I beg to differ, to be sure. I paste here our conversation so far.
Brigitte:
All my children and god-children learned to sing this short verse from little up: "I was baptized happy day. All my sins were washed away. God looked down on me and smiled. I became his own dear child." Which is a proclamation of good news to each every time. Romans 1:16
. This is most certainly true.Me:
Unless of course they aren't believers, in which case their sins are very much on them. And that song becomes a terrible curse.
Brigitte:
What a wonderful thing to tell little children in your care about Jesus.
Me:
Tbh, I'd prefer just to tell them the Law and the Gospel. Not false hope.
Brigitte:
Baptism is Gospel. "God is favorably disposed towards you." Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them. It is so simple. How shall they believe if they have not heard.
Me:
Gospel is Gospel. Baptism is baptism. It honestly really scares me when people talk like you're talking.
Baptism does not communicate that God is favorably disposed toward anyone. Regeneration does. They are not the same, and one can be present without the other.
Brigitte:
Rhology, this is a very important question. Is what I say scary or what you say scary? And does God want you to trust him or not?
He does want you to trust him and this is the most important thing in the world. He is our good Father in heaven. Baptism is one more way he tells us. A pledge and promise and seal to his word. It would be immeasurably wrong to doubt him.
What is the worst thing that could happen if someone believed that God is favorably disposed to them? They might believe.
Me:
What you say is scary, because you're equating something one does (baptism) with the Gospel. Doesn't get a whole lot scarier than that.
Yes, God wants me to trust Him. The regenerate man can trust Him to bring him safely to glory. The unregenerate man needs the Law and the Gospel, not false talk about how baptism did something for him.
Baptism is one way He tells US, yes, but not the unregenerate. So the focus needs to be on the SOUL, not the BAPTISM.
No, the worst thing that could happen to someone falsely believing that God is favorably disposed toward them is that they may well go to Hell and be sorta surprised when they get there. Kind of like a huge horde of "good people" Americans. Preach the Gospel to your godchildren! Not baptism; baptism is for later.
Brigitte:
Rhology, can you tell me how you would word the Gospel, as not to mislead anyone into believing that God is favorably disposed toward them when he is really proposing to damn them? What would you actually say to them?
And what would you tell them about their baptism, past or future? What would you actually say? How is anyone supposed to believe that God is good? How would you inculcate this message? How would you teach a child that God is their dear Father in heaven of whom they should ask all things that they need?
Me:
can you tell me how you would word the Gospel, as not to mislead anyone into believing that God is favorably disposed toward them when he is really proposing to damn them?
Sure.
Strictly speaking, the Gospel isn't exactly that which is the persuasive power pertaining to God being DISfavorably disposed to the unregenerate - that's the Law.
So I share the Law AND the Gospel, the Law being a measurement of the person up against the 2 greatest commandments and getting into specific outgrowths thereof, and the Gospel being 1 Cor 15:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
The "died for our sins" is very important and usually needs to be unpacked so that it's not misunderstood. That means that Jesus took the punishment you deserve b/c of your sin. It means He gives you His righteousness, by virtue of His sinless birth and sinless life and His divine nature. It means God sees you as He sees Jesus, that you're clothed in an alien righteousness. And by virtue of His rising from the dead, He grants eternal life.
All this is obtained by repentance and faith. Adding any work to it (circumcision, baptism, penance, Mass) empties it of its power and results in trust in something other than Christ alone for salvation from sin and death.
what would you tell them about their baptism, past or future?
I suspect I may differ with my Presbyterian brethren here, so with that understood, I'd tell them that any past baptism was performed on an enemy of God and that disciples of Jesus need to be baptised. It's not optional; true believers get baptised.
It's the same thing Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20
- go into all the world and make disciples, baptising them. When I meet a disciple or someone gets saved (thus becoming a Christian and becoming a ready-to-be-discipled disciple), I tell them that pretty much the 1st step of obedience to Jesus is baptism. After all, Jesus didn't say "go into all the world and baptise people and then pray that they become disciples later on".How is anyone supposed to believe that God is good?
I'm sorry, but I think there is some disconnect here, or perhaps you're really really emotionally involved in this baptism question.
You really think it's in question how a Reformed Baptist would be able to consistently tell someone how God is good? Creation, the giving of Jesus Christ, His death on the cross, eternal life offered as a free gift, the Holy Spirit' indwelling, none of that has any bearing on whether God is good if it's not true that we can tell children that God is favorably disposed to them b/c they were dipped in water as babies? Really?
How would you teach a child that God is their dear Father in heaven of whom they should ask all things that they need?
I know for certain that giving them false assurance that getting dipped in water as a baby somehow nullifies the fact that they were born into sin and the Fall and that they actively live as active enemies of God.
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.
How is your formula superior to this, the pure and unmixed Gospel?
255 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 255 of 255Eric,
Really, what Scripture verse says that "baptism is a gift"?
I understand RC Sproul's arguments which list and show Scripture verses teaching that baptism is a command, and I am inviting you to list and show the Scripture verses teaching that baptism is a gift.
Please don't be emotionally hostile to an intellectually honest request.
Rho to Eric: "Is it because you already tried it once and you affirmed two contradictory statements, and are uncomfortable in the realisation that your theology is incoherent?"
If this in fact is the case, then I respectfully suggest to Eric that him feeling uncomfortable in the realization that his Lutheran theology is incoherent is ultimately a good thing.
To Rhology:
Thank you for the gracious apology about the spam box. I didn't know anything like that had happened, so it is very easily forgiven.
Really, what Scripture verse says that "baptism is a gift"?
The question is neither reasonable, nor intellectually honest. It is based on a false dichotomy -- it assumes that baptism must be either command or gift, as those two categories are mutually exclusive. It also assumes that I have never read the Scriptures and that I will be surprised to learn that there is no verse that says (in quotation marks -- as TUaD presents his question) that "baptism is a gift." Do you not see those elements in that question? The question is more than merely unreasonable and dishonest, it is also rude and condescending.
We just had a big tussle on this blog over 1 Peter 3:21. My reading of that verse is coherent. It makes correct use of the rules of grammar. It is completely consistent with Ephesians 2:8, and any other verse you want to throw against it. I am comfortable with the remarkable thing that God so clearly says in that verse: "Baptism... now saves you." You don't agree with that statement, and I can live with that. We don't need to revisit the misuse of grammar deployed to torture the text and justify unbelief. All of that -- the controversy itself -- is beside the point. The salient question becomes...
How can you present your demand for Scripture to someone who has just invested so much time, energy and effort trying to persuade the readers of this blog to believe the words "Baptism... now saves you"? If baptism saves you, how can it be anything but a gift? (Don't read mutual exclusivity into that question. It is not implied.)
In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [or into] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This takes concrete form when the pastor comes to you and says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If we were to translate baptidzo, instead of transliterating it, we would say, "I wash you in the name of..." The pastor is not washing you for kicks. It's not because you have dirt on your face, or because he needs to find something to do on Sunday nights. He was sent to wash you. The words he speaks over you, he speaks on behalf of the One who sent him -- Jesus Christ. Those words are Christ's words. If Jesus is washing me, as He so clearly says that He is in Matthew 28:16-20, how can that be anything but a gift?
Also, did you notice how the text literally says that we are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Jesus is not saying merely that this washing is done by the authority of that name. That would be enough by itself to establish that this washing is a gift. But in addition Jesus is saying that this cleansing rite confers the Trinitarian Name to us. He is giving us His name in much the same way as a child receives the family name when he is adopted. You can agree or disagree, but don't miss the point. If God's Word says that I am baptized into the name of the Triune Godhead (notice the passive tense), then that baptism and the name that it confers are gifts. How could they be anything else?
I'm sure those Scriptures won't scratch your itch, but they do speak very clearly about the gift that is Baptism.
(Remember that does not mean baptism is not commanded. As the Lutheran Confessions put it in the Smalcald Articles, "Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God in the water, commanded by His institution...")
Really, what Scripture verse says that "baptism is a gift"?
Eric: "The question is neither reasonable, nor intellectually honest. It is based on a false dichotomy -- it assumes that baptism must be either command or gift, as those two categories are mutually exclusive. It also assumes that I have never read the Scriptures and that I will be surprised to learn that there is no verse that says (in quotation marks -- as TUaD presents his question) that "baptism is a gift." Do you not see those elements in that question? The question is more than merely unreasonable and dishonest, it is also rude and condescending."
Your remarks really do exhibit the wretched excesses of emotional Lutheranism.
There's no false dichotomy here. Or any of the other aspersions that you're casting here.
Just answer the prima facie question: What Scripture verse says that "baptism is a gift"?
Eric: "We just had a big tussle on this blog over 1 Peter 3:21. My reading of that verse is coherent. It makes correct use of the rules of grammar. It is completely consistent with Ephesians 2:8, and any other verse you want to throw against it. I am comfortable with the remarkable thing that God so clearly says in that verse: "Baptism... now saves you."
If baptism saves you, how can it be anything but a gift?"
I'd agree with you, but you're overlooking the critical point where your whole argument comes crashing down.
It's the phrase "If baptism saves you" with particularly strong emphasis on the If.
Give a long think to the following:
1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also -- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means "copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of something else. The question is, "Of what is it a type?", or "Baptism corresponds to what?". The answer is found in the previous verse, verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (NASB).
What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark? What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly. Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion, refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col. 2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.
The above is from:
Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?
ERIC: If baptism saves you, how can it be anything but a gift?"
TUAD: I'd agree with you, but you're overlooking the critical point where your whole argument comes crashing down.
It's the phrase "If baptism saves you" with particularly strong emphasis on the If.
I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but your statement tells me that you have confused an earlier part of the discussion with this part. Remember... We are not (at this point) trying to establish that Baptism saves. We trying to show that 1 Peter 3:21 is a passage from God's Word telling the church that Baptism is a gift. Whether Baptism actually does the thing God says it does, or not, is irrelevant. It doesn't have to save you. The fact that God says, "Baptism saves" is enough for the reader to recognize that Baptism is a gift.
I did not choose 1 Peter 3:21 because it is necessarily the best verse for the purpose. It is good, but I chose it because it had so recently been under such intense scrutiny on this blog. I think Matthew 28:16-20 does a better job of showing us that Baptism is a gift for the reasons I gave yesterday on my blog.
I would take issue with Matt Slick's analysis of 1 Peter 3:21. He makes some mistakes in logic and hermeneutics and then fails to bring his case across the finish line. At the end of the day the reader needs to ask himself: "Has Mr. Slick's analysis given me a license to change the meaning of Peter's words?" Do we now have permission to read, "Baptism now saves you," to mean, "Baptism now represents the salvation you already have by faith"? Or, are we at liberty to read it to mean, "A figurative, spiritual baptism -- WITHOUT ANY WATER -- now saves you"? That's the finish line Mr. Slick is trying to get to, but he fell short. Peter draws a line of comparison between the story of Noah's flood -- as a whole -- and the Baptism by which we were all received into the church. Tinkering with the typology on one side of the equation will not change any element on the other side. There is no variable on the "Baptism-now-saves-you" side of the equation. The variables are only on the Noah's flood side.
Again, I'm not trying to be rude or condescending to Mr. Slick, but he didn't finish his course.
Eric,
It's pretty telling that, when you quote 1 Peter 3:21 for the purposes of exegesis, you stick to only that tiny part of it - "Baptism now saves you" - w/o dealing with the rest of even the sentence.
I do not understand how you can say that. I have dealt with it IN CONTEXT at great length, including the dependent clause at the end of the verse. I disagree with your use of that clause on grammatical grounds, but disagreeing with you is not the same as ignoring something.
Specifically, you just said:
The fact that God says, "Baptism saves" is enough for the reader to recognize that Baptism is a gift.
That does not deal in very much depth with TUaD's question.
How do you mean?
"I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but your statement tells me that you have confused an earlier part of the discussion with this part. Remember... We are not (at this point) trying to establish that Baptism saves. We trying to show that 1 Peter 3:21 is a passage from God's Word telling the church that Baptism is a gift. Whether Baptism actually does the thing God says it does, or not, is irrelevant. It doesn't have to save you. The fact that God says, "Baptism saves" is enough for the reader to recognize that Baptism is a gift."
"I don't mean to be rude or condescending, but your statement tells me that you have confused an earlier part of the discussion with this part."
Honestly, I think you're the one who's confused.
"Remember... We are not (at this point) trying to establish that Baptism saves."
Are you kidding me?
This is the OP: "Gospel is Gospel. Baptism is baptism."
"We trying to show that 1 Peter 3:21 is a passage from God's Word telling the church that Baptism is a gift."
And although you have tried, you have not succeeded. It's actually been a miserable failure.
"Whether Baptism actually does the thing God says it does, or not, is irrelevant. It doesn't have to save you."
What???! You're like a drunk driver weaving all over the road. First you say that Baptism saves, and now you say Baptism doesn't have to save.
You're contradicting yourself in an unintelligent manner.
"The fact that God says, "Baptism saves" is enough for the reader to recognize that Baptism is a gift."
The fact is is that you have misread and misunderstood Scripture.
You're like a drunk driver weaving all over the road.
You know... If I had printed out my comment, taken a pair of scissors and cut each statement apart from all the rest, thrown these sentences into a paper bag and mixed them up, taken them out and tried to respond to each one individually... I would have come to the same conclusion you did.
(It's almost like a I have a window into your room... kinda spooky, eh?!)
:-)
Eric: "If I had printed out my comment, taken a pair of scissors and cut each statement apart from all the rest, thrown these sentences into a paper bag and mixed them up, taken them out and tried to respond to each one individually... I would have come to the same conclusion you did."
Ironically, and amusingly, that's actually what you did and continue to do to Scripture.
Let's just make a few transpositions so that you can see how it applies to you:
"If I had printed out passages of Scripture (like 1 Peter 3), taken a pair of scissors and cut each statement apart from all the rest, thrown these sentences into a paper bag and mixed them up, taken them out and tried to respond to each one individually... I would have come to the conclusion that (water) baptism saves."
;-)
Rho: "Eric,
It's pretty telling that, when you quote 1 Peter 3:21 for the purposes of exegesis, you stick to only that tiny part of it - "Baptism now saves you" - w/o dealing with the rest of even the sentence."
Rho, it's kinda like interpreting Scripture like this:
"You know... If I had printed out 1 Peter 3, taken a pair of scissors and cut each statement apart from all the rest, thrown these sentences into a paper bag and mixed them up, taken them out and tried to respond to each one individually...
I come up with "Water Baptism now saves you.""
"I think Matthew 28:16-20 does a better job of showing us that Baptism is a gift for the reasons I gave yesterday on my blog."
Eric, on your blog you wrote: "The person who came to baptize you was sent by the One to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given." Looking more carefully we see that the command was not, "Go baptize." The command was, "Go make disciples." Jesus presents Baptism to His apostles as a means to an end. What is that end? The making of disciples.
When we observe Baptism taking place, we see that it is not the work of the one who receives it. It is the work of the one who gives it. And when we look at Matthew 28 we see that it is not the work of the one who administers the water, but the work of the One who sent him. This Jesus is not an earthly king who can have you bathed and nothing more. He is the reigning Heavenly King, who, with one word (Gen.1:1-3), can make His Baptism a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of rebirth (John 3:5), of re-creation (2 Peter 3:5)."
Eric, give the following a good, long think:
"Matthew 28:19 states: “19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:”
This verse, which is part of the great commission by Jesus is very clearly not indicating that baptism is regenerative. A word study of the original Greek language indicates that the original word for teach is μαθητεύω. This word actually means to make a disciple.
Therefore, Jesus is ordering His disciples to go out and make other disciples, or lead others to salvation. Once each person has believed in Christ, than he is to be baptized. This command by Jesus does not in any way indicate that baptism is regenerate, but is something that each believer should do in order to obey Christ’s
commands. Within the context of this verse, it seems as if Jesus is ordering baptism as a
proclamation of a change. That the disciples are to go out and tell others the good news and when each person believes in Christ they are to be baptized which shows that they have been claimed by Jesus."
From: Here
Eric: "In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in [or into] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This takes concrete form when the pastor comes to you and says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." If we were to translate baptidzo, instead of transliterating it, we would say, "I wash you in the name of..." The pastor is not washing you for kicks. It's not because you have dirt on your face, or because he needs to find something to do on Sunday nights. He was sent to wash you. The words he speaks over you, he speaks on behalf of the One who sent him -- Jesus Christ. Those words are Christ's words. If Jesus is washing me, as He so clearly says that He is in Matthew 28:16-20, how can that be anything but a gift?
Also, did you notice how the text literally says that we are baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? Jesus is not saying merely that this washing is done by the authority of that name. That would be enough by itself to establish that this washing is a gift. But in addition Jesus is saying that this cleansing rite confers the Trinitarian Name to us. He is giving us His name in much the same way as a child receives the family name when he is adopted. You can agree or disagree, but don't miss the point. If God's Word says that I am baptized into the name of the Triune Godhead (notice the passive tense), then that baptism and the name that it confers are gifts. How could they be anything else?"
Eric, when you misread Scripture you'll have a mistaken understanding that has unfortunate consequences.
Pause a moment and read the following intently:
Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen (Matthew 28:19-20). We have here a command of Christ that we should make disciples of all nations, and instrumental in that task is the act of baptizing converts. In other words, baptism is part of making disciples. However, it does not say here that baptism is necessary for salvation. The same command also includes the clause "teaching them to observe all things" that Christ has commanded them. If we are to assume that baptism is essential to salvation, then by consistent interpretation of the context, we should say that absolute obedience to all of Christ's commands is also necessary for salvation.
(cont.)
But this, of course, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. Scripture tells us that no one, even the Christian, is without sin (I John 1:7-2:2). If, then, we are to say that believers who do not obey all of Christ's commands may be saved, then we may, unless some other text teaches otherwise, say that believers who are not baptized may also be saved.
Some argue, however, that this verse proves that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water. In support, reference is made to a marginal reading in the Revised Version which has "into" as the translation for "in the name of." But this certainly cannot prove the point: the Revised Version simply shows that this is one possible rendering of the phrase, while in fact the more accurate reading is simply "in." This rendering is chosen by the Authorized Version (King James), the Phillips Modern English Translation, the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the New International Version, and the Today's English Version. In addition, this is the primary meaning of the phrase (eis to onoma) in the Greek. A.T. Robertson, the greatest English-speaking Greek scholar of our century, makes no allowance for the possibility of translating this passage "into the name." [2] A comparison with Matthew 10:41-42 will show that such a translation of eis to onoma ("in the name") would make many of its uses meaningless. This does not prove that one gets "into Christ" by being baptized in water.
Matthew 28:19-20, therefore, does not prove the necessity of baptism for salvation, or for coming "into Christ."
From Here.
-------
"If God's Word says that I am baptized into the name of the Triune Godhead (notice the passive tense), then that baptism and the name that it confers are gifts."
Your "IF" fails. Ergo, Your "THEN" fails too.
Greater lesson... the Lutheran doctrine on baptism fails.
Eric: "If God's Word says that I am baptized into the name of the Triune Godhead (notice the passive tense), then that baptism and the name that it confers are gifts."
TUaD: Your "IF" fails. Ergo, Your "THEN" fails too.
Okay... Whatever... Translate that word as you prefer. It does not matter. My point remains. If you are baptized *in* the name of the Triune Godhead, then baptism is a gift. It is not something you do. It is something that is given to you. And it is not given by the pastor (though he is certainly active in the giving). It is given by the One who sent the pastor. It is given to you by the One in whose name the pastor gives it. You really cannot wiggle out of this one. The Bible is clear. Baptism is a gift given to you by God.
It is something that is given to you.
Just like circumcision is something that is given to you.
I guess circumcision is a gift too, and therefore can be added to the category of "works that aren't really works and that have been redefined as gifts".
Ditto with speaking in tongues - that's a gift.
So, so far we have, as necessary for salvation:
-faith
-baptism
-circumcision
-speaking in tongues
Not to fear, though - if we get in a bind we can just say that those things are also not necessary for salvation.
Rhology:
Let's grant for the moment that circumcision and speaking-in-tongues are gifts. How could anyone make the leap (the one that you're attributing to me) from saying that those things are gifts, to saying that they are necessary for salvation? I am not arguing that every gift, given by God, is "necessary for salvation." I am not even arguing that because Baptism is a gift, it is therefore necessary for salvation.
Acknowledging that Baptism is a gift is preparatory. It is not the finished edifice. It is foundational. It is a first step in coming to the realization that Baptism does not belong in the category of "works" as Paul uses that term in Eph 2:8 (and elsewhere). How can something that is given to us as a gift be rightly understood as something that we do for God? It can be wrongly understood that way, by Lutherans and Catholics no less than by Baptists. But that is an error.
There is nothing in God's Word that would necessarily lead us to conclude that Baptism is a work we do for God. Matthew 28:16-20 leads us, necessarily, to the conclusion that Baptism is something that God gives to us.
Yes, what I was saying is that I have simply copied you in "giftifying" things that are clearly works, such that I can then add them to the "it's OK if these are conditions for salvation" category in which you've put baptism.
How can something that is given to us as a gift be rightly understood as something that we do for God?
Great question. Ask it of circumcision and speaking in tongues.
There is nothing in God's Word that would necessarily lead us to conclude that Baptism is a work we do for God
There is nothing in God's Word that would necessarily lead us to conclude that circumcision or speaking in tongues is a work we do for God.
Eric: How can something that is given to us as a gift be rightly understood as something that we do for God?
Rhology: Great question. Ask it of circumcision and speaking in tongues.
See... Now you're just getting emotional.
It certainly would be possible to misconstrue circumcision and tongue talking as works we do for God. That strikes me as a very strange construction to put on these gifts. So, when I find someone making that argument, I will be sure to ask that question.
Can you explain what difference it makes one way or the other? If it could be proven that circumcision and tongue talking are "works of the law," and nothing else, would it have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that Baptism is a gift given to us by God?
Trust me, I'm not getting emotional. I'm running a reductio.
And it looks like you didn't go kicking and screaming into its implications - you ran to its embrace with full willingness.
It certainly would be possible to misconstrue circumcision and tongue talking as works we do for God.
YIKES.
So, just to be clear - those are not works?
Are they faith?
If it could be proven that circumcision and tongue talking are "works of the law," and nothing else, would it have any bearing whatsoever on the fact that Baptism is a gift given to us by God?
Yes, b/c you're recategorising baptism from work (which is what it is) to "gift", or "faith", or "Gospel" (which it's not).
I'm just doing the same thing with other things.
Let me ask you this - please name one work of the Law. Doesn't matter which; just one work which you are confident is a work-not-a-gift.
Eric,
I give you credit for responding to my earlier request to show "what Scripture verse says that "baptism is a gift"?".
You did the best you could with a losing case, offering up 1 Peter 3 and Matthew 28 as your supporting evidence. But your arguments were shown to be substantially and fatally flawed in these cases.
If you have other verses to offer up to prop up the claim that "baptism is a gift", go ahead.
Let me ask you this -- please name one work of the Law. Doesn't matter which; just one work which you are confident is a work-not-a-gift.
What makes something a "work of the law," as Paul uses that phrase in his epistles, is the expectation that by doing it (the phrase used during the Reformation was ex opere operato) one can earn favor with God. That could apply to Baptism, Communion, or Sabbath observance. It could apply to circumcision. It could apply to ANY "good work" -- that is to say, any work in harmony with the moral order of the universe established by God and revealed in His Word.
The temptation to this error is especially strong with baptism, with circumcision, with "the sinner's prayer," with "speaking in tongues," or with anything else that can be seen as a moment, a mark, or a rite of initiation. If we say that on account of that work or that sign I am entitled to salvation -- the wage of ________ is eternal life -- then we have turned it from a "gift" into a "work of the law," and we are in perilous error.
The fact that fallen, sinful human beings misuse the gifts of God does not change the nature of the gifts themselves. The fact that many are gluttons and drunkards does not make food and wine into something other than divine gifts intended for our blessed use to be received with joy and delight. In the same way, the fact that many regard their Baptism or their repentance as things they have done to merit salvation does not change the objective nature of Baptism or repentance from gift to work.
While ANY good work can be "work and not gift" in our subjective experience of it, there is NO good work that by its objective nature is only a "work and not gift."
(I apologize for the delay in responding. I was on vacation last week, and keyboards were strictly verboten.)
FWIW.
There is a post today called French Court Rules in Favor of De-Baptism.
A Lutheran, Steve Martin, says in the first comment:
“The slightest knowledge of baptism would inform them that they can walk away from their baptism any time they want.
One doesn’t need a court for that. I do it all the time.”
I reply in a later comment:
"Hmmmmm. Suppose a person was baptized as a Lutheran when he/she was young, even as young as an infant. Or baptized as a young teen-ager.
This baptized Lutheran then becomes an atheist/hindu/buddhist (take your non-Lutheran pick) and de facto rejects his/her baptism. (Or even announces a rejection of Christianity and the Sacraments therein). This baptized Lutheran dies an apostate. And then is in Hell for rejecting Christ.
Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?
Or no?"
---------
For the sake of assuming that baptism should be pictured as a gift, then the gift of baptism doesn't necessarily save someone in the end, does it?
It looks as though you have gotten a good deal of conversation on this subject at Cranach, so I will try to be brief.
1) There is no such thing as "Lutheran Baptism." For Christians there is only one baptism (Eph. 4:5) into Christ (Rom. 6:3, Matt. 28:19) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism is not denominated by our sects.
2) A person who resists the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51, Matt. 12:31), will spend eternity in hell -- whether that person has received Baptism or not.
Conclusion: His/her Lutheran baptism didn’t save him/her, did it? One can still go to Hell, after being baptized as a Lutheran, yes? Lutheran baptism doesn’t necessarily save, yes?
3) This a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow as a consequence of the premises. The fact that there are baptized people in hell -- and there ARE baptized people in hell -- does not prove that Baptism does not save. In fact, it doesn't even hint at that conclusion. That would be like saying the dead person was never saved by his doctor, because... he's dead. Pure nonsense! Such reasoning would be hilariously funny but for the fact that so many Baptists take it seriously.
4) (From the thread at Cranach) When Christians refer to Baptism as a gift, there is nothing metaphoric about that term. We do not mean to say that Baptism is like a gift, or that it represents a gift. The washing we receive in the Water and Word of Holy Baptism (Eph. 5:26) is itself a gift from God.
Eric: "The fact that there are baptized people in hell -- and there ARE baptized people in hell -- does not prove that Baptism does not save."
I'm glad you acknowledge this fact.
"In fact, it doesn't even hint at that conclusion."
The fact is that based on Lutheran terms, baptism sometimes saves sometimes, and sometimes baptism doesn't save.
"That would be like saying the dead person was never saved by his doctor, because... he's dead."
The analogy doesn't fit. No matter how much you try to make it fit. Think about it.
Typo above.
The sentence above should read:
The fact is that based on Lutheran terms, sometimes baptism saves, and sometimes baptism doesn't save.
Okay... Let's say that I'm a stranger on the street. You want to present the Gospel to me, my response is, "Thank's, but I'm already saved." What would you want to know if you were going to try to validate that claim? What sort of question or questions would you want to ask me?
"You want to present the Gospel to me, my response is, "Thank's, but I'm already saved." What would you want to know if you were going to try to validate that claim? What sort of question or questions would you want to ask me?"
Sir/Ma'am, please tell me more.
Tell you more about what? I'm saved. I'm going to heaven. What exactly do you want to know?
Eric: "Tell you more about what? I'm saved. I'm going to heaven. What exactly do you want to know?"
I truly hope and pray that you're right.
If you don't mind, please share with me why you think you're saved and going to Heaven.
If you do mind and you're too busy, God bless you. It's been nice talking with you.
This was not supposed to devolve into a role-playing game. It was a straightforward question. It deserved a straightforward answer.
What saved you? When the Holy Spirit says, "Baptism now saves you," and you blasphemously respond by saying, "No it can't do that;" what would you put in the place of Baptism to make God's Word true?
Finish the sentence, "_______ saves you."
Is it faith? Is it asking Jesus into your heart? Is it turning your life around? What is it?
Jesus saves me.
you blasphemously respond by saying, "No it can't do that;"
Actually, you said it can't do that. You said there are baptised ppl in Hell.
If you're in Hell, you're not saved. That's the definition of "not saved", isn't it?
Eric,
I ditto Rhology's answers.
Thanks Rho.
Eric: "What saved you? When the Holy Spirit says, "Baptism now saves you," and you blasphemously respond by saying, "No it can't do that;" what would you put in the place of Baptism to make God's Word true?
Finish the sentence, "_______ saves you."
Rhology/TUAD: "Jesus saves me."
Okay Eric, what say thee now?
I. Lutheran: "Baptism saves me."
vs.
II. Rhology/TUAD: "Jesus saves me."
II's better.
The person who is "not saved" is one who does not fear, love and trust in God above all things. He is not in fellowship with the Creator because he has made for himself some other god. This definition captures the essence of the Fall, and it applies equally well to any person in any epoch on either side of death's door.
We are all born in this condition, and this condition clings to us until we die -- whether we trust in Christ or not. We never fear, love, or trust in God perfectly so long as we are drawing breath. The life of the Christian is one of constant warfare against this old nature.
When you guys talk about being "saved," the term seems to be focused primarily the finish line. If a person makes it into heaven he's saved. Otherwise he's not. That is one way to talk about salvation. It is not the only way. I do not believe that is the way Peter means it when he writes that "Baptism... saves." He is talking about one of the instruments by which God intervenes in our lives, moves and acts on our behalf to bring us back into fellowship with Himself. I think that's what Peter means by "saves" because he is not writing to saints in heaven. He is writing to saints on earth. Those who are "saved" -- who are "in Christ" -- here in this present age.
The other way you two use the term "saved" is to refer to the moment of conversion. But the trouble with the Reformed tradition (and ALL Baptists are part of that tradition) is that it denies the efficacy of the external Word of God, and looks instead for an inward Call -- a direct, unmediated work of the Holy Spirit -- to bring a person to salvation once and for all. This inward call is not a clear or central teaching of Scripture, if it can be found there at all, and conversion is not really this sort of once and for all experience. It is an everyday experience. Lutherans "get saved" every Sunday -- not because the external Word of God is failing to save us, but because the Word of God is ever necessary to save us in this constant, life and death struggle against sin.
Eric: "He is not in fellowship with the Creator because he has made for himself some other god."
Very well could be. He could have made a false idol out of something. Maybe he even made a false idol out of a perceived "gift."
Imagine that. Making a false idol out of a gift and elevating it above the Giver.
Like making a false idol out of the "gift" of baptism.
Not good.
The person in hell is "not saved." That is true. It does not mean that God never did anything to save him. Nor does it necessarily mean that he was never, at any point in his life, "in Christ" or "saved." So whether a baptized person is in hell or not says as little about the efficacy of Baptism as asserting that there are unbaptized people in heaven. The question is whether God's efficacious Word is an external Word that comes to us by physical means, or whether it is an internal Word that comes to us by indiscernible means, if any.
TUAD,
You have a great fondness for cheap digs, but you refuse to really address the things presented to you. You skirt the perimeter and strike for pleasure, but you refuse to wrestle with the heart of the matter.
Yes, as I have said many times before, it is possible to make an idol out of Baptism. Happily you are not in any danger of doing that. But it is also possible to reject and blaspheme God's goodness and grace by judging His Word and scoffing at His gifts. Don't give yourself over to this latter sin.
Eric: "You skirt the perimeter and strike for pleasure, but you refuse to wrestle with the heart of the matter."
Patently untrue. In the original post, I completely endorse and affirm these statements by Rhology to Brigitte:
o "Gospel is Gospel. Baptism is baptism. It honestly really scares me when people talk like you're talking.
Baptism does not communicate that God is favorably disposed toward anyone. Regeneration does. They are not the same, and one can be present without the other."
o "What you say is scary, because you're equating something one does (baptism) with the Gospel. Doesn't get a whole lot scarier than that."
That's the heart of the matter, Eric. And the biblical refutation of the Lutheran theology of baptism/gospel is causing you to become emotionally overwrought.
Which is perhaps a good thing. Maybe the Holy Spirit is causing you to reject this aspect of Lutheran theology.
It does not mean that God never did anything to save him.
So God did save him and the man overrode God's work in his life.
Wow.
Nor does it necessarily mean that he was never, at any point in his life, "in Christ" or "saved."
Jesus said that His sheep will "never perish" - John 10:29.
Romans 8:29-30 is very clear that those who are justified are glorified.
Your position is no different from an Arminian, which is merely inconsistent works-salvation.
But we already knew that, from your constant focus on a work that man has to do (baptism) to be saved.
I'm a much bigger fan of Sola Fide than that.
"Emotionally overwrought"?
Let me be the first to admit that I have emotions. That is how God planned this thing called human being. You are over-reading emotions into the things I write, because it is a way of gaining an advantage over an enemy. But, yes, I do have emotions, and I do find these exchanges deeply disturbing. Not because you are shaking my confidence in the Word of God and what it clearly teaches about salvation and Holy Baptism, but because I have encountered racist Democrats on the Internet who are more thoughtful and gracious and straightforward in dialogue than the so-called "Christians" I've encountered on this site.
I have family who are Baptists, but mostly avoid theological conversation. I would love to have a dialogue with Baptists. I long for the kind of conversation where, in the end we may not agree, but we know that there has been fellowship with brothers in Christ. I feel a very deep sense of regret that this sort of conversation is not available on this site. I'm not asserting my purity or innocence, but I have not found Christian brothers here.
Rho,
Lutheranism is radically different from Arminianism in every respect. We are more distinct from the Reformed and their Arminian cousins than they are from each other.
Christians have two natures. We are 100% saint and 100% sinner. There is a war we must fight against the flesh. Calvinism assumes that after conversion the will of the Christian is captive to God's Will. There is a grain of truth in that. But I get to choose whether I will get out of bed on Sunday morning, and go to the place where I can receive the gifts that give me life and salvation. I can choose to indulge my flesh and thereby give aid to the Old Adam in me, who is constantly trying to drag me down to hell. There is nothing inherent in my nature that chooses Christ, but having been given the grace to desire His gifts, I still have the freedom to neglect or despise them. By God's grace I will not fall away, and I do not fear any unfaithfulness or lack in His grace; but I do retain the ability to fall away, because I am forever a son of Adam.
Man has to receive the Word of God in order to see his sin, see his Savior, and come back into right relationship with his Creator. Baptism is God's Word delivered to you. It speaks of your sin. It speaks of Christ's death and resurrection. It promises to bind you to Christ. In the words, "I baptize [wash] you," Jesus gives you a promise. You can take it to the bank. It is yours forever. Hold onto it. Don't let it go -- don't let the life this promise generates grow weak and fade away by indulging the flesh.
I do retain the ability to fall away
But, John 10:28-29 and Romans 8:29-30?
Eric: "I'm not asserting my purity or innocence, but I have not found Christian brothers here."
Clearly judgmental.
Rho, et al, has anyone here said that Eric is not a brother in Christ?
Eric: "Yes, as I have said many times before, it is possible to make an idol out of Baptism."
Eric, do you think some Lutherans, hopefully very few, have made an idol out of Baptism, particularly their own Baptism?
Eric's judgment, being so focused on the mechanics of God's work in the water, etc, seems a bit skewed when it comes to proper evaluation of who is and who isn't a brother in Christ, by grace alone thru faith ALONE, so I don't know if I mind too much his comment.
Hi Eric (and Brigitte),
Here's a scholarly article for your thoughtful consideration:
Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism
Hi Rho, et al,
What do you think of this conversational hypothetical:
Troubled parishioner: I know that God is utterly reliable. He always keeps his promises. I just don’t know if the promises are for me.
Pastor: But you hear the absolution every week, right?
TP: Sure, but how do I know that God is talking to me?
Pastor: You hear the absolution, right?
TP: Yes.
Pastor: That’s God’s word.
TP: Sure, but how do I know God is talking to me?
Pastor: You heard it. That means he’s talking to you. Believe what he says. Believe that He has forgiven you, and live your life as if you believed it. Besides, you’ve been baptized.
TP: Yeah, but a lot of people are baptized and don’t believe.
Pastor: Exactly.
TP: Then how can baptism be any help here?
Pastor: Your question is whether God had ever made promises to you personally. I’m saying there is absolutely no room for doubt on that point, since you were baptized. You received God’s mark and promise in baptism, not somebody else, not people in general. God promised to be your God. Questioning whether you ever received the promise is simply an act of unbelief. Suppose you get an invitation in the mail to an exclusive party at the governor’s mansion. You can’t believe that the governor would invite you, but the invitation is official. Refusing to go because you’re not sure the governor really wants you is not healthy skepticism. It’s distrust about the governor’s motives. If the invitation is real, then you received an invitation and the governor wants you to show up.
TP: But how can I know that I’m not one of those baptized people burning in hell?
Pastor: God promised you all blessings in Christ when you were baptized. You are supposed to believe God’s promises, and He keeps His promises.
TP: But he made promises to the people burning in hell too. What happened to them? Didn’t God keep His promises to them?
Pastor: God did make promises to them, but they didn’t trust the promises they were given. God told them they belonged to Him, but they said, “No, we don’t want to belong to you. We want to be our own men.” God said, “I forgive you sins,” but they said “We’d rather wallow in our guilt.” God said, “I offer you all blessings in Christ. Trust me, and you’ll have them,” but they said “We think we can find a better deal elsewhere.” They insulted God with their every breath, and they condemned themselves and were condemned to hell because they refused to trust the utterly trustworthy God.
TP: But how can I know that I’m not going to end up like that?
Pastor: You didn’t listen. You can know you won’t end up like that if you trust God. That’s what trusting God means. Trusting God means trusting Him to rescue you from hell, and from the various self-deceptions that lead to hell.
TP: But I know some people who said they were Christians, and then later stopped going to church, said they couldn’t believe anymore.
Pastor: Right. True faith is persevering faith. Whoever perseveres to the end will be saved.
(Continued)
TP: So, how can I know for sure that I’m not going to end up like that? How can I know that my faith is not self-deceived or temporary?
Pastor: The same way you know that you’re going to be delivered from hell, raised from the dead to a glorified body, live in fellowship with God forever. You trust God to save you from the vacillation of your own faith, you pray for a faith that lives and continues to the end, and you trust God to give you that gift. Look, it sounds as if you’re looking for some kind of knowledge that is different from, but more certain than, trust in God’s promises. You’re not content with believing the promises of God, but want to step outside your faith and examine it like some precious gem, for genuineness. But there’s nothing more certain than God’s promises, and there is no more certain kind of human knowledge than faith in those promises. Don’t try an end-run around faith; don’t look for a backdoor that will ensure you can get it. The front door’s open, God has invited you in; trust him and join the party.
TP: OK, I think I got it: God promises to save those who trust Him; I reflect on myself and see that I trust Him; therefore, I’m assured that I’ll be saved.
Pastor: That middle step is not a problem by itself, but it could lead to problems. You shouldn’t seek assurance in your own faith. Assurance is an aspect or a quality of faith, and saying that you gain assurance by looking at your faith is saying that you are assurance by your own assurance and that you are putting your trust in your act of trust. You don’t put your faith in faith; you put faith in God and His promises. Glancing at yourself in the mirror is OK, but don’t stay fixed at the mirror, asking whether your faith looks sufficiently strong. Glance in the mirror, but spend your time looking at, meditating on, hearing the promises that God has given in His word and in His sacraments. Hear them and believe them. And relax and have a beer.
What concerns me most about that convo is that I think it may reflect reality fairly closely and that the pastor didn't tell TP to go and sin no more, to make his calling and election sure, to live for Jesus.
Scriptural support infant Baptism is wide and deep. First we must look to how Jesus treated little children. Christ loved little children and scolded His disciples when they rebuked the children who were trying to come to Him. Instead He asked that the children be brought to Him and said that unless one had the faith of a little child, that they would not get into heaven—Mark 10:13-16; Matthew 18:3.
The fact that we have to have the faith of a little child proves that a little child is capable of having faith. Further, this faith is the work of God and therefore does not depend upon the capabilities of the child to understand or intellectualize it—Psalm 71:5-6; 22:9; 8:2, and Romans 9:15-16.
Christ also said that anyone who receives one little child in His name receives Christ Himself (Matthew 18:1-6, 10)—the same type of standard that He uses at the last Judgment to identify the believer (Matthew 25:31-40). Then He issues a stern warning to anyone who causes a little one who believes in Christ to sin (Mathew 18:6; Mark 9:42).
This becomes even stronger when one considers that in Luke 18:15-17, a parallel account of Mark 10:13-16, Christ uses the Greek word brephos (Strongs Number NT:1025; an infant, properly, unborn, literally or figuratively) referring to the children that belong to kingdom of God. This same word is used in Luke 1:41, 44 for an unborn child and later in Luke 2:12, 16 to refer to the infant Jesus.
Likewise, John the Baptist leapt in faith in his mother’s womb upon the entrance of Mary pregnant with the infant Jesus (Luke 1:15, 41). So John, as a yet unborn child still in his mother’s womb, was able to have faith.
Faith does not contain knowledge nor is there any necessity to have knowledge to have faith, but rather is a gift of God. If it were not so, then those who are in a coma, have Alzheimer’s disease, are developmental disabled or even while asleep would not have faith. In Mark 10:15 we are even warned not to let reason get in the way of faith (see also II Timothy 3:7).
So Baptism is God’s means of extending grace to children [and others] who are incapable of understanding otherwise what the Word of God says and thus come to faith by hearing (Titus 3:5; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21). This, then, gives fresh meaning to the concept that we become children of God through faith (Galatians 3:26-27).
To summarize, we are under a command to baptize “all nations” which does not limit age (Matthew 28:19-20). All are conceived in sin and in need of salvation through faith in Christ (Psalm 51:5). Children are specifically included as recipients of the benefits of Baptism (Acts 2:38-39). [The word “children” in this passage in Greek is teknon NT 5043 from the base of GSN5098; a child (as produced). It always means children and is not meant to mean generations.]
Therefore, we baptize infants with His promise of salvation (Romans 6:3). It is one Baptism of water & Word (Ephesians 4:5) through which the infant receives the promised Spirit in all fullness (Acts 2:38-39) which results in rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).
This Baptism is by one Spirit given to drink into one body in Christ (I Corinthians 12:13). All of the blessings that Baptism offers to the adult are then also offered to our children (Acts 2:38-39), so even babies can, through the washing of water and Spirit, have faith created in their hearts to receive those blessings (John 3:5) and free them from the condemnation of their sinful nature.
Post a Comment