Lutheran Christening

Excelent question!

Colossians 2:12 "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Notice that he says "you were raised with Christ in baptism." (para) In other words, he places the point of the rebirth in baptism.

John 3:5 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of H2O and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Titus 3:5 "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,"

So, it is not the water that saves, but the working of God that takes place while you are as yet in the water. That is, that while the minister is immersing a believer in water, the Holy Spirit is spiritually resurrecting them and regenerating them. [BTW: regeneration & rebirth are equivalent terms.]

1 Pet 3:21 "and this water [of Noah's flood] 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,"

That baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ means that we are resurrected spiritually in it by that same power that Christ was raised with as Col 2:12 says. Furthermore, it is not the mere application of water that saves, but it is the appeal of a believer to God for a clean conscience which appeal is answered by the remission of sins which is received in baptism according to Acts 2:38.

1 Pet 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,"

This does not mean that when Jesus was resurrected I was reborn, but that something intimately connected with Christ's resurrection affects my rebirth. What is that? It is baptism!

Rom 6:4 "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
Rom 6:5 "For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection,"

 

Again I say, baptism has nothing to do with salvation. People like to use Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There was a question that was asked by the people in Acts 2:37 - Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
They did not ask, "what shall we do to be saved." Why did they ask "what shall we do?" They obviously heard something as it indicates in the first 5 words of Acts 2:37. What did they hear? They heard the Gospel - Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
They believed what the Apostles were saying because (1) Jews require a sign, 1 Cor 1:22, (2) Tongues was a sign, 1 Cor 14:22, (3) They heard the Word of God, Romans 10:17. Therefore the people accepted and believed the Gospel that was being preached. SO, if I may paraphrase, the people realized that they had just murdered Christ, SO, they asked, "what shall we do now."
Peter then says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This analogy follows Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

The thing I find amazing about this is, the same people that murdered Christ were gloriously saved by Christ. Amen and Amen!

 

Perhaps your argument about Acts 2:38 would hold up if 1 Pet 3:21 and Colossians 2:12 weren't in the Bible. Did you even read my post? Be honest! It is clear that baptism saves by the resurrection of Christ, that is that it saves because the believer is spiritually resurrected in it...thus it is the point of regeneration. All of this I explained in that last post and it is irrefutable.

 

Sola --

Your post makes me think. If you believe, as you do, that baptism really and truly works ex opere operato, and that in being baptized you encounter Christ, then why do you have such a hard time with the rest of the Sacraments of the Faith working that same way?

Why should it be that Christ limit Himself to only meeting with us in this one?

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,

Brother Ed

 

CC, I'm not up to speed on Latin - what does ex opere operato mean? and what sacraments are you talking about?

 

It means you can recieve the benifits of the sacrament just by going through the motions or by being present when they are done.

 

Is that what you mean by it, CC?

[ May 10, 2003, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Sorry. Thought you knew that phrase. Rather common in evangelical discussions/arguments over the Sacraments.

It translated thusly: by the doing it is done.

Here is a definition from an Internet search. Seems good to me:

The historic Roman Catholic view of the way sacraments are effective is that they operate ex opere operato ("from the work done"). This position became official at the Council of Trent (1545 - 63). Canon VIII of the seventh session opposed the view that "grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace." The condition for the recipient is only that one does not place an obstacle (obex, sinful act or disposition) against the sacrament's administration. Grace is given by God when the sacrament is conferred rightly by the church. This ex opere operato working makes the sacraments unique conductors of divine grace.

The Reformers rejected this view. Calvin said it contradicted the nature of the sacraments. Protestants have stressed the need for faith to be present in the recipient for a sacrament to have validity. Sacraments are the instruments used by God to confirm the word of his promise to those who believe.

My way of saying it would be that what is being symbolized in the Sacraments, such as baptism, is also really and truly happening. Thus, when one is baptized PROPERLY (i.e. immersed in line with Romans 6:3) it not only pictures our union with Christ in death, burial, and resurrection, it also accomplishes those same things.

Thus, when I see you insisting that baptism really does the work of bringing a person into the kingdom and giving them the forgiveness of sins, you are stating your belief that baptism does exactly what it is symbolizing. I was wondering why it is so hard to believe that Jesus could be in all 7 of the Catholic/Orthodox Sacraments and accomplishing His will in/with us.

Hope that helps.

Brother Ed

 

That I agree with. But the idea that baptism can do anything without faith is certainly nonsense - Colossians 2:12 "buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." The plain sense of those words is that this spiritual resurrection of the believer would not occur without the faith in the operation of God. Also in 1 Peter 3:21, Peter plainly teaches that the faith of the one being baptized is necessary to its having any saving power, and not only their faith, but also their viewing it as an "appeal to God for a clean conscience" or in otherwords, their acknowledging that baptism is for the remission of sins or that remission of sins is recieved in it (which is obviously what he means when he calls it the appeal for a clean conscience).

Indeed I am, yet I must clarify that I am not saying that the human act itself does any of these things. The human act is necessary, but it is God's work ocurring simultaneoulsy with the human act that actualy regenerates the believer and puts them in the kingdom, remits their sins. That is why Colossians 2:12 says that it is "through faith in the operation [working] of God." I would not (as many do) pretend that God will do this work without the human act; It is only when we obey and submit to this act that He performs this work.

Rather than "by the doing it is done" I would say "when a believer does the outward act God does the inward work." It is not the act alone without faith that saves, but the act with faith in the promise that God has made concerning what He will do in the act. Therefore it is what He does that saves, yet the act and faith are necessary. Thus in Titus 3:5, Paul says "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit," rather than "we saved ourselves by being dunked under water."

Now, concerning the other things which Catholics call sacraments (I have heard so many different definitions of sacrament given by Catholics that I'm not really sure what it means. I think in Latin it means "holy act" or something close to that, but it is generally taken by Catholics to mean something that must be done by/with a priest, thus even marriage is not valid unless the priest perform it. Am I right?):

Anyways, I'm going to tell you what I think about the Catholic view on these, and you tell me if I've misrepresented it or wot not.

Concerning the communion, there is a marked difference between the following two statements:

(1) "The bread which we break, is the communion of the body of Christ." (para, Paul)

(2) "If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species [outward appearance] Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)

I believe you will readily admit that nowhere did Christ ever say "this is My body SUBSTANTIATED" and nowhere did Christ ever say "the substance of the bread is absolutely gone." Surely you will not pretend that He said these things at the last supper? So, in not believing the Catholic transubstantiation I am not denying that a Christian has communion/fellowship with Christ in the supper, but I am rather denying the manmade definition and restraints that have been put on it. Christ never said that the fruit of the vine would substantiate into His blood, nor indeed could it, for it is and was then a sin to consume blood - read Lev 17 & Acts 15.

As to confession, John plainly declares that when we confess our sins the blood of Christ cleanses our sins. (1 Jn 1:7-9) Thus, the Hebrew writer could say in Hebrews 10:26+ that for those who "persist in wilfull sin" (i.e. do not repent & confess) "there remains no more sacrifice" or in otherwords, Christ's blood no longer cleanses them unless they finally repent & confess. He does not, however, say that confession must be to a priest, nor is such a thing as a Christian priest found in the New Testament except for the priesthood of all believers. Furthermore, he does not say that this nonexistant priest will dish out a penence of Hail Marys or absolve the sin - he says, rather that Christ's blood will cleanse it.

Concerning "confirmation," as I understand it, it is merely when those who were baptized as infants "confirm" that they believe and wish to live as Christians. Hebrews 8:11 says that no one in the New Covenant will need to be taught "know the Lord" for they will all know the Lord PRIOR to entering the New Covenant. This verse shows that none may enter the Covenant by baptism without knowing the Lord, which means that infant baptism is invalid. And, if infant baptism be invalid, confirmation disappears.

Concerning holy orders, I have nothing to say except that I do not believe in transubstantiation and thereby do not see any need for a "sacrament" the purpose of which is to transfer the magical ability to transubstantiate the bread into the body of Christ. Certainly, elders are to be ordained, but this is no sacrament in the Catholic sense and no magical powers are transfered.

Concerning the unction, I'm thinking that the Eastern Orthodox may view it differently from the Romans. I don't see any need to perform a last ritual on someone to prepare them for death. Nowhere is such a thing spoken of in the New Testament. If, however, the unction is performed to raise up the sick...what can I say against that?

Concerning marriage, I have no idea how you can even call it a sacrament (in the Catholic sense of the word) since Paul plainly shows that the marriages of the heathen are legitimate in the place concerning those who were married while heathens and then became Christians - he does not doubt that their marriage was legitimate when they were heathens. 1 Cor 7:12

[ May 11, 2003, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Indeed I am, yet I must clarify that I am not saying that the human act itself does any of these things. The human act is necessary, but it is God's work ocurring simultaneoulsy with the human act that actualy regenerates the believer and puts them in the kingdom, remits their sins. That is why Colossians 2:12 says that it is "through faith in the operation [working] of God." I would not (as many do) pretend that God will do this work without the human act; It is only when we obey and submit to this act that He performs this work.

I would certainly agree with what you have said. To state that one might be baptized without faith and have the Sacrament work is not a sensible statement to me. That is the same as the Hindu who "baptizes" himself in the Ganges River. Nothing happens, for there is no faith in Christ associated with this act.

However, in a Christian baptism, there is faith present. Faith in Christ and His redeeming work.

Rather than "by the doing it is done" I would say "when a believer does the outward act God does the inward work." It is not the act alone without faith that saves, but the act with faith in the promise that God has made concerning what He will do in the act.

Again, no disagreement between us. I think the definition of ex opere operato as stated is perhaps lacking, for no article of the Catholic Faith I have seen excludes the necessity for faith.

Now, concerning the other things which Catholics call sacraments (I have heard so many different definitions of sacrament given by Catholics that I'm not really sure what it means. I think in Latin it means "holy act" or something close to that, but it is generally taken by Catholics to mean something that must be done by/with a priest, thus even marriage is not valid unless the priest perform it. Am I right?)

Actually, the Latin word "sacramentum" means "oath". In a covenant, you will see that covenants are made with oaths/sanctions. That is Ray Sutton's fourth principle of covenantalism as found in his book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. Covenants are unions between two people, of which marriage is the premier example, however, they also have a legal side to them. There are rules (legalities - oaths/sanctions) to making a covenant and if these rules are broken, the sanctions come into play.

In the OT, for instance, when two people passed through the carcass of an animal to make a covenant, they were saying in effect "I pledge to keep my half of this covenant and if I fail, may it be done to me as has been done to these animals." Thus, the oath.

I believe you will readily admit that nowhere did Christ ever say "this is My body SUBSTANTIATED" and nowhere did Christ ever say "the substance of the bread is absolutely gone." Surely you will not pretend that He said these things at the last supper?

Sola, the definitions of the Council of Trent became necessary to refute the erroneous definitions of the Protestants which had crept into the religious scenario. In both the Orthodox East and the Latin West, up until the Reformation, the elements were defined as being really and truly the Body and Blood of our Lord. There was no need to define such in terms such as "transsubstantiation" because there simply was no controversy. In fact, the Orthodox East still to this day has never needed a council to define the Eucharist as the West did. That is because they never faced the heresies and problems in regards to this definition as did the West.

So, in not believing the Catholic transubstantiation I am not denying that a Christian has communion/fellowship with Christ in the supper, but I am rather denying the manmade definition and restraints that have been put on it.

All definitions of orthodoxy are not manmade. They are extensions and clarifications in time of that which the apostles orginally taught. Again, we see these definitions as early as St. Ignatius in the second century.

Christ never said that the fruit of the vine would substantiate into His blood, nor indeed could it, for it is and was then a sin to consume blood - read Lev 17 & Acts 15.

This IS my Body...not this "represents" my Body.

As for the blood issue, you are discussing OT. There was a very good reason for the kosher laws which forbade blood -- because it is the LIFE of the FLESH. To eat blood is take that life force into one's person, to unite with the life force of that animal. It is to make union with that which you eat. This is why in the book of Acts, the new converts were instructed to refrain from eating things strangled and with the blood still in them. They would be uniting with demonic forces.

But now, since Christ's Blood is our life according to His own words in John 6, whenever we eat of His Blood, we become filled with and united to His very lifeforce. That is why the Sacraments convey the grace of God, because Jesus Himself is in them, and especially that Sacrament which is His Blood, His lifeforce Himself.

As to confession, John plainly declares that when we confess our sins the blood of Christ cleanses our sins. (1 Jn 1:7-9)

You must understand the context of this. In proper orthodox practice, which has been lost here in America, confession preceeds the reception of the Eucharist. In Europe today, there are long lines of penitents who will confess before the Liturgy takes place AND THEN the Blood of Christ cleanses them of their sins.

He does not, however, say that confession must be to a priest, nor is such a thing as a Christian priest found in the New Testament except for the priesthood of all believers.

Now Sola, that is just not so. Look:

Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

HOW could the apostles remit the sins of a person unless that person CONFESSED TO THEM? This is a continuation of the Old Covenantal priestly structure. In the Old Covenant there were three classes of priest -- the general priesthood of all believers, the Arronic priesthood who were there to offer sacrifice for personal sins, and the high priest who went once a year into the Temple to offer sacrifice for the NATION.

In the New Covenant we see the same structure. Jesus is the Great High Priest. We see the apostles being given the ministry of the mediatorial (Arronic) priesthood, and there is still the general priesthood of all believers. The structure of God's kingdom did not change -- but the administration did, from the Jews to the Church.

Furthermore, he does not say that this nonexistant priest will dish out a penence of Hail Marys or absolve the sin - he says, rather that Christ's blood will cleanse it.

It is not an issue of cleansing. Penance is for the TEMPORAL EFFECTS of our sin. Every sin, even though forgiven and cleansed by the Blood of Christ, still has an effect upon us in this world. Look at King David. He repented and was forgiven, but his son still died!! Now why is that if he was forgiven? It is the temporal consequences which attend sin. Pennance is a way of mitigating those consequences.

Concerning "confirmation," as I understand it, it is merely when those who were baptized as infants "confirm" that they believe and wish to live as Christians. Hebrews 8:11 says that no one in the New Covenant will need to be taught "know the Lord" for they will all know the Lord PRIOR to entering the New Covenant. This verse shows that none may enter the Covenant by baptism without knowing the Lord, which means that infant baptism is invalid. And, if infant baptism be invalid, confirmation disappears.

Sorry, but once again the typology of the OT proves you to be wrong. The infant in the OT was circumcized and made a member of the kingdom without a lick of knowledge of what he was doing. The act was accompanied by the faith of the covenantal head, the father, and thus it operated ex opere operato.

In such a case, one is entered into the covenant, but there must come a time when one affirms whether he will accept and keep or reject and break that covenant for him/herself. That is what confirmation is. The one being confirmed is making his own statement of faith in the covenant and vowing to keep covenant with the Lord for the rest of his/her life.

Concerning holy orders, I have nothing to say except that I do not believe in transubstantiation and thereby do not see any need for a "sacrament" the purpose of which is to transfer the magical ability to transubstantiate the bread into the body of Christ.

Here is the record of the first "holy orders":

Joh 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Lu 9:1 ¶ Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Holy orders is simply the passing on of this initial authority, given by Christ to His apostles. We see that Paul mentioned to Timothy the "laying on of hands" so we know that this had a very early practice. It is not a question of "magical" powers. It is a question of the giving of authority to men, specifically to the twelve apostles and those who would succed them in their office.

Concerning the unction, I'm thinking that the Eastern Orthodox may view it differently from the Romans. I don't see any need to perform a last ritual on someone to prepare them for death. Nowhere is such a thing spoken of in the New Testament. If, however, the unction is performed to raise up the sick...what can I say against that?

The reason you see no need for Last Rites (as the Romans call it) is that you have the false view, invented by the Reformers, that once one has "accepted Jesus" he has no more sins to deal with. That simply is not so, and the Last Rites is the way in which both the Orthodox and the Latins help the soul prepare for its journey to God by cleansing it of its sins through the Body and Blood of Christ.

Concerning marriage, I have no idea how you can even call it a sacrament (in the Catholic sense of the word) since Paul plainly shows that the marriages of the heathen are legitimate in the place concerning those who were married while heathens and then became Christians - he does not doubt that their marriage was legitimate when they were heathens. 1 Cor 7:12

Their marriage was legitimate, but not a means of grace. Sacraments are a means of grace to believers. Christ is in the priest, by means of his valid ordination and the authority he bears in Christ's name. It is not the priest, in and of his own authority, who "does" the Sacrament. It is Jesus Himself, truly present in the priest, who makes the Sacraments work. It is Jesus who performs marriage, who forgives the sinner, who offers us His Body and Blood, who ordains the priest, who comforts and cleanses the dying, who baptizes the infant into the kingdom. He is the one doing the work. The priest is just a convenient tool for doing the work.

As I said, if you believe that Jesus uses the water of baptism to really and truly effect both cleansing of sin and entrance into the kingdom, why stop there? Why can He not use other physical items to effect His grace in us?

Cordially in Christ and the Blessed Virgin,


Brother Ed

 

Communion:

The idea that Christ's blood must be substantially present in order to be truly present is refuted by baptism: In baptism, a believer's sins are washed away. By what? The water? No, it is the blood of Christ that cleanses from sin. So, in baptism the blood of Christ washes away sins. The blood of Christ is, therefore, truly present in baptism...but is it present substantially? No; thus proving that it does not need to be present substantially to be truly present. In communion, therefore, there is no need to add the word or understanding "substantially" after Christ's statement "this is My body," is there? If you do not think that the water used in baptism transubstantiates into Christ's blood then why suppose that the fruit of the vine transubstantiates into His blood? It is inconsistent! If the blood of Christ is truly present in baptism, yet spiritually and not substantially, then why is the same not true of the communion?

Now, I am not Judaizing when I mention the FACT that Jesus was under the Old Testament Law and thereby prohibited from consuming literal substantial blood, nor when I say that if Christ were to istruct His disciples to consume literal substantial blood under the OT He would be a minister of sin.

Confession:

He not only mentions confession, but walking in the light, the light obviously denoting the word of God and his meaning that we are following the Lord's commandments to the best of our ability.

1 Jn 1:7 ...if we walk in the light...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

1 Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful...to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The context does not demand that confession occurs right before communion. At any point when I confess my sin, Christ's blood cleanses me. From this I know (once again) that I do not need a literal substantial application of Christ's blood in order to have a true application of it.

Now, the Scripture does not make any believer more of a priest than others, except Christ Himself, for James says "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." "One to another" not "lay to priest."

Now, as far as pennance being a way of mitigating consequences, how do a couple of Hail Marys help a drunk stop drinking?

Confirmation:

Hebrews 8:11 says that no one in the New Covenant will need to be taught "know the Lord" for they will all know the Lord PRIOR to entering the New Covenant. Typology CANNOT be used against a plain statement in Scripture.

Last Rites:

Not so! All the preparation I need is being done while I walk in the light. As I walk in the light, Christ's blood cleanses me from all sin. If, therefore, I die while walking in the light, I am clean, am I not? I do not, therefore, need a concluding ritual - Christ's blood is more than sufficient. 1 Jn 1:7

Marriage:

Could you explain in what what marriage is a "means of grace"?

Holy Orders:

If what you say is true, why don't last rites raise the sick rather than prepare them for death? In the Scripture you quote, Jesus gave the aposltes the power to cure diseases - why then do the priests prepare a man for death whom they could heal according to your theory?

[ May 13, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]