Anabaptist: But a baby can't believe!
Lutheran: Right. And neither can an adult.
Anabaptist: HUH?
Lutheran: Faith is something GOD gives; His work within us. Always a miracle when it happens! We can't come up with it on our own. And HE doesn't have any more problem dishing it out to babies than to adults; in fact, babies are likely easier, cause their fallen thinker isn't running interference with all its "but, but, buts."
Anabaptist: But, but, but.
Lutheran: Exactly. Want to sing a hymn together? How about: "Lord, 'tis not that I did choose Thee?"!
Oooh. I like this! Thanks muchly.
ReplyDeleteI like to think of it that the Gospel always comes as a surprise.
ReplyDeleteWow, you've been drinking deeply of the Lutheran Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteWonderful! Thank you!
ReplyDeleteIn the book THE REFORMERS AND THEIR STEPCHILDREN,now over 50 years in print,the author-a Presbyterian- noted that the early AnaBaptists (the said stepchildren) would baptise the children of believers,as was also the practice amongst the Waldensians. perhaps after the martydom of Michael Sattler and Conrad Grebel this position changed.
ReplyDelete"And HE doesn't have any more problem dishing it out to babies than to adults; in fact, babies are likely easier, cause their fallen thinker isn't running interference with all its "but, but, buts."
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good case for infant communion to me.
I think the book refered to by Matthias is "The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren" by Francis Nigel Lee (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html)
ReplyDeleteIt was written in response to "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin.
Come to think of it all christians have "infant faith", don't they? Matthew 19:14 but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."
Well said! Faith as gift is the point. We are all baptized as infants.
ReplyDeleteAnabaptist: How do you account for God's not dishing it out to everyone?
ReplyDeleteLutheran: We don't.
ReplyDeleteAnabaptist: Then it appears the Anabaptist is the one who has Cut Short the Conversation with the Lutheran -- leaving the Lutheran with the appearance of a deity who is mean, nasty, and arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteLutheran: Not at all. A God who loves all and wishes all to be saved, and provides a full redemption for all in His Son - the sins of a world wiped out. But who does not force the gift of faith on any. A gift to be a gift remains rejectable. But Lutherans can't and won't be lured into answering what Scripture doesn't answer: what is the one reason why some are saved and others are lost? Scripture doesn't give one answer. Neither should we. Let God be God, Anastasia. He can watch out for His own reputation.
ReplyDeleteJust to add...
ReplyDeleteThere were times and places in the Christian Church that the "Anabaptist" practice of baptizing only "confessing/believing" adults was the norm, indeed, even considered the orthodox practice. I don't have my copy of Bradshaw's Early Christian Worship on my person but I do remember that he provides historical proof for such a practice. I am sure other liturgiologists provide the same material.
I do not propose that there be a return to such a practice. But this historical practice has led me to consider more and more the substance and nature of baptism. There are reasons that the Church's tradition has had various and numerous practices when it comes to the age of the baptized. Now that we live in an age when baptism has become more and more just "something that you do" is there value in returning to the "Anabaptist" approach? (Probably not, but worth a think).
I also think that there should be two different Rites of Baptism: one for infants and one for adults. These would not be radically different rites but emphasize the fact that we are indeed dealing with two different recipients (not that they are receiving something different in baptism).
Now that we live in an age when baptism has become more and more just "something that you do"
ReplyDeleteJust something you do?? Not in households where parents recognize that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism isn't magic and must be followed by active nuture in the faith, not left to the church to do solo.
The Bible also mentions entire households being baptized.
Also interesting how down to our day those churches that practice "believers' baptism" have for the most part abandoned belief in the Real Presence.
Christine
Bryce -
ReplyDeleteI won't rehearse everything on this thread, but if you review the conversation between me and Mr. Weedon on the St. Justin Martyr thread (maybe a month or two ago), you will see that between the two of us, we provided quite a bit of evidence from the early church.
Indeed, confessor's baptism is the issue, and you will see that I (and most of current scholarship) disagree with Mr. Weedon's reconstruction of the early evidence. The paedobaptist has a chronological gap in h/her evidence to account for, namely the second century. This century speaks of confessors and catechumnes being baptized, not infants baptized due to proxy or infant faith.
Mr. Weedon -
You may want to avoid the vitriolic label "anabaptist" in the future. Most baptists today disown the heretical sects which were known generally as anabaptists. Indeed, read the London Confessions of 1644 and 1689 to see that even these baptists took the name "anabaptist" as an unwarranted reproach from their paedobaptist brothers.
Christine:
ReplyDeleteI didn't insinuate that baptism as "just something you do" was a good thing but a reality that the Church does deal with. Obviously in those households where parents recognize that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism isn't magic and must be followed by active nuture in the faith" this isn't an issue, but then again, this doesn't describe every household.
The issue isn't rejecting or accepting faith. The issue is does He make faith genuinely available to all, so everybody has the possibility of accepting or rejecting? If not, then aren't you attributing mean, nasty, and arbitrary behavior to the loving God? And in that case, who is not letting God be God?
ReplyDeleteAnabaptist: But a baby can't believe!
ReplyDeleteLutheran: Right. And neither can an adult.
No matter the age, God is the one who works faith. If he can bring an adult to faith, he most certainly can bring a baby to faith.
Scripture plainly reveals the truth that the love of God for the world of lost sinners is universal, that is, that it embraces all men without exception, that Christ has fully reconciled all men unto God, and that God earnestly desires to bring all men to faith, to preserve them therein, and thus to save them, as Scripture testifies, 1 Tim. 2:4: "God will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."
ReplyDeleteThe teaching of the LCMS (emphasis mine).
Christine
christl242 -
ReplyDeleteHow do you read 1 Peter 2:8:
and
“A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense.”
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
?
The issue is not as simple as your confession allows for, it seems to me. Yes God loves, but he also has a wrath. The Word of God says that he also destines some to wrath (cp. Romans 9:22).
I hope you continue to study.
I hope you continue to study.
ReplyDeleteScripture says very plainly that although God offers salvation to all not all will accept it. Some human beings resist the Word of God and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. We are not robots.
God knows who the elect are -- He has always known that -- just as he knows who will ultimately refuse His grace. He nevertheless offers salvation to all. We will never fully understand that mystery in this life.
I'm a Confessional Lutheran -- I ain't no supporter of predestination! Separating one verse of Scripture from the context of the whole is not a good idea.
I hope you continue to study.
Christine
Re letting God be God -- he has told us what WE are to do, the Great Commisssion etc. Perhaps we should be about that, rather than speculate on what he does himself, or assume that what he has told us to do is all he does.
ReplyDeleteHe's told us what we need to know, not what we'd like to know. Being OK with that is part of letting God be God too.
He told us his intention. Whatever else he may do about that apart from us doing what he has told us to do lies within trusting to the mercy of God and not acting as if apart from us He can do nothing, so zu sagen.
Have a question. In Psalm 22, it says 'You made me trust at my mother's breast.' This always seemed to me to settle this particular question of whether God brings an infant to faith. I don't know how God does this but I also don't understand the incarnation.
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something?
Mark
Christine -
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten me on how the context of 1 Peter 2:8 or Romans 9:22-23 changes the meaning of the grammar in those verses.
Furthermore, confessional Lutherans should also be captivated by the Bible, since it is the Word of God. If I remember right, someone once said that his conscience was bound to the Word of God... Of course if I remember right that someone was also a predestinarian in the line of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas :). What was his name?...Oh yeah, Martin Luther.
If Ephesians 1:3-5 uses the word predestination (proorizo), then as a Lutheran, you should probably accept it as biblical and confessional. The real question is, how do we interpret the Pauline doctrines of predestination and election?
I side with Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin on this one. I won't bog down this thread anymore with references.
I will continue to study, as I hope you will.
Furthermore, confessional Lutherans should also be captivated by the Bible, since it is the Word of God.
ReplyDeleteYikes!! You mean we aren't??
Who knew!
Christine
Christine -
ReplyDeleteI guess on the doctrine of predestination, you're not. One cannot deny this doctrine outright and claim to be captivated to the Bible's teachings. Continue to read Luther!
Continue to read Luther!
ReplyDeleteKann ich bitte Luther in Deutsch lesen?
Christine
Could you?
ReplyDeleteJohn, could you point to me where in Ephesians 1:3-5 where it says people are predestined to damnation/destruction/hell. All I read is where people are predestined to salvation, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteThat was simply a text that used the word "predestine." In that context the word means a predestination to salvation. Thus we all must accept the doctrine. The Bible also speaks of a double predestination. I would point you to Rom. 9:22-23 and 1 Peter 2:8 for references of God destining some to wrath and damnation.
Of course these people wanted to disobey God, but God also predestined them to stumble.
It's just what the Text says. I believe there is some mystery here, but I ultimately answer the question, "Why do not all come to Jesus for forgiveness of sins?" with only those whom the Father calls will come to Jesus, and we know that he calls those whom he has chosen and those whom he has predestined. And ultimately, God does this in order to make known the riches of his glory (Rom. 9:23).
All I read is where people are predestined to salvation, "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
ReplyDeleteBrian, you have it right. The official teaching of our Synod is:
Eternal election is a cause why the elect are brought to faith in time, Acts 13:48; but election is not a cause why men remain unbelievers when they hear the Word of God. The reason assigned by Scripture for this sad fact is that these men judge themselves unworthy of everlasting life, putting the Word of God from them and obstinately resisting the Holy Ghost, whose earnest will it is to bring also them to repentance and faith by means of the Word, Act 13:46; 7:51; Matt. 23:37.
We ain't no Calvinists!
Christine
For the cat's sake, Romans 9:22 et seq is about salvation being also extended to the Gentiles, not just to the people of the call to Israel.
ReplyDeleteIt in no way substantiates the monstrous doctrine of double predestination.
Luther on 1 Peter 2:8:
ReplyDeleteHere you hear what the cause is: The word and preaching of Christ, that we must either be built upon him or be lost, find no entrance or welcome in their hearts. Hence when they hear that no one can be justified before God through the works of the law, or that to praise and practice chastity, poverty and obedience appeases not the wrath of God, but faith in Christ does, they do not believe such preaching of grace. Yeah, they moreover take offense and stumble.... Now God has laid Christ as a foundation, whereon they should have been placed, and through him have obtained complete salvation; and he has caused him to be preached throughout the world, that they through the proclamation of the Gospel might be grounded on him. Yet they would not accept him, and they remained in their own nature and works.
anonymous I was referring to Verduin's book which i have just finished reading. i obtained it from a neo-Hutterite settlement (Rocky Cape Christian community)which is based in Tasmania ,our southernmost state over here.
ReplyDeleteBryce,
ReplyDeleteChief reason for the delay in Baptisms prevalent in the 4th century was the notion that Baptism only worked backwards - wiped out sin from that point back. Better not waste it until you've gotten the worst of the sin out of you was the thinking, as I'm sure you know.
But that infants are also sinners (conceived and born in sin) and in need of regeneration and Christ's forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit should be beyond dispute for any Anglican or Lutheran (or Roman Catholic). And that the promise of Baptism endures beyond our sinning is one of the joyful "ahas" of the Reformation. The Larger Catechism's "unsinkable ship."
John,
To Lutherans, double predestination is anathema, specifically rejected in our Symbols. We include as an utterly false teaching:
"God is unwilling that everyone should be saved. Some - without regard to their sins, from God's mere counsel, purpose, and will - are chosen for condemnation so that they cannot be saved." FC Ep XI:19
This is termed a blasphemous and dreadful erroneous doctrine by which the comfort Christians have in the use of the means of grace is taken away from them. It is regarded as a doctrine not to be tolerated in the Church of God.
Christine, we agree God wishes to save everyone. The question is, does He give to everyone faith, together with the ability not to reject it? Or does He give these only to some?
ReplyDeleteIf only to some, there really is no moral or practical difference between that and Double Predestination.
William,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't referring to the practice of delaying baptism because it only worked backward. There was a period and geographical area of the church, not considered heterodox, that practiced believers baptism only. As I mentioned, the evidence is in Early Christian Worship by Paul Bradshaw. Maybe if Greg Alms is reading this blog he can dust off his copy and give us the reference (we used the book together in a study group).
I in no way intended to question the "gift of the Holy Spirit" in Baptism nor regeneration and forgivenes. Instead, I think these types of historical practice are always good to weigh against our current practice in order to help us better to understand where we should go from here.
Bryce,
ReplyDeleteFor a Lutheran, of course, every baptism is simply a believer's baptism. It is one of the striking differences between the original (Lutheran) version of the "flood prayer" and the Anglican chop job: the removal of the references to believing and unbelieving and the petition for the gift of faith.
Christine, we agree God wishes to save everyone. The question is, does He give to everyone faith, together with the ability not to reject it? Or does He give these only to some?
ReplyDeleteIf only to some, there really is no moral or practical difference between that and Double Predestination.
Anastasia (by the way, if you don't mind my asking -- is that the name you took when you became Orthodox?), I guess I'm just not explaining myself very well.
Shame on me.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that in Lutheran belief and practice we read the Scriptures to say that Jesus died for the life of the world, for all, and that God offers salvation to ALL, bar none, he does not "predestine" some to salvation and others to damnation. He does, in His omniscience, know, and has known from before the beginning of time, who will be saved and who will not yet does not force His gifts on anyone.
In Holy Baptism the gift of faith is given to every human person. However, we are still free to reject that gift and Scripture plainly states that only those who persevere to the end will be saved.
Why some people live out their baptism faithfully to the end of their lives while others at some point reject the gift they have been given is a mystery that we cannot answer in this life. Nevertheless, as a Lutheran I believe that in union with Christ through Word and Sacrament and living under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in His Church, I am lacking nothing. All the glory is His with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
Christine
William,
ReplyDeleteBy "believer's baptism" I meant to refer to the practice that only those "adults" who had been already catechized and could confess the Christian faith were candidates for baptism. This was the practice of the Christian Church during a certain period (and geographical locale) and it was not considered heterodox, but indeed orthodox (and it was not the practice of delaying baptism to the end of life because baptism could only work backwards). Instead, it was what could only be compared to the practice of most Baptist churches today. I am sure you have come across this historical evidence in your copious reading of the history of the liturgy. If not, please do refer to Paul Bradshaw's Early Christian Worship.
Secondly, I am glad I can be of assistance so that phrases like "Anglican chop job" can be worked into the repertoire. :) Here is the current version of the "flood prayer" which is utilized in Church of England parishes as a result of our latest service book Common Worship. Please point out the defincies, not only in "textual" evidence but in theological content:
"We thank you, almighty God, for the gift of water
to sustain, refresh and cleanse all life.
Over water the Holy Spirit moved in the beginning of creation.
Through water you led the children of Israel
from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land.
In water your Son Jesus received the baptism of John
and was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah, the Christ,
to lead us from the death of sin to newness of life.
We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism.
In it we are buried with Christ in his death.
By it we share in his resurrection.
Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son,
we baptize into his fellowship those who come to him in faith.
Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit,
they may be cleansed from sin and born again.
Renewed in your image, may they walk by the light of faith
and continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Lord;
to whom with you and the Holy Spirit
be all honour and glory, now and for ever.
A little truth in lending is in order. Bradshaw is a priest in the Church of England and teaches at the University of Notre Dame.
ReplyDeleteChristine
I hesitate to guess what those two biographical facts mean for Bradshaw's scholarship.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the state of the C of E and conditions at certain Catholic institutions, they may -- or may not -- be quite relevant.
ReplyDeleteChristine
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLol...That is what I assumed the implications were going to be.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, you should be very skeptical of the seminary education provided at Fort Wayne, IN. Let me see, I had at least one professor with a PhD from Durham (gasp, that is in England), one that had a PhD from Harvard (gasp, Puritanical heritage), more than one can count with PhD's from Notre Dame.
Okay, sarcasm over.
If that is the case, you should be very skeptical of the seminary education provided at Fort Wayne, IN. Let me see, I had at least one professor with a PhD from Durham (gasp, that is in England), one that had a PhD from Harvard (gasp, Puritanical heritage), more than one can count with PhD's from Notre Dame.
ReplyDeleteLOL myself! Proves nothing except that within those institutions one can find the heterodox and the orthodox living side by side.
You might want to check out the goings on at Jesuit John Carroll University in NE Ohio. They have a "Professor" of church history on staff who has publicly stated that he sees no reason not to believe that Joseph Smith might have received a revelation from God through those golden plates.
Last time I looked the LCMS wasn't ordaining women or putting up with the wacky likes of John Shelby Spong.
Which is why I said Bradshaw's background may -- or may NOT -- be relevant.
Christine
Last time I looked the LCMS wasn't ordaining women or putting up with the wacky likes of John Shelby Spong.
ReplyDeleteAll of us have things to revel in and pat ourselves on the back for.
But seriously, if I may be so bold to redirect the discussion back to the matter at hand. At least I will redirect my attention there.
If a baby believes as a regerated child of God in Christ, what then forbids him from receiving communion? A study of the early Church Fathers demonstrates that the Church communioned infants (such as St. Cyprian speaking of a baby taking communion who was still "suckling at his mother's breast). Or read Saint Hyppolytus' Apostlic Tradition [240AD]which clearly demonstrates the tripartite initiatory rites of baptism, chrismation and communion even for infants.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the arguements made by anabaptists againsts infant baptism are the same arguements made by most Lutherans against infant communion. Why or more importantly HOW can an infant (or anyone for that matter)be able to comprehend in order to receive the gift of salvation in BOTH of these means of grace?
No-one is saying the baby "believes".
ReplyDeleteThat's the whole thing, it's about what Christ does, not what we have done or do.
Communion is a different sacrament. That's why there's closed Communion but not closed Baptism.
Anastasia (by the way, if you don't mind my asking -- is that the name you took when you became Orthodox?)
ReplyDeleteYes, it's my baptismal name.
I think I've made it abundantly clear that in Lutheran belief and practice we read the Scriptures to say that Jesus died for the life of the world, for all, and that God offers salvation to ALL, bar none, he does not "predestine" some to salvation and others to damnation. He does, in His omniscience, know, and has known from before the beginning of time, who will be saved and who will not yet does not force His gifts on anyone.
Yes, that much you have indeed made very clear. What still isn't clear is whether God offers the genuine possibility of faith to everyone. By which I mean, makes everyone able to do anything with faith other than reject it.
If not, then can anyone show any material difference, any difference at all, between that and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination?
Not everyone comes to the baptismal font. So Holy Baptism is effectual only for those who receive it, not for everyone in the whole world.
Wow, I'm away for a bit you guys take off!
ReplyDeleteA few comments:
Dan (and -C),
I don't think the Lutheran Church will be in a position to wrestle with the implications of the church's historic practice with respect to the communion of baptized infants until she returns to the norms witnessed in her own Symbols: the weekly celebration of the Eucharist (and on the other holy days) and understanding the implications of examining and absolving penitents for communion as not necessitating a delay to a fixed and arbitrary age. Once those two things have become the norm, rather than the exception, in our parishes, the question of the theology behind the ancient church's practice on this will be worthwhile to pursue; until then, well, urinating in the wind, if you will. ;)
Past Elder,
No problem at all with speaking of infants as believers in the sense that God has given them faith.
Bryce,
Compare the prayer you cited with Luther's original and note the loss of every reference to believing/unbelieving and the gift of faith! You still have volume 53? Or you can see the redaction that appears in LSB if you held onto that. The Lutheran prayer was first and foremost a prayer that the baptizand be delivered from unbelief and delivered into faith.
Anastasia,
Of COURSE, when God offers the Gospel to anyone (and He offers it to all!), with the Gospel itself comes the grace to believe it, or the freedom to reject it.
Christine,
I don't share your aversion to speaking of predestination, but I love the way the Formula teaches us to view it: what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus. What a comfort indeed! Key to election as to so much else: "in Christ Jesus." Which is exactly how Ephesians puts it.
Not everyone comes to the baptismal font. So Holy Baptism is effectual only for those who receive it, not for everyone in the whole world.
ReplyDeleteVery true. I will let the teachings of the Synod speak:
Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:37) for the purpose of confirming and strengthen faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.
The LCMS does not believe that baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was saved (apparently without baptism), as were all true believers in the Old Testament era. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power or the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has his precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere "ritual" or "symbol," but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins.
Wherever the Holy Gospel is preached the Holy Spirit offers salvation through Christ. That not all receive it has been evident from the beginning and will be judged by Christ who alone knows the secrets of every man's heart.
Lutherans do not teach predestination nor uphold Calvinism.
Christine
what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus. What a comfort indeed! Key to election as to so much else: "in Christ Jesus." Which is exactly how Ephesians puts it.
ReplyDeleteAnd to which I would subscribe heartily, rather than the idea that God has chosen some for salvation and some for perdition from the beginning.
Christine
"...what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus."
ReplyDeleteKind of like how Christ was "begotten of His Father before all worlds" and was "incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary." Incomprehensible things seem to happen when eternity and history intersect.
I don't have a problem with that sense either, but I didn't find that the sense that seemed to be used in Daniel's comment, at least as distinct from a person over the age of reason who "made a decision for Christ".
ReplyDeleteOkay, Christine, so now I’m thoroughly confused, which of course is a healthy state to be in.
ReplyDeleteOf course, not everybody hears the Gospel, either. Presumably God decides who does and doesn't?
Are you saying everyone who hears the Gospel and/or is baptized has the genuine ability to reject God or (by not rejecting Him) to accept Him? If so, what is the difference between that and the “Choice Theology” I regularly see Lutherans blasting?
Or are you saying ultimately the choice is God’s?
If so, do you mean He chooses according to His foreknowledge? IOW that He chooses those who choose Him, who He already, from forever, knew would choose Him? If so, that’s both scriptural (Rom. 8:29) and patristic and we’re in agreement.
Or do you mean He chooses for no known reason? If so, where is any discernible difference between that and Double Predestination?
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteYou already know what we teach on this, and regard it as foolish nonsense. You've written as much on your blog - more than once. Why do you persist in chasing it down here.
Yes, as Lutherans we believe that God wills all to be saved.
Yes, as Lutherans we believe hat those who are lost are lost through their own fault in stopping up their ears against the Word of God and NOT because they were not elected.
Yes, we believe that no Christian dare claim any credit for believing, for faith is always gift of the Lord.
Yes, we specifically REJECT an election in view of anything in us, but we rejoice in an election that is always only because of Jesus Christ and the love that the Father has given the world in Him.
No, we can't make the above all fit together into a neat, rationalist package in the way of those who teach an "in view of faith predestination" or of those who teach a double predestination. Furthermore, we don't feel a need to try to sort it out. It is enough for us to know that Scripture teaches each part and that God is no liar. What may appear as foolishness to fallen reason, when it is revealed in the Sacred Scriptures, is the wisdom of God that far exceeds all we could imagine or conceive.
And, as I've told you numerous times, in Lutheranism the ACCENT is always on the universality of grace, and to one and all we urge: Look to the Cross, trust Christ and live!
Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteSince leaving the RC I have little taste for playing the games that the RC and the Orthodox do.
I've said recently that the RC just about theologizes everything to death. I'm beginning to suspect that the Orthodox are a close second.
You aren't really interested in what I have to say. Let's give it a rest, shall we?
Christine
Anastasia - I try not to address other commentators, but your comments leave me a bit puzzled. I didn't think there was any significant difference between the Lutheran and Orthodox teaching regarding Baptism and it place in salvation. Your questions would indicate otherwise.
ReplyDeletePlease post a reference to your blog (mentioned by Weedon) where you articulate the Orthodox position so that we can understand what lies behind your questions. Or at least make that explicit here. Otherwise, it just appears as trolling.
Mr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI'm not intending to troll, but I went back and examined Luther on 1 Peter 2:8.
Does Luther even comment on the last clause of the verse in his comments? Would you be so kind to point out exactly which words of Luther you think are commenting on the last words, "as they were destined to do"? I don't think he addresses the question in this verse. I clearly see that he is commenting on the first part, but I see him make no reference to the idea of "appointing" or "destining" in his comment. Thus, I don't think he is even answering the question.
Maybe you would like to quote Luther on Romans 9:22-23. I have not been able to pull it up yet. Thanks.
John,
ReplyDeleteLuther's Romans commentary is rather early in his works and generally regarded as not reflecting his mature reformation theology, so I'd hesitate to use it (unlike the later work I cited from 1 Peter).
But the Lutheran Symbols DO address Romans 9:22-23 specifically in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI, par. 79-81:
79 Therefore, the apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God (who alone makes vessels of honor) and the work of the devil and of people. By the instigation of the devil, not God, a person has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For it is written, “[God] endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22–23).
80 Here, then, the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath. But He does not say that He made them vessels of wrath. If that had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The reason that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to people themselves, and not to God.
81 All preparation for condemnation is by the devil and a person, through sin. In no way does it come from God, who does not want any person to be damned. How, then, should He Himself prepare any person for condemnation? God is not a cause of sins. He is also not the cause of punishment or damnation. The only cause of damnation is sin. “For the wages of sin is death” [Romans 6:23]. Just as God does not will sin and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not desire “the death of the wicked” [Ezekiel 33:11], nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. He is not willing “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). So, too, it is written in Ezekiel 33:11, “As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (See also Ezekiel 18:23.) 82 St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor, vessels of honor may be made by God’s power and working. He writes, “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:20–21). A person who should cleanse himself must first have been unclean and a vessel of dishonor. He says clearly about the vessels of mercy that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory. He does not say this about the damned. They themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation.
So far the Lutheran Symbols. This is the position of the Lutheran Church.
Okay, in response to all of you, I’ll write one more time and then it’ll be past time for me to bow out.
ReplyDeleteI really am very interested in this subject.
And I’m not trolling, I’m trying to figure it out rationally, which, as Pr. Weedon points out, is where I keep making my mistake. I keep forgetting it isn’t meant to be that way. It’s intended just to be faithful to the Scriptures.
So I read stuff (as in this current post) about how it’s God who chooses who will be saved, but somehow choosing whom to save is not the same as choosing whom not to save because you are not Calvinists. And how once we have heard the Gospel rightly proclaimed, we have the ability not to reject it, but apparently not rejecting the Gospel doesn’t mean accepting it, because that would be “Decision Theology”. And how those who aren’t elect can be baptized and behave ever so virtuously, but they still won’t make it to heaven, yet this is not because they are not elect. Meanwhile, the elect will be saved will even if they commit terrible crimes, but that isn’t the same is Irresistible Grace.
Pr. Cwirla, you just wrote a post on “Foolish Contradictions” in which you said there are no contradictions in the Bible, and I agree with you, and you even provided a good explanation for perhaps the most blatant of the supposed contradictions. Yet this whole business of election in Lutheranism seems to make the Bible contradict itself right and left; every statement I hear or read seems to cancel out another. So in my head it all turns to meaningless mush. I can’t make anything coherent out of it.
So I keep asking, and the more I ask the more bewildered I become, and as Pr. Weedon has said, this has happened before, all because I keep forgetting that in Lutheran minds, this stuff isn’t necessarily meant to be logical; it’s only meant to be faithful. (Probably I keep forgetting this because I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a faithful interpretation of the Bible could turn it into a welter of contradictions could be a faithful one.)
So, Pr. Weedon, taking your admonition to heart, I’m going to slink away now into my “time out” corner and repeat 500 times, “It isn’t supposed to make sense, it isn’t supposed to make sense, it isn’t supposed to make sense.”
Oh – my blog posts on the subject. I imagine Pr. Weedon is alluding to my little series entitled “Free Will in Conversion.” It’s in five posts in order not to make any of them too lengthy:
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-i.html
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-ii.html
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-iii.html
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-iv.html
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-will-in-conversion-part-v-final.html
P.S.
ReplyDeleteActually, more likely, Pr. Weedon is referring to this post, which drew the most comments on this issue.
http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2009/03/mystery-and-nonsense-discussion-of-quiz.html
Past Elder said,
ReplyDelete"No-one is saying the baby "believes".
As you are probably aware,in the Large Catechism, Luther says that "infants too believe". This believing is no doubt believing in the simple sense of barak in the Hebrew, meaning to trust or rely upon. Babies are able to trust their earthly parents; the former even know the latter's voice in utero.
William said,
"I don't think the Lutheran Church will be in a position to wrestle with the implications of the church's historic practice with respect to the communion of baptized infants until she returns to the norms witnessed in her own Symbols: the weekly celebration of the Eucharist (and on the other holy days) and understanding the implications of examining and absolving penitents for communion as not necessitating a delay to a fixed and arbitrary age. Once those two things have become the norm, rather than the exception, in our parishes, the question of the theology behind the ancient church's practice on this will be worthwhile to pursue; until then, well, urinating in the wind, if you will. ;)"
Understood, but possibly the answer is to reverse this and to first practise the historic rites of initiation in proper sequence, then the Eucharistic and Confesssional rites will flow forth from this. Either way may God bless your desire to practise all of these according to His will.
"I’m trying to figure it out rationally, which, as Pr. Weedon points out, is where I keep making my mistake. I keep forgetting it isn’t meant to be that way. It’s intended just to be faithful to the Scriptures."
ReplyDeleteMaybe Luther's distinction between the magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason is helpful here.
Anastasia - Thanks! I've got a bit of reading from you to do. It was helpful for you to post those links.
ReplyDeleteMr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI have read the FoC's statement already. Of course I disagree with it, but that is not the point at present.
Do you think that Luther even commented on the last part of 1 Peter 2:8? Again, in his "mature" thinking, I don't think he even commented on that part of the verse. Because of this, couldn't one simply assume that Luther's view of double predestination did not change? I agree with you that Luther's thought on some issues did change over time, but that does not mean that everything changed necessarily, does it?
John,
ReplyDeleteNo, of course not. I was just cautioning against a citation from the Romans commentary by itself demonstrating Luther's mature position. In 1522 and again the last year of his life, his preface to the book of Romans appears in which he has written:
"In chapters 9, 10, and 11 he teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin—in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable—his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him—we still have hope in the face of sin.
Here, now, for once we must put a stop to those wicked and high flying spirits who first apply their own reason to this matter. They begin at the top to search the abyss of divine predestination, and worry in vain about whether they are predestinated. They are bound to plunge to their own destruction, either through despair, or through throwing caution to the winds.
But you had better follow the order of this epistle. Worry first about Christ and the gospel, that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then fight your sin, as the first eight chapters here have taught. Then, when you have reached the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering, this will teach you correctly of predestination in chapters 9, 10, and 11, and how comforting it is. For in the absence of suffering and the cross and the perils of death, one cannot deal with predestination without harm and without secret anger against God. The old Adam must first die before he can tolerate this thing and drink the strong wine. Therefore beware that you do not drink wine while you are still a suckling. There is a limit, a time, and an age for every doctrine."
He clearly seems to still hold to some form of an election to reprobation. It was one of his personal opinions (among many others!) that the Lutheran Church itself has not adopted; though his counsel on how to deal with anxiety over predestination IS how the Formula of Concord proceeds.
Mr. Weedon,
ReplyDeleteI heed your point about the Romans commentary and I do agree with you about a change in Luther's thought on certain issues, I'm just not sure we can say that his mind changed on double predestination. He was a thorough Augustinian on this point at least.
Thanks for citing this passage in Luther. Of course Calvinists would agree with everything Luther has said here, including calling it the comforting doctrine of predestination for those whom Christ clings to and for those who cling to Christ.
Lutheran or Calvinist or Orthodox or Anglican we all should be humbled by the free sovereign grace of God.
1.Jesus himself was baptised as an adult.Will you be editing this out of the bible?
ReplyDelete2.A baby cannot believe but an adult can.How can a newborn baby or a 2 month old baby comprehend the sacrifice Jesus made never mind choose to make a decision to become Chistian?
3.If a child is brought up believing that they were baptised and assuming therefore that the are Christian, they will not realise that they themselves have to make that choice- no one else can make that choice for them. No one (adult, child, baby) is a Christian just because they were baptised. Baptism alone does not get one into heaven.One needs to chose to whether or not to become Christian first.I know too many people who claim to be Christian solely because they were baptised as babies.These people do not attend church on a regular basis and rely on a baptism that was decided for them to reach heaven.
4.Christianity is meant to be our decision.This is a part of the free will God granted us. Infant baptism rejects free will and individual choice.
5.Because we Anabaptists are all willing members to Christianity we have a strong retention rate.My Presbyterian,Lutheran,Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox friends say they are having the opposite, and one of the reasons is today's Protestants and Catholics did not have the option of joining the church and the faith they grew up in.It was decided for them and so they leave.
Anabaptist convert in process, who feels rather.. put out by your "ignorant Anabaptist" post.We don't put down the Protestants for their theologian beliefs or for how they treated Anabaptists in the past, so what makes you so free to mock us?
John 15:16.
ReplyDeleteTrue for the disciples; true for us!