LCMS

The passage you quote does not refer to sacrament of Holy Baptism. It is assumed in the Lutheran church that the catechumens have already been baptized. Luther is saying that a Christian must be instructed before he can be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion.

Luther does not deny that a person can be a Christian without baptism. He does deny that a person can be a Christian without the Word.

For even those who believe before Baptism, or become believing in Baptism, believe through the preceding outward Word, as the adults, who have come to reason, must first have heard: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, even though they are at first unbelieving, and receive the Spirit and Baptism ten years afterwards. 8] Cornelius, Acts 10, 1ff , had heard long before among the Jews of the coming Messiah, through whom he was righteous before God, and in such faith his prayers and alms were acceptable to God (as Luke calls him devout and God-fearing), and without such preceding Word and hearing could not have believed or been righteous. Smalcald Articles

This is the public testimony of Luther, the LCMS, and all Lutherans.

 

Hi John,

Of course it is assumed they had been baptized, which was precisely Luther's point. Without being catechized, which culminated in baptism, Luther was claiming no one could be a Christian.

This is because Luther believed, as do all baptismal regenerationists, that it is truly in baptism that one receives all that Christ provides for salvation. In his treatise on the sacrament of baptism, he states plainly how a new life is wrought in baptism (not before it):

...so one is drawn out of baptism and is born spiritually. Through this spiritual birth he is a child of grace and a justified person. Therefore sins are drowned in baptism, and in place of sin, righteousness comes forth.

Just how can one be a Christian before baptism, John, if he has yet to become a child of grace, justified, and forgiven of all sins, all of which according to Luther occurred in baptism?

To understand Luther's views on baptism, you must also understand his view on faith. Faith to Luther wasn't to just simply believe on Christ, but to believe that in baptism one receives the treasure of Christ – salvation and new life. He makes this plain in his Large Catechism, on the section pertaining to baptism:

But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

I always get a kick out of modern Protestants (the non-Catholic kind, anyway) when I hear them appeal to Luther and sola fide, as if what he believed about faith resembles anything close to what they now hold as their belief. In any event, the above demonstates for us that for Luther true faith is that which believes what Christ is able to accomplish through baptism. Thus when faith and baptism combine, it brings forth a new life – a Christian life. Previous to this, however, according to Luther, one is still dead in all his sins, unjustified, without the grace of salvation. That, sir, is not descriptive of a Christian, now is it?

Luther does not deny outrightly that an unbaptized person cannot be a Christian, but if you honestly look at what he teaches about baptism you cannot come to any other conclusion. Given the fact he believed that everything Christ had to give for salvation was contained in or provided throuh baptism, consider how his own definition of a Christian implies that baptism makes a Christian:

Therefore, if you wish to consider the word in its true meaning, you must identify a Christian by the fact that he only receives something from Christ, and has Christ within him; for this is what the word properly means. Sermon for the 24th Sunday after Trinity

So I ask you again: if, according to Luther's theology, what Christ offers and provides can only be obtained in baptism, and in baptism the believers receives of God's grace, then on what grounds do you, and all other Lutherans, possibly claim an unbaptized person can be a Christian?

SchracktheBaptist

 

Dead men do not respond. And God does not hear the prayers of the dead. Luther's point is that Cornelius was righteous, reborn, justified by faith of Christ alone before he was baptized. Peter preached the Word and baptized Cornelius lest his heart be hardened and he fall from grace. Preaching and baptism are not works we perform to please God but gracious gifts God is pleased to give us.

 

SchracktheBaptist,

Did Luther believe that no one can be Christian without be baptized or without being catechized or both? Make up your mind.

All of which does indeed occur through the Word without the desired Baptism:

the word of God is the greatest, most necessary, and most sublime part in Christendom--for the sacraments cannot exist without the word, but indeed the word can exist without the sacraments, and in an emergency one could be saved without the sacraments (as for example, those who die before receiving the desired baptism) but not without the word (Luther's Works, vol. 38, p. 189).

I always get a kick out of Baptists who think they understand Luther after reading a few passages that have been taken out of context. Modern Lutherans do not agree with every thing Luther wrote but we all subscribe unconditionally to every statement of doctrine in Luther's Small and Large Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles:

What is Baptism?--Answer.Baptism is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God's command and connected with God's Word.
Which is that word of God?--Answer.Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
What does Baptism give or profit?--Answer.It works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.
Which are such words and promises of God? Answer.
Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Mark: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
How can water do such great things?--Answer.It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. .
What does such baptizing with water signify?--Answer.It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever.Where is this written?--Answer.St. Paul says Romans, chapter 6: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Small Catechism

I have quoted from Luther's words in opposition to your interpretation of Luther's theology. Since you persist in distorting Luther's words, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.

[ April 23, 2004, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Hi again John,

Actually, what you posted above is the standard Catholic exception to the rule, to which Luther naturally subscribed as a Catholic himself. So no, I did not distort Luther's view one bit. In Luther's world, the normal state of things is that baptism made the Christian.

So I ask the question again which you did not answer:

If, according to Luther's theology, what Christ offers and provides can only be obtained in baptism (as the normal state of things, and not in the case of exceptions), and in baptism the believers receives of God's grace, then on what grounds do you, and all other Lutherans, possibly claim an unbaptized person can be a Christian?

SchracktheBaptist

 

The question has been answered, Shrack, you just didn't like the answer.

Yes Luther's writings were affected by his world view, because during his time it was safe to say everybody reading his writings had been baptized as a child. In that case all catechumins would have been baptized prior to catechisis, which took place to prepare them for joining in fellowship at Holy Communion.

Luther taught that people recieve God's grace through means. The means of grace included Word, Baptism, Holy Communion, and Absolution. All of which convey God's gospel message that we are forgiven and made anew in Jesus Christ. And none of the Means of Grace exist outside of the presence of the word.

Yes we by nature assume that a Christian is a baptized Christian, because why would anybody who is a Christian not want to recieve God's free gift?

 

If this is what you believe, then by Bible definition, you are not saved. Water in no way regenerates a person in any way whatsoever. It does not put you in the body of Christ. The early Fathers such as Paul and Peter did not teach this. You can be under the water all you want, but you need to be under the blood, which is by faith. Born again by faith in the Word of God(1Pet.1:23; Jn.1:12). BTW, a Baptist was considered a Baptist by believing what is known as the "Baptist distictives". To believe the five points outlined under these distintives was considered to be Baptist. Polycarp, one of John's disciples, was clearly one with Baptist beliefs. This is way before the Luthern Church, or the reformation. They were not called Baptist, but they had Baptist beliefs.

 

Hi Chemnitz,

And that was why I refuted his answer, because it only pertained to those who fell under the exception to the rule. Under the normal mode of things, baptism is supposed to bring forgiveness, regeneration, and justification. And, as you yourself said:

So this is precisely my point. If your belief is that a person receives in baptism the gift of God, then to be consistent you cannot call an unbaptized person a Christian because he has yet to receive anything from Christ. Let us look again at the words of Martin Luther who identified how a Chrisitan gets to be called a Christian:

Therefore, if you wish to consider the word in its true meaning, you must identify a Christian by the fact that he only receives something from Christ, and has Christ within him; for this is what the word properly means.

These are the words of your leader. Are you saying that you don't agree with him on this major theological issue? Because if that is the case, you need to leave the Lutheran church and become soemthing else that more closely resembles your beliefs.

SchracktheBaptist

 

From Luther's Sermon for the 24th Sunday after Trinity:

"Now this is preached and submitted to the whole world, that they may learn to know this man aright, and to know how to become Christians, not how to become good and innocent. Other doctrines outside of the Gospel, like the books of the heathen masters, insist that the people should through them become good; again, the legends of the saints especially insist that the people are to live as the saints lived. To make good people does not belong to the Gospel, for it only makes Christians. It takes much more to be a Christian than to be pious. A person can easily be pious, but not a Christian. A Christian knows nothing to say about his piety, for he finds in himself nothing good or pious. If he is to e pious, he must look for a different piety, a piety in some one else.
To this end Christ is presented to us as an inexhaustible fountain, who at all times overflows with pure goodness and grace. And for such goodness and kindness he accepts nothing, except that the good people, who acknowledge such kindness and grace, thank him for it, praise and love him, although others despise him for it. This is what he reaps from it. So one is not called a Christian because he does much, but because he receives something from Christ, draws from him and lets Christ only give to him. If one no longer receives anything from Christ, he is no longer a Christian, so that the name Christian continues to be based only on receiving, and not on giving and doing, and he receives nothing from any one except from Christ alone. If you look at what you do, you have already lost the Christian name. It is indeed true, that we are to do good works, help, advise and give to others; but no one is called a Christian by reason of that, nor is he on that account a Christian.
Therefore, if you wish to consider the word in its true meaning, you must identify a Christian by the fact that he only receives something from Christ, and has Christ within him; for this is what the word properly means. Just as a person is called "white," because of his white color, black because of his dark color, large because of his size. So also one is called a "Christian" because of Christ, who dwells in him and from whom he receives his blessings. So, if one is called a Christian because of Christ, he is certainly then not called a Christian because of his works. From this it also follows that no one is called a Christian by reason of his good works. If this be true, as it undoubtedly is, then it must follow that our orders and sects do not belong under the Christian name, and they do not develop Christians.
Therefore they are deceivers, who preach or teach in the church, and occupy themselves with commandments, works and statutes, that accomplish nothing. Although they pretend to be Christians, nevertheless they still, under this name, attempt to burden and torment us with their commands and works. By reason of my works I may well be called one who fasts, one who prays, or a pilgrim, but not a Christian. If you were to weave all your works together, and add to them all the works of others, you would still not have Christ, and from these things you could not be called a Christian. Christ is something different and higher than law and the commandments of men. He is the Son of God, who is ready alone to give and not to receive. If I am so wise as to take what he offers, I have him, and if I have him I am then justly called a Christian. Thus you have the distinction as to what a Christian is and what Christ is."

 

Chemnitz,

Schrack has again taken a passage out of context in order to twist Luther's words beyond recognition. Luther is really speaking of the Christian life of sanctification, "So one is not called a Christian because he does much, but because he receives something from Christ, draws from him and lets Christ only give to him.If one no longer receives anything from Christ, he is no longer a Christian, so that the name Christian continues to be based only on receiving, and not on giving and doing, and he receives nothing from any one except from Christ alone. If you look at what you do, you have already lost the Christian name. It is indeed true, that we are to do good works, help, advise and give to others; but no one is called a Christian by reason of that, nor is he on that account a Christian."

I plan to ignore Schrack's future posts.

 

Hi John,

Just how did I take that quote out of context? If anything, I put Luther's words in context for you.

in that quote above Luther is telling you expressly why a Christian is called a Christian–because he receives from Christ and not what any person does himself. And according to Luther's doctrine, all that one can receive from Christ comes by way of baptism. Therefore, the natural conclusion is that according to Lutheran doctrine, baptism makes the Christian rather than the Christian being made for baptism.

I suppose you can ignore any future post of mine, but all that really tells me is that you are unable to answer my question. Thanks for the discussion anyhow, and sorry to see it end like this.

SchracktheBaptist

 

I guess I'll play Devil's (I mean Luther's ) advocate on this interesting thread. Let me state again I am opposed to baptismal regeneration theology

Schrack stated something that caught ny eye,


1. in that quote above Luther is telling you expressly why a Christian is called a Christian–because he receives from Christ and not what any person does himself.

Actually Luther was refuting WORK SALVATION in that sermon and those who were justifying themselves on their works rather than by Grace. There is nothing we do in Salvation. That is the heart of Reformed Theology be it Lutheran or Calvinist. Even our faith is a gift wrought in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

The Lutheran emphasis on looking back to one's baptism could lead the person to look to the Water and not Jesus. I think that was Psalms 145 testimony. Luther was wrong on baptismal regeneration yet at the same time even Protestants who disagreed with baptismal regneration would also question the eternal salvation of those who refused baptism.

I believe the Anabaptist Menno Simmons said it well,


Baptism saves us, like Peter teaches. We are saved not through outward literal baptism, but through inward, spiritual baptism that leads us like obedient children through the power of faith into the outward baptism of water.

Christ's sheep hear his voice. True Christians believe and do. If you are a genuine Christian born of God, then why do you draw back from water baptism?

 

I suppose that would be possible if one believed that the outward act of baptism saves us. Lutherans look back to their baptism because in the faith of Christ we grasp the promise of salvation, "We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as He was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Rom. 6:10

A baptist preacher once asked me to list everything I needed to do get to heaven. My answer was nothing. He said "I agree. All we have to do is accept Christ." I replied, "No, we don't agree. There is one thing on your list and nothing on my list."

He said that other Lutherans had listed baptism. I responded, "You asked what I needed to do."

 

"A baptist preacher once asked me to list everything I needed to do get to heaven. My answer was nothing. He said "I agree. All we have to do is accept Christ." I replied, "No, we don't agree. There is one thing on your list and nothing on my list."

He said that other Lutherans had listed baptism. I responded, "You asked what I needed to do." "


I like that one

"Therefore, the natural conclusion is that according to Lutheran doctrine, baptism makes the Christian rather than the Christian being made for baptism."

Ummm... No. You missunderstand the concept of Means of Grace. It is by any of the means of Grace one can recieve Christ and the Means include Word, Baptism, and Holy Communion. In any of these means of Grace we recieve everything that Christ has to offer us.

Luther would agree that Baptism makes the Christian but not for the reasons that have been stated. Baptism makes the Christian only because God acts through the water and the Word of Baptism to create faith and/or to build and sustain it.

 

If the plan of salvation started with repentance, *water baptism,* for the remission of sins, and the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost, why would it be any different today?

Has the plan of salvation changed for the Gentiles?

Everyone seems to believe in repentance, and receiving the Holy Ghost, but some want to leave out water baptism...why is that?

MEE

 

Bump!

Still curious...

 

This is the fallacy of the Lutheran church. The difference between what this Baptist said, and what John Gilmore said, is nothing more than semantics.

In the Lutheran view, "receiving Christ" is something that happens to you, without anything on your part whatsoever. In other words, salvation is "thrust" upon you. The problem with this is, the natural conclusion is that salvation is thrust upon you, whether you want it or not.

This is the further clarification of the fallacy. Not only is salvation thrust upon you, but you must walk into (or, in the case of infant baptism, have someone put you into) the water to receive the means.

This is necessarily a direct contradiction of what John Gilmore said. By that I mean, how can John's answer be "nothing" when one must place themselves in the water in order to receive grace?

The Baptist, on the other hand, fully understands that there is absolutely nothing--including walking into water--that will save you or impart grace unto you. The simple case of semantics here is the difference between "accept" and "receive". The Lutheran says salvation is received, the Baptist says salvation is accepted. The Lutheran says this constitutes a conscious act, while the Baptist says that stepping into water to receive grace is a conscious act.

Accepting/receiving salvation is a conscious act. When the jailer asked, what must I do to be saved, Paul answered, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The book of John says "whosoever believeth shall be saved." God said, "whosoever believeth on him shall not perish."

The Lutheran view is that belief is imparted upon the infant during baptism. The imparting of grace is not mentioned in the Bible without first believing on Him who saved us through His sacrifice on the cross.

 

It is interesting. The same question was asked of Paul. Acts 16

29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 and after he brought them out, he said, ""Sirs, what must I do to be saved?''


And the same was asked of Christ..
Matt 17
16 And someone came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?"

It is interesting that in neither case was the answer "nothing".

Maybe they got it wrong.

Christ makes an interesting statement in Matt 7 and is starts with 21 "" Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven...

In every case the "nothing part" is missing or it is flatly contradicted.

Did they just not understand?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions. Mark 7:22

Christ did tell the man he could merit grace by doing everything the law requires. But the man went away grieved because he could not fulfill the law.

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Act 16:31

Paul and Silas didn't tell the jailer to do anything. Faith is a gift not a work. As Paul says, "Not of works less any man should boast."