 2014

jinc1019 said:
Hi Everyone. I have a great deal of respect for Lutheranism and have been considering joining the church for quite some time now. One of the primary roadblocks for me, however, is related to Lutheran teaching on Christian baptism.

I can certainly understand the arguments in favor of baptismal regeneration based on scripture, but there is an apparent paradox that seems to refute it entirely. If baptism regenerates and saves, how do Lutherans explain the many people who are baptized and fall away? If the Lutheran teaching is that falling away is possible, how do they explain all of the passages that clearly promise to keep the elect from falling away?

I have read Luther's large catechism and several apologetics articles online regarding this issue but I can't find a solid explanation. I realize I am a fallible human and capable of being too dimwitted and egotistical to understand this teaching, but on the surface, it seems like Lutherans have this wrong. Thanks in advance for the wisdom!

We don't believe in once-baptized-always-faithful, any more than we believe in once-saved-always-saved. We believe that baptism marks you and identifies you as a person who has been claimed by God, but that baptism is made effective through a constant return to its waters in the dutiful hearing of the gospel, going to confession and receiving absolution, and partaking regularly of holy communion. God has multiple means of grace that encompass all areas and stages of our lives because humans are just that stubborn and the old sinful man inside us is just that stubborn.

MarkRohfrietsch · May 9, 2014

jinc1019 said:
<snip>
The real issue for me is reconciling the notion that God can predestine someone, call someone, regenerate them in baptism, AND still that it's possible for that person to fall away. That seems completely contradictory, but as you mentioned, you believe it because you believe the Bible teaches it and not because "it makes sense."
<snip>
This is where I need to go back and reevaluate the teachings of the Bible. I agree with nearly everything you have said up to this point. At this point though, you are essentially saying that the Bible teaches that God is both completely sovereign when it comes to the elect and NOT completely sovereign. I will reevaluate the evidence more clearly in light of everything you have said! I appreciate your input.

Try thinking about it this way; God created us all, He is our Heavenly Father. We are His children if we live under His roof or not. Just like with our terrestrial parents. In the same way we can become estranged from our earthly parents, we can become estranged from God. Note the prodigal Son. (the analogy of the King and Prince says the same thing) Likewise, Christ died for all, not just a select few; ALL.

So we are all God's "elect"; it is that though we are "elected" that does not me we are eternally saved; it means simply God has chosen to save us; we on the other hand, can only chose to reject that to which we have been elected to.

Tangible · May 9, 2014

Election is discussed at length in the Book of Concord, especially in the Formula of Concord: The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

GratiaCorpusChristi · May 9, 2014

Tangible said:
Election is discussed at length in the Book of Concord, especially in the Formula of Concord: The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - Book of Concord

Geez, at least send the poor guy to the Epitome first: The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article XI, Election

Resha Caner · May 9, 2014

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
... baptism is made effective through a constant return to its waters ...

Whether it was my maturity, a lack of adequate communication, or both, I didn't get this until just a few years ago ... after being a Lutheran for 30 years.

Baptism always bothered me until I read the Large Catechism. I'm sure pastors teach from the Large Catechism, but laymen don't seem to be encouraged to read it, and I never made the connection with baptism.

So, my epiphany was this: Baptism is not a once and done sacrament. It is a lifeling, ongoing sacrament just like the Eucharist. Once I got that, my whole view of baptism changed.

Tangible · May 9, 2014

GratiaCorpusChristi said:
Geez, at least send the poor guy to the Epitome first: The Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article XI, Election

Heh. Probably so.

Kalevalatar · May 9, 2014

Resha Caner said:
So, my epiphany was this: Baptism is not a once and done sacrament. It is a lifeling, ongoing sacrament just like the Eucharist. Once I got that, my whole view of baptism changed.

Indeed and indeed!

Matthew 28:18-20: Then Jesus came to them and said, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Problem with Lutheran baptism teaching!

Christian

The Lamb is gone

Guy Extraordinaire

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Christian

Christian

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Christian

Christian

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Regular Member

Christian

Christian

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Unapologetic Apologist

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest

Expert Fool

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

Supisuomalainen sisupussi

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency