How Problematic Acts 10 Is For Baptismal Regeneration

Jordan Cooper recently released a video that's partly an argument for baptismal regeneration. I've already interacted with the large majority of the points he makes (e.g., here on the alleged parallel between Acts 2:38 and 16:30, here on 1 Peter 3:21, here on the extrabiblical sources). What I want to do in this post is say more about Acts 10.

Robert Bennett interviews

Several good interviews on the paranormal and exorcism with Robert Bennett (PhD, Missiology, Concordia Theological Seminary). Bennett is a Lutheran pastor and scholar.

Debating the sacraments

On the question of the sacraments, Baptists are at a tactical disadvantage. There will always be people who are drawn to sacramental realism because they like the idea that infant baptism creates the presumption that their child is now heavenbound. Or that weekly communion is a quick fix. Spiritual shortcuts have a psychological appeal for many people. We see that in Baptists circles, too, where the "sacrament" of the altar call is functionally equivalent to Catholic sacraments. The primary exception is Reformed Baptists, who are more consistent. This is one reason why debates over credo/paedobaptism make so little headway. It's not just an exegetical question but a psychological question. In that respect, the Baptist position is an uphill climb. Sacramental realism has perennial appeal for many people.

Notice that what I've said is irrelevant to truth and evidence. I'm just making a sociological observation. Theological debates often stall because the underlying motivations are psychological. And there's not much that can be done about that. 

It's like ecumenists who have a deep yearning for "unity". They seem to be temperamentally wired to long for "unity", or a sense of continuity with the past. That's why some of them convert to Catholicism–drawn by the mystique of Christian unity and continuity (even though Catholic reality is something else entirely). 

I'm not saying this is a reason to forego debates over the sacraments. But we should have low expectations about achieving progress in that direction. It's more a case of peeling away occasional individuals. 

Lutheran exorcism

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/11/the-lutheran-approach-to-exorcism/

The Gospel According to Yoda

Orthodox Lutheran

Maybe the real unelect were the reason-worshipping Calvinists we met along the way. 

#muhDoublePredestination

#muhClayQuestioningThePotterVerseMeansWeCanGetAwayWithMakingGodOutToBeEvil

Hays 

To my knowledge, classical Lutheranism affirms unconditional election. That entails reprobation. Lutherans arbitrarily reject the logical of their own commitments.

Lutheran Memes 

Calvinists love to cry "strawman" then turn around and do the same thing. We have never and will never confess the deplorable, unbiblical, and utterly unchristian doctrine of election unto damnation.

Hays 

I didn't cry strawman and you didn't refute the implication.

Lutheran Memes 

We don't "reject the logic of our own commitments" we actually openly and publicly confess the paradox. Unlike those who try to compress God into a finite box they can comprehend, thereby requiring them to twist and distort Scripture so that its mysteries make sense to their puny human minds, we actually admit the God is a being beyond human comprehension and is allowed to work beyond the limits of our reason.

Scripture says that salvation is by unconditional election. We affirm that.

Scripture says that damnation is the result of our own sin, and God does not desire the death of the wicked but desires that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth.

How can both of these things be true? We have no idea. But we believe they are both true because God said so, and who are we to imagine we know better than God?

Hays 

In which case you forfeit the ability to argue for Lutheranism or argue against Calvinism.

Lutheran Memes 

Ah, yes. So, because we believe what the Bible teaches, we forfeit the ability to argue for sound doctrine or against heresy?

Hays 

If you ditch logic, then the Bible is consistent with anything.

Lutheran Memes 

The Bible is consistent with itself. Remember the warning of Chrysostom, a comprehended god is no god. Let God be true and every man a liar. So what if your pathetic human brain can't fathom the paradoxes of Scripture. Scripture is true whether or not we can understand how. Stop pitting Scripture against Scripture and believe all of it. Stop shoe-horning your man-made doctrines onto God's Word.

Hays 

By rejecting logic, you can't distinguish heresy from paradox.

Lutheran Memes 

Nobody is rejecting logic. We're refusing to subject Scripture (written by eastern minds) to modern western thought processes. Letting Scripture interpret Scripture is exactly how we distinguish heresy from orthodoxy. Shoe-horning Aristotelianism onto an eastern text is the surest way to screw it up.

Hays 

So Aristotelian logic is modern (2500 years old) while the letters of Paul, written in Greek to Greek churches, are eastern.

Are law and Gospel the same or different? Why not both/and? It's paradoxical, you know. Don't let that newfangled Aristotelian logic turn law and Gospel into opposites. That's binary modern western thinking. Away with the law/Gospel dichotomy. Embrace Buddhist both/and.

Lutheran Memes 

Yes, your modern application of Aristotelianism is modern. And yes, Paul's letters are eastern. He was a Hebrew. His epistles are littered with eastern style. Neither the Old nor New Testaments are works of western thought or literature.

As for your second comment, I don't even know where you're trying to go now. You're so wrapped up in your attempt to shoe-horn God into an Aristotelian box that you've stopped making sense.

Hays 

Aristotle antedates Paul by about 500 years. In addition, you're completely overlooking Hellenistic Judaism.

The Eucharist is both the True Body and Blood of Christ and not the True Body and Blood of Christ. It's a paradox. Don't try to shoehorn the antinomy into your finite puny-brained logic box.

Problems with the real presence

Usually, arguments about whether Jn 6 and 1 Cor 11 teach the real presence revolve around exegetical considerations. However, that's not the only pertinent consideration:

i) Sometimes reality can serve a hermeneutical role. If the bread or wine just is Jesus, then why doesn't it look like Jesus? The total lack of correspondence between the interpretation and empirical reality is, in itself, a reason to question or reject the interpretation. If it is Jesus, shouldn't it bear a recognizable resemblance to Jesus? 

If I held up a banana and said "This is Marilyn Monroe," the fact that the claim defies manifest reality is good reason to dismiss the claim out of hand. 

ii) Sometimes reality is a check on our interpretations. Suppose a guy shows up on my doorstep tomorrow and announces that he's Jesus. He came back, just like he predicted.

Well, I need to compare that claim against reality. Does he do what Jesus can do. Does it match what Scripture says about eschatological signs when Jesus returns? Certain observable things are supposed to happen in the world that herald his return.

iii) Suppose someone objects that I'm overlooking the miraculous nature of the Eucharist. But one problem with that appeal is that even if we grant the Eucharistic interpretation of Jn 6, Jesus doesn't say it will be miraculous. There's nothing in the text of Jn 6 to indicate that the Eucharist is a miracle–even assuming the Eucharistic interpretation.

Indeed, none of the accounts of the Last Supper in the four Gospels and 1 Cor 11 say the Eucharist is a miracle. The miraculous nature of the Eucharist isn't required by the text, but by a particular interpretation of the text. Appealing to a miracle is an extraneous, stopgap explanation to save appearances for a particular interpretation. 

Communion and cannibalism

The charge of cannibalism does not hold water for at least three reasons. First, Catholics do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. Catholics receive him in the form of bread and wine. The cannibal kills his victim; Jesus does not die when he is consumed in Communion. Indeed, he is not changed in the slightest; the communicant is the only person who is changed. The cannibal eats part of his victim, whereas in Communion the entire Christ is consumed—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The cannibal sheds the blood of his victim; in Communion our Lord gives himself to us in a non-bloody way. 

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-catholics-believe-about-john-6

i) First of all, I always find ironic how proponents of the real presence stress the literal interpretation of Jn 6, but then when asked if that doesn't commit them to a cannibalistic view of the Eucharist, they back off. So do they take it literally or not? They take it literally until you press them on the implications, at which point they get defensive and distance themselves from a literal interpretation. 

ii) Suppose a psychopath kidnaps teenagers, chains them in his basement, then uses an I.V. tube as a straw to suck their blood. Isn't that cannibalistic? But it doesn't kill them unless the psycho exsanguinates them. He can keep them alive and sample their blood. 

iii) Suppose a human body is dehydrated, ground into powder, and made into pills. If you pop those pills, you're consuming a corpse in a different form, but it's still cannibalistic, is it not? It's not the form but composition that makes it cannibalistic. 

iv) What does it mean to eat a soul? What does it mean to eat divinity? Eating is a physical process. Is a soul physical? Is divinity physical? 

v) Even if you take Jn 6 literally, it says nothing about consuming the soul or deity of Christ. 

Why debate Calvinism?

Since your salvation doesn't hinge on whether or not you believe in Calvinism, what's the point of debating Calvinism? What practical difference does it make whether you're a freewill theist or Calvinist?

As a matter of fact, it is possible to become obsessed with this debate to the exclusion of other important issues. It shouldn't be all about Calvinism all the time. That said, the difference has practical consequences:

1. Theological positions tend to develop internally to the point of taking their assumptions to their logical extreme:

i) Open theism resolves the tension between freewill and foreknowledge by ditching foreknowledge. But how can you trust a God who's in the dark about the future? How can you trust a God who gambles with human lives? 

ii) There's often a shift from exclusivism to inclusivism. If God loves everyone, wants everyone to be saved, made provision for everyone to be saved, how's that consistent with restricted opportunities to take advantage of that provision? What about those who never heard the Gospel? Inclusivism logically demotes the urgency of missions and evangelism. 

iii) Apropos (ii), this life isn't an even playing field. Spiritual opportunities vary drastically. That nudges freewill theism towards postmortem evangelism/conversion. And that, again, logically demotes the urgency of missions and evangelism. 

2. Freewill theists sometimes alleged the predestination negates petitionary prayer. If true, that's a very practical issue. Conversely, open theists argue that divine foreknowledge is providentially useless because it's too late for God to intervene. If so, that would negate petitionary prayer. 

3. Calvinism and freewill theism will give some different answers to the problem of evil. And that's a pastoral issue as well as a philosophical issue. Some theodicies can be adapted to Calvinism and freewill theism alike, but other theodicies pair off with Calvinism or freewill theism.

4. Freewill theism may erode inerrancy and commitment to biblical authority by appealing to moral intuitions that trump the witness of Scripture in case of conflict. There are freewill theists who admit that if Scripture taught Calvinism, then they choose their moral intuitions over Scripture. They repudiate the God of Scripture in that event. 

Another example is that some freewill theists reject OT theism for the same reason they reject Reformed theism: they think the Calvinist God is too harsh, and they think Yahweh is too harsh.  

5. Apropos (4), some freewill theists seem to think Calvinism is worse than atheism. So what's their fallback if they lose confidence in freewill theism? Since Calvinism is not an option, do they land in atheism?

6. Views on the necessary preconditions of moral responsibility can impact law and social policy:

i) If homosexuals don't actually choose their "orientation," then that's exculpatory in case libertarian freedom is a necessary precondition for moral responsibility. So it would be unfair to discriminate against homosexuals in any respect. 

Same with gender dysphoria. They ought to be accommodated if they didn't choose it.

ii) The insanity defense takes libertarian freedom for granted. If you're too evil to know the difference between good and evil, that's exculpatory. If you can't help yourself because the urges are overpowering, that's exculpatory. 

7. A common objection to Calvinism is that a Calvinist can't tell everyone "God loves you!" But does everyone need to think that God loves them, or is that presumptuous? There are hardened sinners who believe God loves them because they have such a high opinion of themselves. How could God not love such a wonderful person as themselves! They'd benefit from being told that maybe God doesn't love them. They need to be shaken out of their complacency.

8. Freewill theists are more likely to reject penal substitution. That impacts how we preach the Gospel. 

9. Although all classic Protestants subscribe to sola fide, Calvinists have a way of unpacking the concept in terms of a threefold imputation. That has more explanatory power than a bare affirmation of sola fide. 

10. Traditional Catholicism has radically different views of how God saves people. Saving grace is mediated by the sacraments, which are mediated by the priesthood. Likewise, the intercession of the saints. That's a different theological paradigm than Calvinism. Are you putting your faith in Jesus for salvation-or Mary? Or a wafer? Or priestly absolution? If you're wrong, that makes a practical difference. Conversely, post-Vatican II theology is edging towards universalism. That, too, is a different theological paradigm than Calvinism. If you're wrong, that makes a practical difference. 

11. When a Calvinism debates a classical Arminian or Lutheran, they take Protestant essentials for granted. But when a Calvinist debates a Catholic, then the contrast involves divergent views on a wider range of issues, like the locus of interpretation. 

12. Christians have to believe something. They can't leave all the blanks unfilled. Although they can suspend judgment on some controversies, they must takes sides on some issues. Otherwise, their faith is a cipher. So the debate over Calvinism is part of that larger demand. 

Lutheran exorcist

There are lots of quack exorcists. This guy seems more reputable: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m_3K6MVoII

http://www.drroberthbennettphd.com/About.html

“Pope Francis” reins in his tongue; issues no controversial statements in meeting with Lutherans in “Reformation Day” commemorations

“Pope Francis” with Lutheran Rev. Martin Junge,
the general secretary of the World Lutheran Federation,
and “Archbishop” Antje Jackelen,
Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala and
“the Primate of the Church of Sweden”

Over the last few days, there have been several articles regarding the “Pope Francis” trip to Lund, Sweden, to meet with the female Lutheran bishop. Uncharacteristically for him, there doesn’t seem to be any controversial statements that came out of the trip.

LUND AND MALMO, SWEDEN -- At a first-of-its-kind ecumenical event marking 500 years of separation between Lutherans and Catholics after the Protestant Reformation, Pope Francis on Monday urged members of the two faith communities to "mend a critical moment of our history" by forging new common paths together.

Speaking in a 12th-century cathedral here that was once Catholic and is now Lutheran, the pontiff also praised some of the reforms called for by Martin Luther, whose famous writing of 95 theses led to a fracturing of Christianity across Western Europe.

"We have a new opportunity to accept a common path," Francis told Lutherans and Catholics during a joint ecumenical prayer service at Lund's cathedral with representatives of the Church of Sweden and the Lutheran World Federation.

"We have the opportunity to mend a critical moment of our history by moving beyond the controversies and disagreements that have often prevented us from understanding one another," he continued.

The pope later added that the half a millennia of separation between the two faith groups has "enabled us to understand better some aspects of our faith," noting specifically: "With gratitude we acknowledge that the Reformation helped give greater centrality to sacred Scripture in the church's life."

Lutheran Bible scholarship

I'd like to do a little overview of Lutheran Bible scholarship. To begin with, I use the word "Lutheran" advisedly. In Europe, I think "Lutheran" is sometimes used as a generic synonym for Protestant or non-Catholic. The Lutheranism of Rudolf Bultmann, Albrecht Ritschl, Ernst Käsemann, Helmut Koester, and Wolfhart Pannenberg (to name a few) is highly attenuated. 

German Bible scholarship is infamously liberal, but I'm going to focus on moderate to conservative Lutheran scholars. In the 19C, Carl Friedrich Keil was their great OT scholar. He published an introduction to the OT, as well as several commentaries on OT books (as well as some NT books). Due to their age, these are now in the public domain:

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Keil%2C%20Carl%20Friedrich%2C%201807-1888

His NT counterpart was Theodor Zahn. Some NT scholars have a greater theological emphasis while others have a greater historical emphasis. Zahn was in the latter category. He was probably the most erudite NT scholar of his generation. His only rival in that regard was Bishop Lightfoot. Zahn conducted major research on the NT canon, edited the Apostolic fathers, published a monumental NT introduction, along with several massive commentaries on the NT. For those of you who can read period academic German, these are currently online:

http://bennozuiddam.com/Theodor%20Zahn.htm

In a sense, Adolf Schlatter, his younger contemporary, was his successor. Schlatter had a more theological emphasis. Some of his works have been translated into English: notably, his commentary on Romans, a devotional volume on Do We Know Jesus?, and his two-volume The History of the Christ and The Theology of the Apostles.

Martin Hengel is the next major figure. He's a throwback to Zahn. Very erudite. Defends the general historicity of the Gospels and Acts. Did important work on St. Paul. Hengel was a foil to Bultmann. 

Back in the 50s you had the abortive Concordia Commentaries series. That produced what was, for their time, fine commentaries on Luke, by NT lexicographer William Arndt, and Nahum, by Walter Maier. 

Walter Maier was, in turn, the father of Paul Maier, an ancient historian who's written a number of books defending NT history: 

http://www.paulmaier.com/

Craig Koester has published major commentaries on Hebrews and Revelation–although I doubt he would qualify as a confessional Lutheran.

Andrew Steinmann is probably the most substantial conservative Lutheran scholar writing today. He's published a monograph on Biblical chronology, a monograph on the OT canon, two OT introductions,  commentaries on Proverbs, Daniel, and Ezra/Nehemiah, and two books on prayer. 

His commentaries are contributions to a revived Concordia Commentary series. I doubt contemporary confessional Lutheranism has a deep enough talent pool to produce outstanding commentaries on every book of the Bible, but it has the depth to produce some outstanding or exceptional commentaries. In addition to Steinmann's contributions, you have Horace Hummel's monumental commentary on Ezekiel, Andrew Das on Galatians, and Curtis Giese on 2 Peter and Jude. 

Finally, Mark Seifrid used to teach at SBTS, but reverted to Lutheranism. His recent, major commentary on 2 Corinthians has a Lutheran emphasis, and I wouldn't be surprised if he publishes one or more additional commentaries from a Lutheran viewpoint. 

Show and tell

A commenter left some remarks on this post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/10/baptism-saves-you.html

I will respond here. The commenter is Lutheran. Since I'm a Calvinist, I'll use Calvinism and Lutheranism as the frame of reference:

2. Does the N.T. assume the the sacraments are just symbols? If sacramentalists assume the reality why can you just assume they are merely symbols? 

i) What I said was NT language is consistent with a symbolic interpretation. So, you'd need something additional to tip the balance either way. 

ii) We have two sets of passages: those that index salvation to sacraments and those that index salvation to  faith and repentance apart from sacraments.  

How do we harmonize those passages? In theory, there are different ways:

a) Does that mean some people can be saved by baptism and/or communion apart from faith and repentance? Are there different paths to salvation? Presumably, you disagree. 

b) On the symbolic interpretation, the sacraments function as vivid theological interpretations of salvation. For instance, the eucharist depicts the death of Christ as a vicarious sacrifice. It teaches Christians that the death of Christ was a penal substitutionary atonement. 

The point is not that we are saved by taking communion, but that communion teaches us the meaning of the Crucifixion. Likewise, because water is a cleansing agent, baptism becomes an emblem of forgiveness. And possibility new birth. That's another way of teaching us another facet of salvation. Show and tell. 

c) On a sacramentalist interpretation, you might try to combine them. You might say the passages which index salvation to faith and repentance are incomplete. These must be supplemented by the sacraments. There are, however, problems with that. 

In depends in part on your overall theology. For instance, Lutheranism affirms universal grace and universal atonement. But if saving grace is channeled through Word and Sacrament, then that localizes saving grace. Saving grace is for all and only those who hear the Gospel and/or receive the sacraments.

Yet at many times and places, people never hear the Gospel and never have access to the sacraments. How can grace be universal if the opportunities to receive grace fall far short of universality? Universal atonement might suggest a universal provision of grace, but that's narrowed by the limited availability of Word and Sacrament. So there's an internal contradiction in that theological system.

Conversely, Calvinism rejects a one-to-one-correspondence between saving grace and sacramental grace. On the one hand, people can be saved apart from the sacraments. On the other hand, some people who received the sacraments are damned. 

So how you harmonize them depends on how that fits together with other things you think the Bible teaches. That can rule out certain harmonistic options. 

The N.T does not say the cross saves us, but Christ on the cross saves us. 

Actually, it says things like:

and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph 2:16). 

by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross (Col 2:14).

So it sometimes uses the "cross" in absolute constructions. But more to the point, it's clearly employs the cross as a symbol for the redemptive work of Christ, where the cross is a stand-in for the atonement.  

The N.T. states that baptism now saves us. Those are clear texts. We can accept them as is or as the above post tries to do is to simply explain things away.

i) In terms of literary genre, narrative texts can be clearer than epistolary texts, because historical narratives contain local color and atmospheric details regarding the nature of the rite. That's why it's easy to establish water baptism from the Gospels and Acts. By contrast, the NT letter lack those contextual clues, so it's harder to determine if they are referring to literal "baptism" or using theological metaphors. 

ii) You assume that baptisma means "baptism." But I cited a range of definitions from the standard NT Greek lexicon. 

iii) Another problem with your simplistic appeal is that everyone adds qualifications to that passage. For instance, Lutherans think it's possible for someone who's been baptized to lose their salvation. But in that case, baptism didn't save apostates. Baptism didn't save them in the long-run. 

So you don't just "accept it as it." You yourself "explain it away" based on other requirements of Lutheran theology. 

3. Water gives life with the Word and the water in our baptism. It also means death to the old adam as he is drowned in the waters of baptism.

Now you're claiming that baptism signifies both life and death. Why should I accept your contention? Where did that come from? Perhaps you're alluding to Lutheran prooftexts for baptismal regeneration (e.g. Jn 3:5; Tit 3:5)? If so, I don't grant your interpretation. 

4.i) Does that mean baptism necessary for salvation? Can you be saved apart from baptism? No. The Word of God can convert a sinner. The Spirit can work apart from the waters of Baptism, but this is the normal scenario. (Infant baptism). 

Okay, but notice how that complicates your simplistic appeal to 1 Pet 3:21. You've now conditionalized 1 Pet 3:21. If I'm baptized, then baptism saves me. 

If, on the other hand, I believe the Gospel, but die in a traffic accident before receiving baptism, then is wasn't baptism that saved me, but something other than baptism. 

That, however, isn't what 1 Pet 3:21 says. According to you, it says "baptism saves you," yet you admit there are situations in which baptism doesn't save–because something else did the saving. Baptism didn't save the person now or later. Baptism didn't figure in his salvation at all. Not now, not ever. 

ii) Does that mean baptism sufficient for salvation? Is baptism alone all you need to be saved? Baptism saves. It gives us Christ and all his benefits and grants us faith to trust the promises of Christ. Faith is then nourished by the Word, the Lord's Supper, and the absolution we receive as members of the church.

i) That's ambiguous. Did Adolf Hitler go to heaven while Anne Frank went to hell? Did baptism save Hitler? 

ii) What exactly saves you in Lutheranism? Is it universal atonement? Baptism? Justification? Absolution? The Eucharist? Is it one thing? More than one thing? Looks like a shell game.  

iii) Moreover, if 1 Pet 3:21 means "baptism saves you," then that, by itself, doesn't distinguish between the necessity and the sufficiency of baptism. So you're adding lots of qualifications to your prooftext that not only go beyond what it says, but diminish what it says. 

iii) What baptism saves you?
a) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the mode of baptism (e.g. immersion, sprinkling)? No. Though Sprinkling would be a prefered choice.

But 1 Pet 3:21 doesn't say that. So you've added a specification to the text beyond the actual wording.

b) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the intent of the officiant? No.

But there are theological traditions that think it does matter (e.g. Roman Catholicism). 

c) In the case of adults, does the efficacy depend on the intent of the candidate? We approach adults as the N.T. church would have. They are expressing faith so we baptize and catechize them. We trust the Spirit has produced faith in them through the Word.

But 1 Pet 3:21 doesn't say that. So you've added a specification to the text beyond the actual wording.

d) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on the orthodoxy of the officiant? Is baptism performed by a heretic valid or invalid? No. 

"No" to valid or invalid?

e) Does the efficacy of baptism depend on words as well as the action (e.g. a Trinitarian formula)? We should confess a Trinitarian Baptism as we are placing the name of God of the candidate for baptism. Lutherans will accept other baptisms except from if from certain hereodox charismatic sects or cults like the Mormons or Jehovah's witness.

So you've added another qualification to 1 Pet 3:21, beyond the actual wording. 

f) Can a layman perform baptism, or must it be a church officer? Yes, but it would be prefered if the local pastor would be the one to baptize and they will be the pastor of the baptized.

Notice that you have to supply all these specifications from outside your prooftext. The text itself doesn't say the presence or absence of these qualifications is what makes the baptism in question salvific. So it's not nearly as "plain and clear" as you imagine. 

5. I don't get trying to nail a point with the word and how many times it is used. There should be clear enough evidence with 4 usages relating baptism and salvation to drive home a point. The most clear and plainest reading of the texts should be accepted.

i) Because you can't simply import the entire context back into the meaning of an individual word. You're getting that, not from the meaning of the word itself, but from the surrounding text in which it's used. A word doesn't mean everything the context means. 

ii) For a word to become a technical term (apart from stimulative definition), it must be employed often enough in a particular context to acquire a specialized connotation through repeated usage. Three or four occurrences, even if these were unambiguously about baptism, hardly establishes stereotypical usage. For the context of a word to rub off on the word, it must be used often enough to trigger that context even when the context is absent. In the nature of the case, idiomatic usage requires a certain frequency before it counts as idiomatic. 

Take the word "martyr," which derives from "witness"–in secular Greek. And that's how it's employed in NT Greek. But in patristic usage, it becomes a technical term for Christians who were executed for their faith. That's not what it originally meant. It eventually picked up that specialized connotation through frequent contextual usage. Once that association is cemented, it has that meaning independent of an explicit setting where the God's people are put to death for their faith. 

Consider Antipas (Rev 2:13). At that stage in the evolution of the language, martus means "witness." It is not, as of yet, a technical term for "martyr". Although Antipas is, indeed, a martyr, it's not the word itself, but the context, which supplies that identity. However, it is cumulative occurrences like that which will turn it into a technical term for "martyr". 

Another example is how Catholics bungle justification because they fail to distinguish between Paul's specialized, idiosyncratic use of the dikaioo word-group and the non-technical usage of James. Paul's repeated usage is jargonistic in a way that James is not. 

6. There is a literal death in baptism( the old adam, and a new life is given as we are united to Christ by baptism and given faith to trust the promises of God.

That's equivocal. You're comparing physical death to the mortification of sin.  

7. The context doesn't reach to the Lord's Supper. It is enough for Paul to stress our unity in that we have 1 Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one Father. The fact that baptism is placed in this context would highlight the importance placed on baptism and its connection to faith, and our unity with the Lord and the Father.

Why is baptism a hallmark of unity, but not communion? 

8. I do not think this passage demonstrators anything different that Luke records in Acts, John in his Gospel, or Peter. Baptism kills the old adam and grant us life and faith in Christ. 

i) You're not exegeting Col 2:12 on its own terms. Rather, you're glossing it in reference to random material outside the text and context. 

ii) In addition, scholars (e.g. F. F. Bruce, M. J. Harris, B. Metzger, D. Moo, P. T. O'Brien, R. McL. Wilson) generally don't think it uses the same word as 1 Pet 3:21–much less Acts and the Gospel of John, which don't use that word, either. 

You're overlooking the fact that I'm referencing passages which use the same Greek noun: baptisma. 

9. Noah's family passed through the waters of death in the Arc and were brought to new life. We to pass through the waters of death in baptism and are raised to new life in Christ. The water does not save us, but the Word of God (the promises) united to the Word save us as we are united to Christ. 

But you're not getting all that from 1 Pet 3:21. 

Again, Lutherans do believe that people can be saved apart from the waters of Baptism because we do believe in that the Word of God can bring new life to men. We trust God at His Word. He saves through Baptism and He can save through His Word.

You're interjecting distinctions into your prooftext that aren't contained in your prooftext. So appealing to the "clearest, plainest" text is deceptive. What you've really done is to begin with Lutheran systematic theology, then modify 1 Pet 3:21 to shoehorn into that preexisting framework. 

Is Calvinism synergistic?

I rarely comment on Lutheran theology, but since some Lutherans are picking on Calvinism, I'll return the favor. I'm going to respond to two comments by Larry on this post:

http://lutherftw.blogspot.com/2015/10/keep-that-gospel-pure.html

i) Larry says: "One issue about Calvinism that many Lutherans miss is that it is just as synergistic & works righteousness as Arminianism, it’s hidden."

According to Lutheran theology, saving grace is both universal and resistible. Saving grace is not unilaterally efficacious. Rather, the efficacy of saving race depends on whether sinners accept or reject it. So the human response is decisive. 

How is that not synergistic? By contrast, Calvinism regards saving grace as inherently efficacious, because it ultimately depends on God's will and power. 

ii) Larry seems to be suggesting that Baptists, Presbyterians, et al. don't have true sacraments because they don't believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence: "the reformed & Baptist do not really have the sacrament of the altar, they do not have the Lord’s Supper at all."

If so, then he's claiming that the nature of what you receive (at baptism or communion) depends, not on God's will and power, but on the disposition of the recipient. The communicant has the ability to make it the real presence or make it mere bread and wine. The baptismal candidate has the ability to make it regenerative or make it mere water. 

How is that not synergistic? 

iii) Larry seems to suggest that the Gospel is equivalent to physical contact with Christ: "Christ’s presence is the Gospel is the Sacrament…"

Not what Christ taught. Not his miracles. Not his death on the cross. Not the Resurrection. 

Rather, to be in physical contact with Christ via the communion elements is sufficient to experience the Gospel: "the forgiveness of sin in their mouths received…all the way down."

iv) In Calvinism, salvation is not about our mentally reaching out to God (“reach up/go into heaven” where one arrives at Christ to receive forgiveness and thus heaven), but what God does for us (e.g. election, redemption, justification) and in us (e.g. regeneration, sanctification, preservation). 

v) According to Larry: "If Christ is not there as he said where he said in Word and Sacrament (this is My body), then the revelation of the Father alone, Christ, is not down here, FOR me/you. If He’s not then the bridge to God is back to the infinite."

There's only "bridge to gap" on the assumption that salvation is about space. Up and down. Physical distance. It's as if Larry equates salvation with astronautics. 

Lutheranism and Assurance

I left a comment on this post arguing against both Calvinist and Arminian views of assurance. It seems that the comment was not allowed past moderation. (EDIT: Sometime after this post appeared, the comment was allowed through moderation.) Whatever the reason, I'll repost the essence of my comment here, for posterity's sake. Of course, I'll only be defending Calvinism here, and not Arminianism. They'll have to defend themselves.

The author writes that,

Calvinism cannot preach consistently to the sinner that Christ died and rose for them until after they are certain that the person is truly saved. But in Calvinism, how does one know who is truly saved? The only way one can make a judgment on this is by looking for a totally changed life. But then, who is to say that the person is not deceived if they fall away and reject Christ later in life? Calvinism desires to uphold monergism, but due to the doctrine of limited atonement, they rip the heart out of the Gospel. There is no surety of Christ for you no matter what in Calvinism. How do they know that Christ died for them? How can they objectively know this, with 100% certainty, if Christ only died for the elect? Pretty much they have to be certain they are elect. And in Calvinism, without a 100% certainty in Word and Sacrament and the atonement, they must look to their own faith to an extent.

But given the epistemological brush the author chose to paint with, the same applies to Lutheranism. Here's how: So the idea is that a Calvinist cannot tell anyone, himself or herself included, that Christ died for them. Why? They don't know "with 100% certainty"(the redundancy is in the original) that they, or those they speak to, are elect. So let's grant this. The Lutheran is in the same position. How? The Lutheran claims to know with certainty that Jones (who could even be the Lutheran him or herself) is saved. But how does the Lutheran claim to know this? Why, it's because it's entailed by the Lutheran view of the atonement. But then, the Lutheran must know that the Lutheran view of the atonement is true "with 100% certainty." But how does the Lutheran know that? I dare say that a healthy dose of the noetic effects of sin, coupled with the fact that the Lutheran's epistemic peers (those who are appraised of the same set of facts as is the Lutheran, takes an opposing position out of good faith, is just as "smart" as the Lutheran, etc.) disagree with him, is enough to throw a wet blanket on that idea!

This reply is different than the typical Calvinist reply. Typically, Calvinists respond to this sort of argument by countering that the Lutheran can't be assured, confident, know with certainty, etc., that the Lutheran will persevere until the end, so it's a wash—that is, there's no real advantage for Lutheranism here. My objection is different. I'm meeting them on their own ground. I'm claiming that if philosophical or epistemological certainty is required to know that Christ died for some particular person, the Lutheran doesn't have that. And that's because the Lutheran could only have that if the Lutheran knew the basis for making that judgment "with 100% certainty." And the Lutheran can't, of course, have that—hence, the Lutheran can't, of course, know that Christ died for him or her or anyone "with 100% certainty."

P.S. I say this because I think it's right, not because I'm bitter; but even if I were bitter, the argument would stand all the same. ;)

P.P.S. In other words, if Calvinists have to worry about the "possibility" that they're not elect, Lutherans have to worry about the "possibility" that Calvinism is correct (i.e., it's not *impossible*).

The true body and blood of Christ

1. Historically, various denominations espouse some version of the real presence. Some denominations (Lutheranism, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) are committed to it while others (Anglicanism) allow for it.  

Some theological traditions attempt to be more specific about how and what is. In Catholicism, Aquinas gave the classic formulation, which was codified at Trent. However, some 20C Catholic theologians (e.g. Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx) proposed alternatives. 

Although traditional Catholics regard them as heretical, their alternative views on the eucharist were never officially censured (to my knowledge).  

In Lutheranism, Martin Chemnitz provided the classic formulation in his monograph on The Lord's Supper. For a more up-to-date summary, see  David P. Scaer's contribution to Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper (Counterpoints: Church Life).

You also have theologians who take a more eclectic, mediating position, viz. Myk Habets, Theosis in the Theology of Thomas Torrance.

Conversely, there are Christians who affirm the real presence, but resist detailing the mechanics. They relegate that to mystery and miracle. 

Whether that's successful I'll address momentarily. 

In this post I'm not going to evaluate historical positions. I just mention them for background. 

2. Just as a matter of logical options, it seems to me that the real presence reduces to one of two different claims: 

i) The (consecrated0 communion elements are the body of Jesus

ii) The (consecrated) communion elements contain the body of Jesus

Put another way:

i) The (consecrated) communion elements are other than bread and wine

ii) The (consecrated) communion elements are more than bread and wine

According to (i), the communion elements cease to be bread and wine. According to (ii), the communion elements remain intact, but there is now something over and above the communion elements.

I think models of the real presence come down to variations on either of these two claims.

3. There are roughly two components to the real presence:

i) A dichotomy between appearance and reality

ii) The underlying reality

According to the real presence, the appearance of the bread and wine is illusory, in part or in whole. By "appearance," I don't merely mean visually, or what we can see with the naked eye. 

I mean in reference to the primary and secondary properties generally. The true body is empirically indetectable, whether by sight, taste, chemical analysis, &c. 

As such, the theory of the real presence requires God to create an illusion. In principle, there are different ways this could be produced. Take science fiction scenarios about telepathic aliens who make people imagine things that aren't there, or fail to perceive things that are there.

BTW, I'm not being facetious. I'm taking the implications of the real presence seriously. This is what an adherent is committed to. It has an illusory dimension. 

I think this component of the real presence is coherent. It's possible for God to do that. That's because this aspect of the real presence concerns perception rather than reality. The more challenging aspect of the real presence concerns the stipulated reality. Which brings me to:

4. In reference to the real presence, what is the "true body" of Jesus? What do the communion elements either become or contain? 

Since the real presence stands in contrast to symbolic interpretations, since proponents accentuate literality, I think this must have reference to the physical body of Jesus. A complete human body. 

This means that when a communicant consumes the wafer or sips the wine, he's ingesting the brain, teeth, eyes, ribs, liver, bladder, intestines, penis, hair, toenails, &c., of Jesus.

I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. That's what their theory requires of them. There's not much wiggle room. It boils down to two alternatives: either a "true body" or symbolism. Since proponents deny that Jesus is "spiritually" present, since they reject the symbolic interpretation, the "true body" must be the physical body of Jesus. A complete human body. What else could it be–given the demands of the theory?

I think some proponents make the real presence more palatable (pardon the pun) by studied vagueness. 

5. This, in turn, determines what must happen at communion. What the theory amounts to. There are at least two metaphysical components:

i) Miniaturization

How can a wafer be the body of Jesus, or contain the body of Jesus? If we take the claim seriously (it's a true body), then that suggests a process of miniaturization. After all, the dimensions of a wafer are far smaller than a human body. And the shape is completely different. A wafer is a small, flat, round object. 

How can the wafer be the body of Jesus, or contain his body, unless his body is miniaturized?

In a way, it's even more daunting to ask how a liquid (communion wine in the chalice) can be, or contain, the body of Jesus. Are bodies of Jesus, in miniature, in the wine–like complex molecules? 

I'm not making fun of the claim. I'm unpacking the claim. If it doesn't mean that, then in what respect is it the true body of Jesus?

I'm the moment I'm not discussing how that's possible. Rather, I'm discussing what is said to happen.

ii) Replication

If a priest distributes communion to 200 worshipers, doesn't that entail 200 bodies of Jesus? Each wafer is (or contains) the body of Jesus. 

Likewise, if one communicant after another sips the wine, is a body Jesus replicated anew each time the next communicant sips the wine? Are there an infinite number of true bodies swimming around inside the chalice? Might you inadvertently imbibe more than one? 

Or is the true body duplicated one at a time for each communicant? 

Once again, I'm not being flippant. The theory of the real presence simultaneously affirms something and denies something. What is the claim?

It seems as though the real presence entails the reincarnation of Christ. The repeated reincarnation of Christ. His body is multiplied every time the Eucharist is celebrated. If two communicants receive his body, then it can't be the numerically same body in each case, can it? Rather, it has to be copies. 

6. From what I've read, adherents of the real presence ground it in one of two events:

i) Made possible by virtue of the Incarnation

ii) Made possible by virtue of the Resurrection

According to (i), the human nature acquires the divine attribute of ubiquity via the hypostatic union.

That's subject to two objections:

a) Divine omniscience doesn't mean God has literal spatial extension. It doesn't mean he's diffused through space. That he exists in every part of space. Rather, it's a picturesque metaphor for divine omniscience and omnipotence. 

b) To say divine attributes are transferrable to the human nature is pantheistic. It erases the categorical distinction between the creature and the Creator. 

According to (ii), the glorified body of Christ is hyperdimensional. 

That's subject to three objections:

i) It rests on exegetically dubious inferences

ii) Adding spacial dimensions fails to solve the problem it posed for itself. The problem is not that his body has too few dimensions, but too many. It's a problem of scale. A 3D human body is too big for another human to swallow whole. To say the glorified body has even more dimensions aggravates rather than alleviates the problem.

iii) A hyperdimensional body isn't recognizably human. That's not what Scripture means by a human body. 

7. At this point, adherents retreat into pious appeals to mystery and miracle. And that appeal has a legitimate place in Christian theology. But it's not unqualified.

i) On a classic definition of miracle, God can produce naturally impossible results by circumventing nature. If, however, God is working through a natural medium, then that limits the divine field of action. If God uses a natural medium, then he can only do what's naturally possible. He can do what's naturally impossible by simply bypassing the natural medium. But so long as the natural medium is instrumental to the result, that imposes a restriction on what he can do with it. Nature is finite. It has in-built constraints. 

ii) According to the real presence, the communicant is receiving something essentially natural. The body of Jesus is a natural object. A physical organism. If it were supernatural, it wouldn't be a true body. 

So you can't invoke a miracle to make the real presence go through.

iii) In theory, you could invoke a miracle of replication (see above). But that wouldn't solve the problem of scale.

In theory, you could invoke a miracle of miniaturization. But that's problematic on several grounds:

a) Consuming tiny bodies of Jesus is cannibalistic. Adherents of the real presence deny that communion is cannibalism.

b) To miniaturize a human body, you must shrink everything down. Everything must be scaled up or down to match everything else, viz. the heart in relation to cells, &c. You'd have to miniaturize cells.  

But body systems designed to function at one scale can't naturally function at a very different scale. Consider the difference between insects and humans. Because insects are so much smaller, they have systems which work at their scale that couldn't work for a much larger organism, or vice versa. Take the circulatory system or oxygenation. The scale of an organism affects what is feasible, from an engineering standpoint. 

You end up with a makeshift explanation that isn't consistently natural or supernatural.