This is one of those posts you might want to skip over. It's more of a way for me to lay out some thoughts than an intentional blog post, but unless I write something with the idea of it being for a wider audience, I get lazy and don't put the effort into it that I should.
I've been talking on blogs and discussion boards with some Christians, and several of them are Lutheran and Roman Catholic sites. One of the things this has gotten me to mulling over and studying is Baptism. I had studied and come to an understanding of Baptism years ago, but never had it challenged. While nothing has changed it, it has been fleshed out and strengthened by the challenges. Even when an idea isn't correct, it can still help to refine and clarify other ideas.
Luther's Small Catechism (SC) gives his explanation of Baptism (I've summarized here) Baptism is not just getting dunked in water, but being dunked along with faith and God's Word. Remember, this definition of Baptism isn't just the water, it is the water combined with faith and God's Word. It took me a while to figure this definition of Baptism out. But once Baptism is said to be dunking with faith and God's work, there's no problem: if someone has faith and is dunked, of course they are saved. Unfortunately this isn't what is meant.
What is meant is that the full Baptism is required to be saved. Someone being convicted of their sin, repenting, and placing their faith in Christ isn't saved until he is Baptized in water. It is the faith and repentance
combined with the water Baptism which saves, according to Luther.
As great a theologian as Luther was, he wasn't without baggage or error. His initial theological teaching was from the Roman Catholic Church, and though he rightly condemned many of their errors, there seem to be several ideas that persisted from his RCC teachings even though they had scant to no Biblical support. Among a couple others, his views of Baptism never divorced themselves from some of the underlying concepts of the RCC church, in this case, that the water itself is necessary for salvation.
Start with the Augsburg Confession (AC): "Of Baptism they teach that it is
necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace." (emphasis mine) There are other quotes that more definitely state that baptism is a requirement, but this one catches both baptismal requirement and infant baptism, so I'm using this one.
In "necessary to salvation" he included the entire ceremony of water along with the faith and God's grace, and that the ceremony itself imparted faith and grace. His larger work, the Book of Concord, goes into it a lot of further, specifically into the practice of infant baptism in
Article 9: Of Baptism.
The first thing that jumped out at me was the lack of support given; it's mostly a this-is-the-way-it-is statement. Second was the dearth of scriptural support compared to other, much more solidly Biblical areas. Articles 1,2,3,4,5 are replete with referenced scripture and reasoning straight from them. Baptizing children and baptism being necessary for salvation in article 9 has only one small segment of a verse given as support. The main statement is "
For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children" with a later follow up of "
Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ's command, Matt. 28,19: 'Baptize all nations'. Just as here salvation is offered to all, so Baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with Baptism, salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered."
There is no problem saying Baptism brings salvation if Baptism being understood as water, faith and God's grace. The problem comes when saying the whole of Baptism is
required for salvation. The thief on the cross was certainly never baptized. Cornelius was not baptized before he received the Holy Spirit. The crowds in Acts 3&4 were not baptized (at that time) and yet were considered part of the body of believers. The part of Baptism that brings God's gift of salvation is the faith and repentance of the baptized, not the Baptism itself. It is only faith which saves us. (John3:15-16; John3:36; John5:24; John6:40-47; Acts3:19; Acts10:43; Acts16:30-31; Acts20:20-21; Rom1:16; Rom3:22; Rom10:9 and MANY more)
How then can an infant's "Baptism" work if there is no faith and repentance? Short answer it doesn't. The three replies given by different Lutherans are 1) "How do you know the infant doesn't have faith in Christ? They have faith in their mothers, why not in Christ?", 2) "Faith is imparted to the infant through the Baptism by God's grace.", and 3) "Entire households were baptized, including infants, so we should baptize infants too even if we don't understand why." (these are all direct quotes from people)
The first is pretty silly, the entire basis of a doctrine is now not Biblical, but rather "A baby
might be able to believe!" Perhaps, but is that what we're supposed to base a doctrine upon, and how can you tell if a baby believes or not? And what about the babies who are sleeping or screaming bloody murder through the "Baptism"? Even though they are screaming angry, can't understand language to hear of Christ, and certainly don't understand repentance or sin, they are still assumed to somehow have faith in Christ???
The second sounds like it may have a Biblical foundation, after all, there are dozens of places that closely tie salvation and Baptism. "Repent and be Baptized", "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name...", "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But these never say that the Baptism puts faith into anyone, rather the faith is already there when a person is Baptized. Taking a minority of verses that put baptism along with faith while ignoring the majority of verses that state one only must have faith is wrong. Verses should never be ignored, but they should always be understood as part of all of scripture.
And the third is similar to the first - basing a major piece of on an assumption that there were infants in the household is ridiculous. Especially when the results of that assumption fly in the face of the rest of the Bible.
There's also a fourth which was mentioned, but I've only heard of it, so I can't say what it is in detail, but it goes something like this: Baptism is the New Testament equivalent of circumcision, and children were circumcised on the 8th day, so we should baptize our children. What support there is for this, I don't know, but it sounds shaky. When the apostles were dealing with the Jewish believers trying to force circumcision on the gentile believers, the apostles never said anything about infant baptism, though it would have been the perfect time to say so. (If anyone knows anything about this argument in depth, I'd love to hear it.)
... And this is getting really long. I realize I've only spoken of errors about Baptism, but not of what Baptism is and why the Bible commands it, nor what the Bible intends when it uses verses which people use to say baptism is necessary. I'll put the rest up soon unless I get too many complaints about long, boring posts. I also don't want to be thought of picking on Lutherans, it's just that they provide a clear example of an error. I guess it's a back-hand compliment because most of the other holders of this doctrine are much less clear about why they hold it. (Roman Catholics, Cornerstone, and Church of Christ all have muddled reasons at best).
