Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

Dave -

Without knowing what was said by the Lutheran pastor to whom you refer, I of course can't evaluate the extent to which it may or may not have conflicted with the Lutheran Confessions. This would include the questions & answers on baptism in the Small Catechism, http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#baptism . This includes the statement that baptism "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." The words "to all who believe this" (allen die es glauben) might have been better phrased to make it clear that it's a matter of trusting in the God who is (as both Aquinas & Luther say) the real "minister" of baptism. & not primarily of accepting the proposition that baptism "works forgiveness of sins ... .."

Positively, the Lutheran tradition is clear that God's gifts are given in baptism regardless of the faith or understanding of the person who is baptized. (Or, for that matter, of the person who baptizes.) Negatively, no responsible Lutheran has ever said that a person who is baptized has lifetime fire insurance regardless of his/her faith or mode of life. Baptism does indeed have lifelong importance in that the whole Christian life is a matter of continually returning to & living out one's baptism - as the 4th question & answer in the cataechism (at the above link) state. That is why, e.g., a pastor may refuse to baptize a baby if his/her parents give no indication that they intend to try to bring the child up in the Christian faith.

I find your reference to "innocent children" interesting. Do you not think that there is original sin - or, to be more precise, a "sin of origin"? Augustine, of course, argued that human life does originate in such a sinful state precisely from the fact that infants can receive a "Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" (Nicene Creed).

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
  To: GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 4:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

  George,
  I find your statement about the large check interesting, but it doesn't match what I've heard the Lutheran pastor say during the ceremony. Another Lutheran pastor years ago told me that baptism makes one eligible for salvation. What is thereby explained seems little different in effect than the Presbyterian claim that baptism brings the infant into the covenantal relationship. Whether a check to cash or eligibility seems to give Baptists no grounds whatever for coming to faith. On the other hand, all evangelicals affirm "the just shall live by faith," and specify, whatever ceremonies the individual has gone through, that no understanding individual can be redeemed without personal faith. The innocent young are another matter. I have read that even the Roman Catholics have abandoned limbo.

  Consider three young children of Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist parents, respectively, who are transferred to the houses of atheists or agnostics to be raised. Will either of the former two have an advantage over the third, or over each other? There should be a marked difference if baptism is truly a sacrament. However, though the language in the several denominations is different, the nitty-gritty seems to be pretty much the same.
  Dave (ASA)

  On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:27:32 -0500 "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com> writes:
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
    To: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
    Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:34 PM
    Subject: Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 20:53:58 -0500 <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> writes:
>> [in small part]
>>
>> Your final statements seriously misrepresent my view of the
>> sacraments. I never said that they work inexorably to produce
>> faith, any more than I would say that about the preached word. Why
>> some people don't come to faith when God "desires that all men be
>> saved & come to the knowledge of the truth" is a tough question but
>> not one that particularly strikes the idea that the sacraments are
>> means of grace.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
> You are lumping preaching and sacrament as producing faith. But I was
> trying to note a difference. Preaching involves the Word passing through
> the understanding of the preacher. This means that it may be distorted by
> said individual's misunderstanding. Additionally, it involves intake
> through the understanding of the listener. The work of the Spirit is also
> involved in the production of faith rather than mere understanding. In
> contrast, as I understand the Lutheran teaching, the sacraments involve
> the deity's action through the elements, and so do not depend on human
> understanding. On the other hand, if faith is necessary to the
> appropriation of the Eucharist's benefits, we're close to the Reformed
> view. But this cannot hold for the infant's appropriation of the gift of
> the Spirit in Baptism. I simply do not see how the Lutheran view of the
> sacraments is consistent.

    Dave -

    Several things here. Of course sacraments aren't identical with preaching - one is "visible word" and the other "audible word." But both are communication, & we all know that sometimes non-verbals communicate more, & more accurately, than what is spoken."

    Then there are two aspects of a sacrament - the objective reality of God's gift and the reception of it. The first doesn't depend on faith but on God's command & promise. That is why Lutherans, & the catholic tradition more broadly, has said that baptism in the name of the Trinity is valid baptism whether the person baptized believes it or not, & that even unbelievers receive the true body & blood of Christ. The latter is an historical difference between the Reformed & Lutherans - Calvin's idea that it is by faith that communicants are able to receive the body & blood of Christ over against the Lutheran teaching of the manducatio impiorum. But the "imious," even though they receive the body & blood of Christ, reject the gift of forgiveness just as when they refuse to believe the preached word.

    & "valid baptism" doesn't automatically ensure salvation. I've sometimes compared it to being given a check for a large sum. It's a valid check but you won't get any real money if you don't endorse it & take it to the bank. & those latter actions are analogous (crudely) to the role of faith.

    Then, especially in connection with infant baptism, there's the question of what we mean by faith. There has always been a tendency in western Christianity to overly intellectualize faith, & I think you're tending that way with your emphasis on "understanding." But the crucial element in faith (at least when we speak of "justification by faith" &c) is trust. & babies start being able to trust their parents very quickly even though their intellectual understanding is minimal. In view of that we should be very careful about claiming that they simply can't trust God. Of course I'm not suggesting that understanding has no place in faith but it should be understanding at an age-appropriate level.

    BTW, the over-intellectualization of faith has certainly afflicted Lutherans too. That's why until recently young people weren't admitted to communion until they were confirmed at an age of 13 or 14 & they could learn the catechism.

  ____________________________________________________________
  Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 11 17:34:49 2008