Problem with Lutheran baptism teaching!

[jinc1019]

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!

 

[Moses Medina]

Great questions! Something to keep in mind is that there are many verses that warn against fall in away, the most important one being the parable of the showers seeds. He compares a particular one with those who do believe and then fall away. Im paraphrasing of course and I dont have my bible with me.

I am at work all day until late but if no one has answered more in-depth I will try to remember to log on and go it through with you.

Keep asking questions though. Questions are good.

 

[Moses Medina]

I forgot the most important part, our views on baptism reside in the clear promises God gives in Scripture to Baptism.

 

[jinc1019]

I forgot the most important part, our views on baptism reside in the clear promises God gives in Scripture to Baptism.

Thanks for responding! If you get a chance, it would be great to hear your thoughts. God bless!

 

[LilLamb219]

Scripture states that God will be loyal to us, but scriptures also state than man CAN fall away and he does so to his own damnation (not God's fault). This means that the promises in baptism are still effective in that sins are forgiven but if man rejects the forgiveness given to him, he rejects the Christ (God).

Are you of the mindset that once man is saved he is always saved? Lutherans don't hold to that because we don't see it as biblical. We know from scripture that there are warnings of falling away from salvation.

 

[jinc1019]

Scripture states that God will be loyal to us, but scriptures also state than man CAN fall away and he does so to his own damnation (not God's fault). This means that the promises in baptism are still effective in that sins are forgiven but if man rejects the forgiveness given to him, he rejects the Christ (God).

Are you of the mindset that once man is saved he is always saved? Lutherans don't hold to that because we don't see it as biblical. We know from scripture that there are warnings of falling away from salvation.

Thanks for posting in (as always)! My view on this isn't so much focused on "once saved, always saved" as it is on the power of God. If God saves those who have faith and are baptized, which Lutherans believe is true through the sacrament of baptism (although it's possible to be saved without baptism), then any failure for someone to stay with God seems to me to be a failure of God...not man. You are right to cite texts that warn believers of falling away, but if God is the ONLY SOURCE of salvation and the only cause of it, then how can it be man's fault if a falling away occurs? Man is always incapable of saving himself anyway...that was something Luther held throughout his life. So if man cannot be saved on his own, and God does all the saving, then when man falls away from salvation, it means it's because God essentially let it happen. Otherwise, you would be saying that salvation is something man can do apart from God.

Let me be clear...I am NOT trying to debate the issue...I just want to know how Lutherans get around this/explain it. I can't figure it out. It seems to me (based on the scriptures), that if God saves those who have faith and are baptized, as is the case with infants, then any falling away that occurs is because God chose to let them fall away, not because the falling away is man's own doing. If it were man's own doing, then I can't understand how a Lutheran can hold this belief AND argue that salvation and faith are purely God's own work. It just doesn't fit, but I am sure Lutherans have a good explanation for it! I just don't know what it is.

 

[Lizabth]

"I am sure Lutherans have a good explanation for it!"

They do: paradox.

I also had a great deal of trouble with absolute baptismal regeneration, but reading the Small C, I found Luther always linking faith WITH baptism. No faith, no regeneration, as I read it. Hence folks can fall away from their baptism, as they never were elect(given faith by God) to begin with. Baptism is a means of grace, but the unregenerate won't reap its benefits.

I wouldn't worry overly about it. God will work his will, through his means, to benefit his church. And it is all in his hands.

 

[jinc1019]

"I am sure Lutherans have a good explanation for it!"

They do: paradox.

I also had a great deal of trouble with absolute baptismal regeneration, but reading the Small C, I found Luther always linking faith WITH baptism. No faith, no regeneration, as I read it. Hence folks can fall away from their baptism, as they never were elect(given faith by God) to begin with. Baptism is a means of grace, but the unregenerate won't reap its benefits.

I wouldn't worry overly about it. God will work his will, through his means, to benefit his church. And it is all in his hands.

Saying that something is a paradox is a fair and sometimes necessary answer...but isn't your answer then essentially very similar to the Reformed/Calvinist answer? I thought the Lutheran response was different? If your assertion that the reason some baptisms regenerate and others do not is based on election, I am not sure how that separates Lutherans from Calvinists? I think I am misunderstanding your reply. Sorry!

 

[LilLamb219]

Baptism gives faith. People can reject the faith given to them in baptism but that doesn't mean that God didn't do it right the first time (baptism). People can also hear God's Word and believe and then reject it later.

See, Lutherans believe that man can fall away from faith. That's the gist of it. Whether it's because God's Word first converted a man to faith by hearing the Gospel, or because someone received faith through the waters (and Word) in baptism.

God is responsible 100% for our salvation. There is nothing we contribute to it.

But man is 100% responsible for his own damnation. That's because man can reject the Gospel, the good news, the forgiveness of sins, the redemption won for him. That's not God's fault. Not even a percentage.

 

[jinc1019]

Baptism gives faith. People can reject the faith given to them in baptism but that doesn't mean that God didn't do it right the first time (baptism). People can also hear God's Word and believe and then reject it later.

See, Lutherans believe that man can fall away from faith. That's the gist of it. Whether it's because God's Word first converted a man to faith by hearing the Gospel, or because someone received faith through the waters (and Word) in baptism.

God is responsible 100% for our salvation. There is nothing we contribute to it.

But man is 100% responsible for his own damnation. That's because man can reject the Gospel, the good news, the forgiveness of sins, the redemption won for him. That's not God's fault. Not even a percentage.

Thanks for clarifying-that makes a lot more sense...

If what you are saying is true then, doesn't it mean that salvation is conditional on man essentially choosing not to reject God's grace? If not, then God's grace is irresistible, and it seems to me that we end up right back where we started. God gives irresistible grace in baptism but if man rejects it, and it's truly irresistible, then the obvious point is that God chose not to give enough, for the lack of a better word, grace or regeneration, etc. to save the person who has fallen away.

It just seems like if God is truly the source of salvation and salvation is 100% His work, then it becomes impossible to avoid the problem of explaining why anyone would leave the faith EXCEPT by saying that God must choose not to regenerate some enough to save that person.

I suppose the only other possibility is that God never elects that person in the first place and never gives them faith, so when that person is baptized, the absence of faith makes it essentially unprofitable so regeneration never occurs. This, however, doesn't appear to be what you are saying.

It seems like you are saying that God can regenerate a person and then that person can choose to reject God (which seems like synergism to me).

Eh...still lost.

 

[LilLamb219]

We are born apart from God.

God, by grace through faith, brings us to Him.

But we can leave Him again of our own accord.

This doesn't mean that God failed to do His job or that He meant for it to be. The blame is always on man for failure. Not God.

Synergism is where man would contribute to his salvation and Lutherans do not believe that.

 

[jinc1019]

We are born apart from God.

God, by grace through faith, brings us to Him.

But we can leave Him again of our own accord.

This doesn't mean that God failed to do His job or that He meant for it to be. The blame is always on man for failure. Not God.

Synergism is where man would contribute to his salvation and Lutherans do not believe that.

But if all this is true, predestination is essentially impossible...because God can't predestine a person to salvation, actually save that person in baptism, which Luther clearly taught, while also making it possible for the person to completely reject God and lose his salvation. If that occurs, then the person can't be predestined to salvation, obviously. In other words, a person who is predestined to salvation MUST keep his or her faith. This means that person could theoretically temporarily fall away who is predestined to faith, but that the person must eventually die with faith in Christ. But this means that man can't just simply decide to reject God forever...if he did, then he was never predestined.

Predestination, which Luther taught, and the ability to fall away (which is said to be an act wholly of man as you pointed out), which Luther clearly taught, cannot coexist logically. Either predestination doesn't exist, predestination does exist but falling away is impossible for the elect, or predestination does exist and falling away does occur but only because God allows it to occur. Logically, those are the only possible choices based on what Luther seems to be teaching....

But this is why I am hear. I am not sure I fully grasp what Luther is teaching. It just seems impossible to be to have predestination without perseverance for the elect.

 

[LilLamb219]

Jesus=100% man. Jesus=100% God.

Logical?

Why are you relying on man's logic?

 

[jinc1019]

Jesus=100% man. Jesus=100% God.

Logical?

Why are you relying on man's logic?

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!

 

[LilLamb219]

Hmmm...so it seems that you're just here to debate?

 

[jinc1019]

Hmmm...so it seems that you're just here to debate?

Not at all...I am trying to understand it. I think it's pretty obvious why it's hard to understand based on everything I said.

 

[LilLamb219]

Not at all...I am trying to understand it. I think it's pretty obvious why it's hard to understand based on everything I said.

I think it's difficult only because of your prior teaching from other denominations.

 

[jinc1019]

I think it's difficult only because of your prior teaching from other denominations.

I don't have any previous teachings from any previous denominations...I have never been in any that would make a difference. I grew up Roman Catholic, which is much closer to Luther than many other denominations on this issue, and I knew absolutely nothing from my time there. Everything I know comes from reading the sources directly as well as numerous scholars...and the Bible of course. I could be wrong...but I think it's difficult for a lot of people to understand. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but I do think it's difficult to explain logically.

 

[godenver1]

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!

Hi Jinc, I'm not sure too many Christians believe baptism saves. Baptism didn't die on the cross, and rise again but Christ Jesus. If I'm correct, Lutherans believe/teach that God saves within the Christian baptism. I think you're right in that if baptism saved, then all baptised would be saved. I believe it's a case of 'faith in Christ's grace within baptism saves, or is granted upon baptism'. Don't take my word for it though, I'm not a learned Lutheran Christian.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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!

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):

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”

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