I find this sort of thing a bit puzzling:
It’s a bit puzzling because Lutherans are just as smart as
other Christians, so I don’t know why some Lutherans find really dumb arguments
like this convincing.
I have, over the years, talked to many Calvinists, in person and over the Internet. I always ask them, “Do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are among God’s elect and are saved?” There are generally two reactions to that question: (1) A long and rather painful pause after which they say, “I hope I am. I do believe in Christ.”
So what? Why assume every Christian should be able to say he
knows “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that he’s saved?
Also, why frame the question in terms of knowing you’re
elect rather than knowing you’re saved? If a Calvinist is saved, he knows that
he’s saved the same way other saved Christians know that they are saved. (I’m
distinguishing “saved” believers from nominal believers.)
If our confidence that we are saved is based on our feeling that we have faith, we will flounder. The answer we must always give to the question of “Do you know you are saved?” is not, “Yes, because I have faith” but rather, “Yes, because Christ Jesus died for me” and of course, in my opinion, the very best answer of all is simply to point people to Luther’s explanation of the Creed and say, “Here, this puts it very well.”
Two glaringly obvious problems:
i) To answer that “Christ died for me” is, itself, a faith-statement.
That’s an expression of your faith in what you think Jesus did for you.
ii) Since Lutherans believe that Christ died for the damned,
how can our confidence that we are saved be based on universal atonement?
Never look to your subjective feeling that there is faith in your heart. Always, always, always, look to Christ and what He has done for you and the whole world. Do not confuse faith in faith, with trust in Christ. There is a key difference.
Once again, he’s ignoring the obvious. You can only “look to
Jesus” through the eye of faith. Trusting in Jesus is an act of faith. So
that’s hardly an alternative to faith-based assurance.
If you believe you are a child of God because you feel you have faith, this is no better than the Mormon who tells you about the “burning in his bosum” or the Muslim who tells you he feels the Koran is true, etc.
Of course, that’s blatantly equivocal.
Salvation rests on objective realities that have absolutely nothing to do with feelings or emotions. Faith is merely and only the receiving hand God gives us and into which He pours His good gifts, it is not the cause of our salvation.
We’re not saved apart from saving faith. Our salvation is
contingent on faith in Christ. Salvation has subjective necessary conditions as
well as objective necessary conditions.
And that’s not a problem in Calvinism, for God controls the
subjective conditions as well as the objective conditions.
It’s also fallacious to act as if Christian faith is
synonymous with mere feelings or emotions.
We are Christians, not Faith-ians.From Cyberbrethren Lutheran Blog. Nov 20th 2012.
That’s a nice-sounding slogan, but it doesn’t survive
logical or theological scrutiny.
These may help:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.academia.edu/185285/Why_Luther_is_not_Quite_Protestant_The_Logic_of_Faith_in_a_Sacramental_Promise
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/joan-of-arc-faith-vs-infant-faith-part-1-of-2/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/joan-of-arc-faith-vs-infant-faith-part-2-of-2/
It is Rome, not the Reformers, who promote uncertainty (see Rom. 5:1 and I John 5:12,13).
The universal atonement is the basis for our salvation. Christ died for the whole world and desires all to be saved. I am a part of the whole world. His saving blood is for me.
We are saved by faith and saved by the blood, but faith only wants to talk about the blood....
+Nathan Rinne
If Christ died for the whole world, and the whole world is not saved, then Christ's death is a necessary but not sufficient condition for salvation, and therefore to differentiate yourself from those bound for hell but for whom Christ died, you only have faith.
DeleteBy contrast, Reformed theology holds that Christ's death procures everything for the Christian, including their faith. This obviously cannot be true on Lutheranism (for example), because he died for all and not all have faith. So we truly can say that Christ's death is the ONLY basis for our salvation, whilst Lutheranism and other groups holding to universal atonement add faith as a second basis.
You might find this recent Triablogue post and the brief comments that follow helpful:
DeleteDoes Baptism Save?
You're repeating the same fallacious reasoning. According to Lutheranism, although God desires all to be saved, all whom God desires to be saved will not be saved. So how does that promote certainty?
ReplyDeleteWhy must universal atonement be the basis of salvation? Why is it somehow inadequate for the scope of the atonement to be commensurate with those who will be saved? If whoever is redeemed is saved, if whoever is saved is redeemed, that's a perfect fit.
Steve,
DeleteYou need to read the first link.
+Nathan
"It’s a bit puzzling because Lutherans are just as smart as other Christians, so I don’t know why some Lutherans find really dumb arguments like this convincing."
ReplyDeleteMaybe because they don't agree that it's really dumb?
However, if they understand what your argument is in this post, then perhaps they'll agree that they've been lapping up a really dumb argument for a long time.
DeleteThat's a jarring paradigm shift - to acknowledge that you've found a really dumb argument to be convincing - and so they take such statements as a personal affront to their intellectual acumen.
Salvation rests on objective realities that have absolutely nothing to do with feelings or emotions.
ReplyDeleteThat's right. For the Lutheran, it rests on DOING SOMETHING - being baptised.
Lutherans are inconsistently sola fide. It's amazing to me that anyone holds to such a weird system, honestly.
Does the Lutheran teaching and theology on baptism still amaze you to this day?
DeleteFWIW, don't you prefer the Lutheran zombie over the Liberal zombie?
Yes, though many Lutherans have done their best to rival liberals in terms of sheer shrillness and bigotry. It's unexpected and weird.
DeleteI don't know about "unexpected." Luther's teaching on baptism is a central, core doctrine of Lutheranism. When this teaching is shown to be naked and without clothes from the Holy Spirit closet of biblical hermeneutics and appropriate contextual exegesis, then it's understandable why some/many Lutherans become militantly shrill and sinfully angry.
DeleteWhen Lutheran baptism is shown to be .. to be ... to, uh, uh, be... much less than what they've been taught and indoctrinated into, then they're going to get a bit unhappy. You've seen it many times, I'm sure.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLutherans have tried to explain the Biblical teaching on Holy Baptism to Rhology before. See the comment thread here: http://www.geneveith.com/2012/03/13/jesus-nothing-everything-2/
Delete"Lutheranism is a entire package, reject part of it, and you reject all of it."
DeleteLutherans don't feel personally rejected though, do they?
Nicholas Leone
Delete"Lutheranism is a entire package, reject part of it, and you reject all of it."
I guess I can't sing Lutheran hymns any more.
To Baptists, baptism is an act of Law. To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOn the one hand, Nicholas Leone claims: "To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel."
DeleteOn the other hand, Nicholas Leone claims: "I should clarify that Lutherans believe that Baptism must be combined with the Gospel in order to save. We deny the ex opere operato view of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy."
If George Tiller accepted the gospel and was baptized in a Lutheran church, as it seems to be the case, then Tiller must've been a genuine Christian according to Nicholas Leone.
DeleteWrong. Those who are baptized can fall away and cease to be Christians.
DeleteSome good listening regarding Baptism:
Deletehttp://www.fightingforthefaith.com/.services/blog/6a00e54eea6129883300e54efeb5c98834/search?filter.q=baptism
Nicholas Leone: "To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel."
DeleteRhology, you've interacted with this claim/argument before, haven't you?
Nicholas Leone said;
Delete"Wrong. Those who are baptized can fall away and cease to be Christians."
If so, then obviously you need to think a lot more before you speak. You need to learn how to follow your own logic and line of reasoning for example before you make the sorts of bold claims and assertions you've made. Otherwise you'll keep having to backtrack or patch up your claims after the fact. Basically, you come out and say something wild like "To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel," but then when we take you at your word you end up saying, "Well, that's not exactly what I meant. Let me smooth over what I just said with this ex post facto explanation."
To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel.
DeleteThat is one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard.
Yes, I remember that thread over at Veith's blog well. The Lutherans fared poorly and exhibited the type of behavior I mentioned earlier. And note Nicholas' wrongheaded insult directed at me, confirming my accusation.
See here also.
Notice that I said "can't be CONSISTENTLY sola fide". I know you affirm SF. You can't hold to it consistently, though, because you don't get to just change the nature of something from work to faith because it suits your theology.
I can do that with anything.
Acts 2: 38Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..."
BE BAPTISED. That is law.
That exact statement ("____ is Gospel") can be made about ANYTHING. Put that objection on the lips of the Judaisers of Galatia with regard to circumcision, and Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is now null and void.
Put it on the lips of 16th-century Romanists and the Reformation is pointless.
Put it on the lips of a clueless 21st-century American with regard to "a good life" and the Gospel is empty. Hey, I'm trusting in my good works to get me to Heaven. No, no, no, *I* didn't do them. God did them. It's all God, man.
The challenge before you is to show why the exact same thing can't be said of circumcision that you're saying of baptism.
Rhology,
Delete"The challenge before you is to show why the exact same thing can't be said of circumcision that you're saying of baptism."
These posts I wrote address that very question. In sum, circumcision is Gospel but had been made into a law by the Pharisees, so Paul responded accordingly: (please read the posts below):
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/the-law-is-not-of-faith-like-a-child-part-i/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/the-law-is-not-of-faith-like-a-child-part-ii/
+Nathan
ps - recent Issues ETC programs talk more about the sacraments in the OT: http://issuesetc.org/tag/sacraments/ (the two programs by Wenthe)
+Nathan
Thanks infanttheology. I have some critiques.
DeletePart 1:
In Galatians the “Judaizers” have taken circumcision (and no doubt the other ceremonies God gave as well) and have turned even this gift to be received into a thing persons must actively do or accomplish in order to be real people of God (i.e., to be saved).
Lutherans have taken baptism and have turned even this gift to be received into a thing persons must actively do or accomplish in order to be real people of God (i.e., to be saved). Because you believe in baptismal regeneration.
“Doing” is drowning out, or has drowned out, the passive righteousness of faith – if it ever was in them to begin with – which simply hears the Word spoken, believes, and has all things in Christ already.
Here you muddy the waters by acting like baptism is not necessary for salvation, like regeneration is on the basis of faith alone. Such obfuscation is hardly helpful.
Just try to be baptised while being passive.
Sit in your chair. Don't move.
You think you'll end up baptised?
Of course not. So don't talk like this, please.
the Law is not of faith.
That's not merely a slogan. It means something.
What it means is that faith is an entirely different category than works. Works are STUFF YOU DO.
Faith is a GIFT FROM GOD, wrought in the mind and heart.
Of those two, which is baptism? Hint: It's not wrought in the mind and heart.
When we focus on the Law and not the Merciful One who gives not just the Law but mercy and grace in passive reception, we veer from true faith.
Correct. Now keep going and apply that sentence to ALL of your theology, not all parts but one.
Part 2:
So Paul is right – all those who rely on works of the law are under a curse
That's easily dispensed with with my circumcision example. I'll just take all the disclaimers you apply to baptism and apply it to circumcision.
But why stop there, honestly? Since we're faith-ing works all of a sudden, slapping the "faith" label onto something we are obligated to perform, might as well go whole hog.
Mercy? Faith.
Hospitality? Faith.
Loving one's neighbor? Faith.
Giving alms? Faith.
Evangelism? Faith.
Abstaining from fleshly lusts? Faith.
There's no reason to faith-ify only baptism.
Rhology,
DeleteHaving been in the evangelical and even Reformed world for a while (Campus Crusade in college, Reformed friends), I think I really understand what you are saying – and your perspective. Of course you understand that what makes a baptism is not just water but the word of God.
As for the person who comes to faith in Christ as an adult, why would they not want to be baptized? Why would they not want to be fully identified by Christ in that way? To be given a gift that God means to give them increased confidence in Him and their identity as their child?
I think I have a good idea of what one reason might be. I had a roommate in college in the 90s who came from a strict fundamentalist background and resisted baptism because he did not believe that he could be saved by a work. He loved to read Max Lucado (finding him very comforting) and believed that a Christian was simply someone who saw their sin and put their trust in Jesus. He didn’t want to submit to an understanding of baptism that undermined that.
Still, again, we come to the basics. We are saved by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). God grants us both faith and repentance (Acts). Children, particularly infants (Luke), are our model. They are willing to be nothing but given to, and so when a pastor takes a passive infant who can have this done to them, we see the best picture of how one enters the Kingdom of God. But what of faith? Of course.
Hence my blog. Please take the time to look at these two posts (not my blog) that make this case.
http://justandsinner.blogspot.com/2012/10/infant-faith.html
http://www.extremetheology.com/2006/06/infant_faith_a_.html
This blog post from my blog actually roots the differences from Luther vs Rome in this different understanding of faith (and hence, true knowledge):
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/knowledge-first-and-foremost-baby-king-david-vs-adult-st-thomas/
As best I can tell here, the foundations for our thinking are very firm.
Best regards sir. A pleasure to talk with you.
Nathan Rinne
Hello Professor Rinne,
DeleteThanks again for your reply.
First of all, it's strange to me to hear that someone from a strict fundamentalist background would like Lucado, but I certainly believe you.
Of course you are right - a born-again, regenerate child of God would indeed want to be baptised. No disagreement there!
I'm sure you can appreciate that our disagreement lies, to take one way of expressing it, not in whether baptism is optional or obligatory, but whether it is a prerequisite or a corequisite for regeneration. To the latter I object as strongly as possible. To the former I answer that baptism is of course obligatory.
Anyway, I wonder, though, why one could not simply take your statement about baptism and swap out the other things I mentioned.
To wit:
Of course you understand that what makes a circumcision is not just a knife but the word of God.
As for the person who comes to faith in Christ as an adult, why would they not want to be circumcised? Why would they not want to be fully identified by Christ in that way? To be given a gift that God means to give them increased confidence in Him and their identity as their child?
Or:
Of course you understand that what makes love of neighbor is not just action but the word of God.
As for the person who comes to faith in Christ as an adult, why would they not want to love one's neighbor perfectly all the tmie without fail? Why would they not want to be fully identified by Christ in that way? To be given a gift that God means to give them increased confidence in Him and their identity as their child?
"Be circumcised" = law.
"Love your neighbor" = law.
"Be baptised" = law.
"Repent, for Christ has died for sinners and offers salvation as a free gift" = Gospel.
"Baptism is Gospel" is one of the awfulest things I have ever read. If you can pry your eyes away from Lutheran tradition and look at it anew with eyes that love what the Scripture says on ALL issues (and not just the issues that don't violate dearly-held traditions), you might feel the same horror at that phrase as you probably currently do when someone says "Loving one's neighbor perfectly all the time is Gospel".
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Oh, and the link to the Extreme Theology post by Rev Wolfmueller casts distinctions in light of The Four Spiritual (f)Laws.
DeleteIf you want someone who thinks the 4S(f)L are anything but mostly crap, you've come to the wrong place. :-)
"Baptism is Gospel" is one of the awfulest things I have ever read."
DeleteThanks for the careful and qualified nuance. To continue in this civil and charitable vein, would you consider "Baptism is Gospel" to be false teaching?
If you're talking to me, the answer is an unqualified yes.
DeleteIndeed, I was asking you Rho for your thoughts.
DeleteOftentimes, agreement cannot be reached. In light of that, principled clarity is a worthwhile objective.
So I'm grateful that clarity on the nature of the disagreement has been achieved when the Lutheran doctrine of "Baptism is Gospel" is deemed false teaching.
And both the Old Testament and New Testament have passages about false teaching and false teachers.
And also about disagreements between brethren, even when those disagreements are severe. There is room (and precedent in the NT) for recognising what I am attempting to communicate - the teaching is false and hideous, but the brother who espouses it is not trying to lead people to Hell and the rest of his theology is not consistent with the logical outworkings of his false belief about, in this case, baptismal regen.
DeleteThat's what I believe is happening here.
Rhology,
DeleteAs TUAD says, I appreciate your tone.
Well, I certainly will continue to believe that baptism is Gospel, and is especially the appointed means to give parents of children comfort that their children are Christians already (Psalm 22) and not potentially.
That is consolation and comfort for us poor sinners. I'd be interested to know more about the comfort Reformed folks have regarding their own children. Seeing as how this whole post started by talking - in part - that not having certainty of salvation was not as big a deal as the commenter on the Gospel Coalition blog said it was, I can imagine what your response to that might be! For us Lutherans security and peace with God is absolutely fundamental. That is the whole purpose of the Gospel!
See, in addition to my first posts:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/babies-in-church-part-v-the-arrogance-of-the-infant-a/
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/babies-in-church-part-vi-the-arrogance-of-the-infant-b/
I must say, prior to reading this post, I had been under the impression that this issue of certainty, surety... peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and knowledge of eternal life (I John 5:12,13) was just as important to the Reformed as it is to us. I guess this assumption was incorrect. Likewise, I did not know that the Reformed did talk about infant faith (see the first comment on the Just and Sinner blog post). So, quite surprised, but certainly clarifying.
"I'm sure you can appreciate that our disagreement lies, to take one way of expressing it, not in whether baptism is optional or obligatory, but whether it is a prerequisite or a corequisite for regeneration. To the latter I object as strongly as possible. To the former I answer that baptism is of course obligatory."
All of this would relate to the Cary article I linked to, and my comment above about the importance of pastoral application over logical coherence of theological systems. I do not know any Lutheran pastor who would tell a parishoner that was struggling with the meaning of baptism that they had to be baptized to be saved. Its like it says at the end of Mark: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned". Note there is not a 1:1 correspondence.
From the Lutheran perspective we believe when someone preaches the Word to us. Also when someone pours the Word over us.
And this gives us comfort and certainty, which God desires all believers to possess.
Blessings to you in Christ
+Nathan
Thanks. And I must say that if you're not the most courteous Lutheran to whom I've spoken online, you're in the top 3.
DeleteThe chaps at The Old Adam could learn a thing or two from you.
I don't understand how adding a work to the Gospel offers consolation, to be honest. But as for my own children, as a credobaptist, I don't have an overriding comfort regarding their fate. I'm a big picture guy. I pray fervently for them. I share the Gospel with them, teach them the Bible, admonish and model repentance and forgiveness, invite them to serve others in proclamation of the law and Gospel and in helpful acts of kindness, I will bring them with me in evangelism when they're older, I discuss Bible issues with them, etc. But whether they will end up with eternal life, I have no idea.
Lutheranism offers a worse option in that respect, though. Baptism and regeneration are not a 1:1 correspondence either. Further, Lutheranism teaches that one can fall away and be damned after previously being regenerate. This latter doctrine Calvinism denies.
So these questions of assurance, while interesting, are secondary to Lutheranism's inconsistent adherence to Sola Fide.
From the Lutheran perspective we believe when someone preaches the Word to us. Also when someone pours the Word over us.
Words aren't poured. There's a reason God chose to express Himself in words and frequently refers to the Word of God as a WORD, in the Scripture. It's because words are text or spoken. One might as well say "We believe when someone stubs our toe with the Word" or "...when someone tapes the Word to us" or "...when we walk on the Word without wearing shoes". If God hadn't meant that His Word is composed of WORDS, wouldn't He have said something different?
Grace and peace to you,
Rhology
Rhology,
DeleteThanks again.
Hey - if words can be eaten, they can be poured to! Baptism is the "liquid word". The Lord's Supper is the "edible word" - and in more than just a metaphorical sense, as you know [we believe].
"I don't have an overriding comfort regarding their fate. I'm a big picture guy. I pray fervently for them. I share the Gospel with them, teach them the Bible, admonish and model repentance and forgiveness, invite them to serve others in proclamation of the law and Gospel and in helpful acts of kindness, I will bring them with me in evangelism when they're older, I discuss Bible issues with them, etc."
Well me to. People fall away. I want my children's faith to grow... and want their faith to be increasingly active and not just passive. More than anything, I want them to know that they are baptized (identity) and to persevere in the faith - always calling their sin "sin" and God's grace "grace". Always knowing they are certainly His.
"But whether they will end up with eternal life, I have no idea."
The way you say that makes me think you aren't sure if they have it now. If that's the case, that strikes me as very sad. I don't know if my kids will keep the faith, but by virtue of their baptism ("all nations", "for you and your children"), I have total, absolute peace and surety about their current state and trajectory.
"So these questions of assurance, while interesting, are secondary to Lutheranism's inconsistent adherence to Sola Fide."
Here is where I'd ask you to really consider what you just wrote there. Of course you realize that for us the proclamation of Christ alone is all about delivering the certainty of salvation to poor sinners. There is nothing secondary about this for us. Of course, we see there as being nothing inconsistent about this either - and I think I've demonstrated why.
And with that, I'm going to have to say: checking back on Monday! (God willing) : )
+Nathan
To be specific, my 3 yr old son doesn't have it now, no. He was born in sin, just as his father was. He hasn't repented before the Cross. He hasn't confessed and believed.
DeleteAnd since you're so adamant that the Word can be proclaimed as well as poured, one wonders why the effects of each are so different.
Of course you realize that for us the proclamation of Christ alone is all about delivering the certainty of salvation to poor sinners. There is nothing secondary about this for us.
The responsibility and awesomeness of the proclamation is neither secondary nor an area of disagreement between us.
Assurance is secondary, and probably an area of disagreement.
Have a blessed weekend!
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Hey - if words can be eaten, they can be poured to(o)! Baptism is the "liquid word". The Lord's Supper is the "edible word"
DeleteOK. Can it stub a toe, too? Can it be trod upon? Adhered via Scotch tape?
If not, I'd like to ask why not.
Rhology,
DeleteCould you please unpack the following statement? I want to make sure I am understanding it like you:
"And since you're so adamant that the Word can be proclaimed as well as poured, one wonders why the effects of each are so different."
By the way, as it regards infants, we'd say that the statement "Baptism and regeneration are not a 1:1 correspondence either" is not true.
+Nathan
Sure.
DeleteProclamation of the Word sometimes results in the salvation of the listener.
Pouring "of the Word" always results in the salvation of the listener, doesn't it?
Rhology,
DeleteAha - no. Not if there is no faith. Adults have issues young children do not have, as Jesus taught.
Here we make a distinction between a valid baptism and an effectual one. A baptism is valid meaning that even if one did not originally believe when they were baptized, if they did come to a real faith later on they would not thereby be re-baptized.
I know I said goodbye, but had to get clarification there.
+Nathan
I know I said goodbye, but had to get clarification there.
DeleteLOL. Yeah, that happens. :-)
Anyway, the effects are still evidently different.
DeleteProclamation of the Word is a prerequisite for saving faith.
"Pouring of the Word" is not. It is apparently a prereq for REGENERATION, however.
And for infants, it has different effects too.
Proclamation to infants has no effect.
Pouring to infants regenerates them.
So that's what I mean.
Nathan, no hurry on this, but regarding your statement A baptism is valid meaning that even if one did not originally believe when they were baptized, if they did come to a real faith later on they would not thereby be re-baptized, does the opposite hold true?
DeleteIf [presumably an infant] doesn't come to faith later, then how would you characterize what Lutheran theology says in that case?
Rhology,
DeleteBack again. Sigh. : )
Seriously, glad to fill you guys in on this stuff.
No - we can't say for sure proclamation to infants has no effect. John leaps in Elizabeth's womb in the Word's presence. I believe my en utero children (5 boys under 10) all believed and were saved before they were baptized.
Still, a person can doubt that. Therefore, God provides baptism, which is an absolutely sure sign that my children are his and I my questions and doubts dissipate.
John,
"If [presumably an infant] doesn't come to faith later, then how would you characterize what Lutheran theology says in that case?"
Infant faith and baptism go hand and hand. Its not a matter of whether or not they come to faith later, its whether they lose faith later, whether by spiritual suicide (kill it themselves) or spiritual homicide (parents leave newborn on side of road).
I've got to add, I don't know how I could handle not knowing my babies were totally secure in the Lord. Their baptisms mean everything to me. Rhology, when you say "The responsibility and awesomeness of the proclamation is neither secondary nor an area of disagreement between us" I wish that were true, but it seems to me that where serious Lutherans are fixated on delivering the certainty of salvation to their neighbors (starting with their babies), this conviction is not widely shared. How can we live – how can we say “no” to ungodliness – unless we do so from the grace that gives peace with God and eternal life? I have been telling my children that they are Jesus’ little lambs from the get-go. I sing them hymns every night and they beg for more. They sing songs themselves. They ask about Jesus, have questions (look at these – some of these from as young as 3!: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/questions-kids-ask-but-adults-don%E2%80%99t/ ) and beg me to read them the Picture Bible non-stop. Yes, Romans 10 says whoever believes in one’s heart and confesses with one’s mouth, but those words are meant to give comfort, not to make someone say “shoot, I thought Jesus loved me and I believed in Him, but I don’t know if I’ve ever really confessed Him with my mouth like Paul says I must here”…. That is a word of Gospel comfort, not a “you must do things exactly this way” kind of word.
OK – enough from me! Much grace and mercy - and peace and knowledge of eternal life! [really, have you read the Cary article yet? : ) ] to you guys.
+Nathan
On the one hand...
DeleteGod provides baptism, which is an absolutely sure sign that my children are his and I my questions and doubts dissipate.
On the other hand...
Its not a matter of whether or not they come to faith later, its whether they lose faith later, whether by spiritual suicide (kill it themselves) or spiritual homicide (parents leave newborn on side of road).
Can you understand, Nathan, why I don't see any reason to think your 2nd statement doesn't crush into meaninglessness the reassurance offered by the 1st?
Their baptisms mean everything to me.
But they could well end up in Hell.
What difference between you and I?
Lutherans are fixated on delivering the certainty of salvation to their neighbors (starting with their babies)
OK, well yes, obviously a Calvinist wouldn't offer any false certainty of salvation to an INFANT, but most certainly WOULD do so to anyone of discerning age.
how can we say “no” to ungodliness – unless we do so from the grace that gives peace with God and eternal life?
We can't. Thank God for regeneration.
Yes, Romans 10 says whoever believes in one’s heart and confesses with one’s mouth, but those words are meant to give comfort
Nathan, you have "yes, but"ed your way straight out of the straightforward meaning of Romans 10. Eisegesis, and it is EXACTLY the same stunt that Romanists pull all the time.
And from the Cary article:
In this regard Luther is not quite Protestant enough to believe that justification happens only once in life.
So much the worse for Luther's theology. Great man, thankful for him, glad better theologians with better understanding came along of which to avail ourselves. You should do the same, seriously.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
DeleteOK, I think I will go away from this computer after this… Oye. I’m sure that what I am saying you has an effect on you emotionally. Likewise here. It is actually quite hard for me to read what you write….
"Can you understand, Nathan, why I don't see any reason to think your 2nd statement doesn't crush into meaninglessness the reassurance offered by the 1st?"
Not at all! I am talking before our children reach "discerning" ages, as you put it.
"a Calvinist wouldn't offer any false certainty of salvation to an INFANT, but most certainly WOULD do so to anyone of discerning age."
What is wrong with giving it to an infant? Because they can't respond like persons who can talk or make their own intelligent decisions? Did the infant in Psalm 22 (and in other Psalms) then not have eternal life in Christ? Am I right to gather that you do give certainty of salvation (what do you mean when you say this exactly? - I mean I tell all my children – babies included – that they Jesus’ little lambs, that he forgives all their sins, and that they will be with him when they die, since they have eternal life) to anyone who has confessed and believed (going by what you said above), but no one else?
"Nathan, you have "yes, but"ed your way straight out of the straightforward meaning of Romans 10. Eisegesis, and it is EXACTLY the same stunt that Romanists pull all the time."
You must understand that from my perspective this is all quite breathtaking. You say that Baptism is not Gospel because it involves something other than faith, but then you make the Gospel word that delivers faith into a law! Of course it is a good thing for persons to confess with their mouth what they believe before men, but is salvation something we passively receive or not? The whole point of the doctrine of justification being distinguished from sanctification was to assure true Christians that they are true Christians. In other words, there were (and are today), those who truly believe in God (and love Him too of course) who, when they read passages about God’s law (what they are to be and do) and his judgment, think that they must not – or at least might not – really believe in Christ. In other words, they are not sure if they are, in the final analysis, at peace with him (saved / state of grace). Hence the passive righteousness of faith. We say we are reckoned righteous by faith in Christ, grasped in the external word – and not even because of the perfect righteousness of Christ that begins to dwell in our hearts when justified. Faith is, first and foremost, simply that instrument that receives God’s grace.
"So much the worse for Luther's theology. Great man, thankful for him, glad better theologians with better understanding came along of which to avail ourselves. You should do the same, seriously."
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Cary may be being a bit loose with his words here, but the point is that the justified continually need to receive justifying words their whole life - whether they ever fall and are reconverted or not. Luther taught exactly the same thing - there is no abandonment of what he taught regarding these matters, but faithfulness. In one sense, you can say that justification starts the Christian life. But on the other hand, we constantly need to be confronted by God’s law (which inevitably, since we are not totally “new men” yet, will produce fear in us), and then comforted with the words of the Gospel. We call sin “sin” and call grace “grace”. Faith only continues to live in perpetual repentance.
+Nathan
Nathan,
DeleteOK, so you think your children are most definitely in Christ b/c you poured water on them, such that if they were to die (God forbid) before reaching an age where they reject Him, they'll go to Heaven. I think God will have mercy on children too. The end point of our views is not different. You just add water.
You cannot consistently have invincible confidence that your kids WILL REMAIN in Christ into their adult years, and I don't have invincible confidence that my kids WILL EVER BE in Christ. Unless they should be regenerated and saved, in which case I have every confidence that they WILL REMAIN in Christ, but you cannot have such a confidence because your theology wrongly teaches that those who are in Christ can actually perish.
What is wrong with giving it to an infant?
Giving certainty of salvation?
I don't know about your kids, but my kids only cared about toys, food, and pooping when they were tiny.
Did the infant in Psalm 22 (and in other Psalms) then not have eternal life in Christ?
I think they probably did, yes. However:
1) They weren't baptised. Remember?
2) The infant in Ps 22 is not a real person; he is a REMEMBERED person, being remembered by the Psalter who is an adult at that time and thinking back piously to the way God was merciful to him even as a tiny baby.
One wonders whether a Psalter would say the same about the Babylonian babies of Ps 137:9.
I mean I tell all my children – babies included – that they Jesus’ little lambs, that he forgives all their sins,
I certainly advise against that. I tell them He will forgive your sins if you repent, just like I tell adults I meet on the street. I don't want my kids to grow up with a false assurance.
And you think your kids could grow up and lose their regeneration, so their sins would not be forgiven in that case. Why do you tell them that? It's unhelpful to them!
since they have eternal life
...but can lose it if they sin enough, on your theology.
you make the Gospel word that delivers faith into a law!
No, YOUR theology does so when it adds a work (baptism) to Gospel.
is salvation something we passively receive or not?
Yes, it is. Remember how Calvinists believe that faith and regeneration are gifts from God, given on His initiative in His timing?
Romans 10:9-10 refers to latter stages of the salvation "process", which is a series of events that happen simulataneously but proceed according to a logical (not CHRONOlogical) order. One believes and confesses after being regenerated and being given the gift of faith.
Baptism is not passive. One has to seek it out. One does it. It's the exact same thing as offering alms, giving hospitality, having mercy. These are things one DOES. So is baptism.
Cary may be being a bit loose with his words here
Yeah, I'd say proposing that Christians are justified many different times in their lives is being "loose", if by "loose", you mean "straight wrong".
the point is that the justified continually need to receive justifying words their whole life
Then why didn't he word it like that?
whether they ever fall and are reconverted or not
Reconversion after a for-real falling away is impossible. Please see Hebrews 6:4-6.
then comforted with the words of the Gospel.
We can totally agree on that, but all too often I see Lutherans comforting each other with a reminder of a work they've done or that someone did on their behalf - "Cheer up, bro, you've been baptised". That is straight sickening.
We call sin “sin” and call grace “grace”.
I'm very glad for that. If you could extend that logic and stop calling a work "faith" you'd be in good shape.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Rhology,
DeleteOK - I'm back, but will try my best to limit myself to this one post today.
First of all, thank you again for the dialogue. I have learned a lot.
Here’s some more on Romans 10, so you understand what I am saying better:
I will grant here that the statement can be understood in the following way: as something that even those with weak faith will certainly do as they are able, thereby showing themselves to be the saved – those who justified before God. My point is simply that in the context of this statement in Romans 10, Paul is contrasting the way of the law (doing) with that which is already done for us and fulfilled in Christ – and these benefits come to us from outside of us and are received passively by faith – so this confession with the mouth is definitely something that these will delight to do as they are able (for example, when a believer is old enough and able to speak – persons who observe children of serious Lutheran’s joy in singing about their Savior can vouch for the fact that there is no hesitation of their part to confess their faith before men) – for where there is faith, there is fire, or better, all manner of fruit (starting with, but not limited to confession). I guess what I’m getting at, is that given all the other passages in Scripture that simply speak of faith in Christ as the necessary condition for salvation, it wouldn’t be right for someone to use these Romans 10 passages in a way to exclude those who are not able to confess with their mouths due to their age. Again, it seems very clear that here Paul’s purpose is to contrast the way of the law (“do” = activity on our part trying to initiate and/or secure our relationship with God) with that of the Gospel (“done” = the passive righteousness in faith, where we do not ascend or descend, but God comes to us in His Word, which creates living faith in the heart and is powerful and active.
I hope this makes sense to you.
....
...
DeleteAgain, while a person who partaking in a Sacrament who believes that he *automatically* obtains a state of grace is certainly wrong (since this is magical, or vending-machine thinking, and not faith in God), this does not mean that the penitent believer cannot receive real confidence – and certainty – of salvation by taking Holy Communion or by doing Confession and Absolution with a pastor, for example. There is absolutely no delusion in trusting what God’s word says about sin and what it says about grace – it is rational adults, and not children, who have trouble realizing this. Furthermore, certain persons may have this same confidence without needing the additional comfort of the material thing that is connected with God’s word.
On the post that TUAD linked to below, you said: “What I *would* teach them (and indeed, what I *do* teach my kids) is that Jesus died for sin, the just for the unjust, in order to bring us to God. That they are sinners. That Jesus will forgive and give eternal life and that they must trust Him alone for such.”
That is what I teach my children. That is what baptism does. Raises sinners from death to life in faith. Its not that they were baptized – they are baptized – which means they are of those who live by every word that comes from the mouth of God, believing God’s words of Law and Gospel as they grow up into them more and more.
Let me try to be as clear as possible. When Paul says that he’d rather be damned himself than see his brothers go to hell, he is only echoing God’s will, who really did let judgment fall on Himself to save mankind. The Christian, as he matures, begins feels the same about the concrete persons God has put in his life – desiring to do nothing but to be used by God to the uttermost (losing one’s self) to deliver salvation to them by the Word and Sacrament. And this means to deliver certainty. The Gospel is certainty. Christianity is certainty. For we are those who are given and give real peace with God (Rom. 5:1) and real knowledge of eternal life (I John 5:12,13).
This is a serious Lutheran talking. Is this a serious Reformed person talking?
Here’s a post of my own that has come out of this conversation: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/you-know-you-are-in-the-end-times-when/
Rhology,
DeleteI missed your post this morning.
“I think God will have mercy on children too.”
I have no confidence about this because the Bible does not give us a word here. Only faith in Christ saves.
I also tell my children that faith only lives so long as there is repentance. If we don’t want forgiveness for this or that, we are in trouble.
Again, baptism cannot possibly be construed as a work a human being does in order to reach God when it comes to infants. Infants just receive, so I can’t understand why you insist on this. If you say “yes, but you are trusting in your work as the parent”, I’d say, “no more than I do when I believe it is mine to preach the Gospel to all creatures”. Baptism is not man’s work, but ultimately God’s, and it is given to all nations and for our children for our comfort and confidence.
Again, I appreciate the discussion.
+Nathan
One post or so a day sounds good. Don't feel like you have to rush back to respond.
DeletePaul is contrasting the way of the law (doing) with that which is already done for us and fulfilled in Christ
Yes, I agree.
and these benefits come to us from outside of us and are received passively by faith
...and not through anything else. Like baptism, circumcision, hospitality, abstention from fleshly lusts...
Yes, I agree.
persons who observe children of serious Lutheran’s joy in singing about their Savior can vouch for the fact that there is no hesitation of their part to confess their faith before men
What about the children who don't sing and who leave church as soon as they can and live heathen lives, dying in unbelief? Do these observing persons count those kids in their surveys?
it wouldn’t be right for someone to use these Romans 10 passages in a way to exclude those who are not able to confess with their mouths due to their age
1) I'm sorry, but it says, RIGHT THERE in the text, "and confess with your mouth..."
2) That confession is obviously, as you said, the outflow of the faith that is in the heart. But there is such a thing as false confession, and such a thing as children following by rote what they saw their parents doing.
That is what I teach my children. That is what baptism does. Raises sinners from death to life in faith.
Then you're lying to them.
Pouring water on them accomplishes no such thing. They need to repent and have faith themselves.
When Paul says that he’d rather be damned himself than see his brothers go to hell, he is only echoing God’s will, who really did let judgment fall on Himself to save mankind.
I can appreciate what you're saying, but that statement from Paul was a bit hyperbolic, and God incarnate didn't go to Hell. He suffered death, a real death, but not the entire death that the unregenerate suffer, b/c He did not spend eternity in Hell.
Rather, He accomplished a full atonement by the death on the Cross.
Paul, for his part, could not in fact be damned because he was in Christ and he knew that; thus the hyperbole, communicating the depth of his emotion about the matter.
desiring to do nothing but to be used by God to the uttermost (losing one’s self) to deliver salvation to them by the Word and Sacrament.
Sacrament doesn't deliver salvation to anyone. The proclamation of the Law and Gospel does. Stick with that.
Is this a serious Reformed person talking?
Since I'm a Reformed Baptist of undecided eschatology, some would say I'm not Truly Reformed. Que será será.
I have no confidence about this because the Bible does not give us a word here. Only faith in Christ saves.
DeleteIt does give us some information, actually. I recommend MacArthur's "Safe in the Arms of God", for one.
Again, baptism cannot possibly be construed as a work a human being does in order to reach God when it comes to infants
Again, circumcision cannot possibly be construed as a work a human being does in order to reach God when it comes to infants.
Except Galatians disagrees.
Infants just receive, so I can’t understand why you insist on this.
B/c you also hold to baptismal regen for adults.
If you say “yes, but you are trusting in your work as the parent”, I’d say, “no more than I do when I believe it is mine to preach the Gospel to all creatures”.
But as I pointed out, you think baptising your infant automatically results in their being regenerated. That's not even close to the case when you preach the Gospel.
Baptism is not man’s work, but ultimately God’s
Nathan, please, it is time for you to advance the argument beyond this. I have rebutted this point already. Please interact with my rebuttal instead of pasting Lutheran talking points.
To review, here is that rebuttal:
Lutherans have taken baptism and have turned even this gift to be received into a thing persons must actively do or accomplish in order to be real people of God (i.e., to be saved). Because you believe in baptismal regeneration.
That's easily dispensed with with my circumcision example. I'll just take all the disclaimers you apply to baptism and apply it to circumcision.
But why stop there, honestly? Since we're faith-ing works all of a sudden, slapping the "faith" label onto something we are obligated to perform, might as well go whole hog.
Mercy? Faith.
Hospitality? Faith.
Loving one's neighbor? Faith.
Giving alms? Faith.
Evangelism? Faith.
Abstaining from fleshly lusts? Faith.
"Be circumcised" = law.
"Love your neighbor" = law.
"Be baptised" = law.
"Repent, for Christ has died for sinners and offers salvation as a free gift" = Gospel.
Rhology,
DeleteThanks again for the ongoing cordial dialogue. I appreciate it very much.
“What about the children who don't sing and who leave church as soon as they can and live heathen lives, dying in unbelief? Do these observing persons count those kids in their surveys?”
No – at least not in our church. The pastors and elders make visits, and if necessary, get around to sending letters of excommunication.
“it says, RIGHT THERE in the text, "and confess with your mouth..."
Yes, and there are other passages that simply talk about believing. In any case, even if a child confesses with His mouth, as you said, in can just be “by rote”, so their confession in that case would not be relevant. This is why we focus on inculcating deep faith in Christ in the heart. Would you say that a person can be led to trust in Jesus Christ even without using the word “faith”?
“They need to repent and have faith themselves.”
Of course. I’m not sure why you keep insisting that these things can’t possibly go together. I mean, Lutherans do have personal experiences as well. I can’t remember a time when Jesus wasn’t everything to me. He chose me in baptism, gave me faith, and always nurtured that through my parents.
“God incarnate didn't go to Hell.”
Yes.
“Paul, for his part, could not in fact be damned because he was in Christ and he knew that.”
Yes, the point is that it shows the love of God through him in a powerful way (also, of course Paul at the end of his life talked about how he had kept the faith – he had certainty that he was in a state of grace in Christ, but was certainly not unaware that he to, was capable of shipwrecking his faith, and disowning God).
“Again, circumcision cannot possibly be construed as a work a human being does in order to reach God when it comes to infants.
Except Galatians disagrees.”
The context of Galatians is adult Gentile converts to Christ being told that they must be circumcised to be saved (again, we already talked about this)
....
...
Delete“B/c you also hold to baptismal regen for adults.”
We don’t baptize any adult who doesn’t always believe and confess his faith.
“you think baptising your infant automatically results in their being regenerated.”
Of course. We are told baptism is for all nations and our children. We are told children have faith and are our model. I think simply preaching to young children makes believers, but the place I put my certainty is in the word combined with water according to the Promise of God.
I say: “Baptism is not man’s work, but ultimately God’s”
You say: Nathan, please, it is time for you to advance the argument beyond this. I have rebutted this point already. Please interact with my rebuttal instead of pasting Lutheran talking points.
Pasting? No need to imply this isn’t coming from deep within my soul Rhology.
“Lutherans have taken baptism and have turned even this gift to be received into a thing persons must actively do or accomplish in order to be real people of God (i.e., to be saved). Because you believe in baptismal regeneration.”
I’m sorry , but I simply don’t think that we’ve done this, and you are misrepresenting what we believe. If someone wants to join our church who has never been baptized but is hesitant about being baptized because they do not understand how it can’t be a work that they need to do in order to be saved (and they don’t want to put their faith in a work they do instead of Jesus Christ alone), no one is going to insist that this person cannot be a believer. I don’t know – are you speaking from any personal experience?
“That's easily dispensed with with my circumcision example. I'll just take all the disclaimers you apply to baptism and apply it to circumcision. “
I thought we talked about this already. Well, yes, we should. But in the time of the N.T. circumcision, along with other O.T. ceremonies that were shadows of Christ, had fallen away. The scaffolding was no longer necessary and to insist otherwise for salvation was to deny the Gospel.
“But why stop there, honestly? Since we're faith-ing works all of a sudden, slapping the "faith" label onto something we are obligated to perform, might as well go whole hog.”
I’m just interested in looking at what the Bible says, not drawing conclusions that might seem logical (even if your premises are faulty) but mitigate the whole s/Spirit of the text.
Again, thanks for the cordial dialogue.
+Nathan
always believe should be:
Deletealready believe
Thanks again for your reply.
DeleteYou said this:
No – at least not in our church.
And here is what I was responding to earlier:
so this confession with the mouth is definitely something that these will delight to do as they are able (for example, when a believer is old enough and able to speak – persons who observe children of serious Lutheran’s joy in singing about their Savior can vouch for the fact that there is no hesitation of their part to confess their faith before men)
So good, you recognise that these joyful children are a subset of the total.
JOYFUL BAPTISED LUTHERAN CHILDREN
----------------------------------
TOTAL BAPTISED LUTHERAN CHILDREN
And that's what I'm getting at. FAITH is the important thing, not baptism.
If a child has saving faith, Jesus preserves him/her for their entire life and brings them safely into His kingdom.
If a child is baptised, it does not necessarily mean anything. By your own admission.
So why go on and on about baptism, except to preserve the sanctity of your tradition?
Would you say that a person can be led to trust in Jesus Christ even without using the word “faith”?
Certainly.
Of course. I’m not sure why you keep insisting that these things can’t possibly go together.
Because you keep saying that children (heck, and adults) should look to their baptism when they doubt.
Because you believe in baptismal regeneration.
He chose me in baptism
May I ask what that means? I admit it's the first time I've ever heard a phrase like that.
The context of Galatians is adult Gentile converts to Christ being told that they must be circumcised to be saved (again, we already talked about this)
Well, yes, we touched on it, but ISTM you are mixing the questions of adult baptismal regen with pædobaptism. They're not the same, as I'm sure you recognise.
We don’t baptize any adult who doesn’t always believe and confess his faith.
If is already regenerated before he blvs and confesses his faith, then baptismal regen is false and you should recant Lutheranism.
If he is not already regenerated, and is regenerated only when he is baptised, then you are saying that spiritually dead people can do good things - repenting of sin, believing rightly in Jesus, and confessing faith in Christ, and you run afoul of Romans 10:9-10.
See, this is what I mean when I say that your way of talking about baptism is awful.
I don’t know – are you speaking from any personal experience?
No, I am not.
I love the Gospel and hate Judaising, very simply.
Anyway, I was not implying you were typing by rote. I apologise. Please do, though, reply to my rebuttal instead of repeating yourself. This is very important.
I’m just interested in looking at what the Bible says, not drawing conclusions that might seem logical (even if your premises are faulty) but mitigate the whole s/Spirit of the text.
Simply throwing out inescapable conclusions based on what the text says is hardly a commendable practice.
You have had numerous opportunities to show why my other "____ is Gospel" examples are faulty and you have not done so. I'd really like to ask you to let me know if you have other thoughts on the matter or if you believe you have thoroughly answered those examples.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
TUAD - what do you mean?
ReplyDeleteSeen these?:
http://www.worldvieweverlasting.com/tag/baptism/page/6/
I think the problem here is that Lutherans see the proper proclamation of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments as things that are understood in a pastoral context (not a "it must be logical and fit into our reason" context).
We view justification differently. These differences exist not so much because Luther is hard to understand, but rather because justification as envisioned by Luther cannot be understood apart from its practical application, particularly in acts of confession and absolution – i.e. attempting to “freeze” it in tidy dogmatic formulas, while sometimes helpful, can also give a wrong impression.
+Nathan
+Nathan,
DeleteI mean, have you read (and understood) Steve Hays' post and the ensuing comments in:
Does Baptism Save?
TUAD,
DeleteTook a look. What can I say? I don't find it convincing. It seems like mental gymnastics to me to avoid the obvious.
I did like this post though: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/11/martin-luthers-understanding-of-baptism.html
Good stuff.
+Nathan
It seems like mental gymnastics to me to avoid the obvious.
Delete+Nathan, what mental gymnastics did Steve Hays do which avoided the obvious?
It seems like mental gymnastics to me to avoid the obvious.
DeleteBut Nathan, you were the one who just said that "it must be logical" is a context to be avoided. How is it that you could expect someone to take a critique like this seriously?
Rhology,
DeleteWell, I didn't really offer a critique. I appreciate Steve's efforts to explain why the passage can't possibly mean that baptism saves us the way we take it to mean. Maybe in the future, I will try to explain in more detail why it is not convincing... I've already spent too much time doing this today... : )
+Nathan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNicholas,
DeleteI would just say that the Philip Carey article I shared above makes Pastor McCain's idea of "faith-ians" much more comprehensible at least.
+Nathan
Rhology: "There is room (and precedent in the NT) for recognising what I am attempting to communicate - the teaching is false and hideous, but the brother who espouses it is not trying to lead people to Hell and the rest of his theology is not consistent with the logical outworkings of his false belief about, in this case, baptismal regen."
ReplyDeleteI agree.
Although I recall a saying that goes something like "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
To paraphrase another saying, "Show me a false teacher with a good motive, and I'll show you a false teacher."
"Show me a false teacher with a good motive, and I'll show you a false teacher."
ReplyDeleteHahaha.
I'm glad you found it funny and humorous.
DeleteBut seriously, given the following
(1) "Baptism is Gospel" is one of the awfulest things I have ever read." and
(2) To Lutherans, baptism is Gospel." That is one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard.
And since +Nathan staunchly advocates "Baptism is Gospel", then in the most polite, civil, kind, loving, sweet, and courteous manner of conveying with spiritual and intellectual integrity... Rho, you'd have to say that +Nathan Rinne is a false teacher with a good motive.
P.S. At least Apostle Peter was teachable when lovingly confronted by Apostle Paul, and he repented.
At least Apostle Peter was teachable when lovingly confronted by Apostle Paul, and he repented.
DeleteTime will tell about Nathan.
"Time will tell about Nathan."
DeleteSame thing with baptized infants. Time will tell whether some baptized infants go to Heaven or some baptized infants go to Hell. That's a certainty and an assurance for you.
Rhology: "There is room (and precedent in the NT) for recognising what I am attempting to communicate - the teaching is false and hideous, but the brother who espouses it is not trying to lead people to Hell and the rest of his theology is not consistent with the logical outworkings of his false belief about, in this case, baptismal regen."
ReplyDeleteBrings to mind Paul's kind and loving confrontation with Peter. Do you remember that one?
Yes, and his response was exactly what mine has been to the Lutherans. Didn't call him unregenerate. Called him inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteNobody's claimed that you called +Nathan or Nicholas Leone an unregenerate, have they?
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone think that?
Nobody's claimed that you called +Nathan or Nicholas Leone an unregenerate, have they?
ReplyDeleteOK, good.
You were throwing around the term "false teacher", so I was cautioning all observers against that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNathan Rinne: "Rhology,
ReplyDeleteOK, I think I will go away from this computer after this… Oye. I’m sure that what I am saying you has an effect on you emotionally. Likewise here. It is actually quite hard for me to read what you write…."
Rho, your linked post above (which you wrote last year) discusses this: Gospel Versus Emotional Lutheranism.
Rhology, +Nathan, Nicholas Leone, Steve Hays, et al,
ReplyDeleteSomeone went to a Lutheran funeral and wrote the following:
Let's examine the possibility of pastoral practice gone terribly awry. Namely, the issue of false assurance. Would God hold a Lutheran pastor responsible for giving false assurance to a Hell-bound unbeliever?
Let’s take for example the “patent lie” above. Someone is baptized early in life in a Lutheran Church and has taken Holy Communion later in their teens. After their teens and until their death during their 50′s, they rarely pray, almost never read the Bible except for a few verses they see on TV, and rarely go to Church, and their lives are indistinguishable from an unbeliever. They bore no spiritual fruit. The person dies in a car accident.
At the Lutheran funeral, the Lutheran pastor says essentially the same pastoral words: "Baptism Now Saves You. And Denise was baptized." Children, teen-agers, and young adults hear the Lutheran pastor’s words that “Denise” is in Heaven because she was a baptized Lutheran. They also knew “Denise” in real life and that she was more or less pagan or heathen and did not have a credible faith or witness.
The attendees to the funeral now think that because of the Lutheran pastor’s words at the funeral that all they have to do is get baptized, or remember that they were baptized, and then they can live just like Denise did.
So. Suppose Denise is in Hell, and that all the other people who believed as what the Lutheran pastor led them to believe are in Hell too.
What responsibility does the Lutheran pastor have for providing these people the false assurance arising from bad theology or false teaching?
(The following quoted excerpt is missing from the above post. Sorry.)
ReplyDelete"It isn’t hard to understand what the [Lutheran] priest means when he says, “Denise (name changed) is in heaven now because she was baptized in the faith and took holy communion and remained faithful to the church.”(that last part was a patent lie by the way). That is as exact a quote as I can give you a year removed from that particular funeral. If the priest meant something different by it, he sure didn’t let on to that. He probably did say something akin to that other part you quoted while he was sprinkling “holy water” on the coffin before leaving the church. But I assure you that his homily was all about how God would accept her into heaven because she had been baptized and taken communion.
Believe me when I say to you that I have former Lutherans and Catholics in my church family who say the exact same things after returning from funerals of loved ones and family who are still in those churches. They are quite concerned for those loved ones who walk around blithely assuming that the fact that they were baptized has bought them an place in heaven no matter what. You can think that I simply misunderstand, but these are folks who were raised in those churches and that is what they know and say as well."
TUAD,
DeleteYes, that's wrong.
+Nathan
"TUAD,
DeleteYes, that's wrong.
+Nathan"
What is wrong? What are you referring to (exactly) that is wrong?