Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Luther and Baptism

"Could you comment on the following work of Luther where he states that salvation comes by baptism. Luther stated in his large Catechism 1529 used to aid clergy: "But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body." ... No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than Baptism, for through it we obtain perfect holiness and salvation, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire"[source].
Sure. Keep in mind though, I'm not a Lutheran, so while I can explain his view of baptism, this doesn't mean I hold to Luther's view of baptism.

The quote you've posted is from the end of Luther's exposition of baptism in his Large Catechism. That is, it's part of the conclusion of his previous argumentation. This section of the Large Catechism is a fairly easy read for anyone interested in Luther's view on this subject.

My basic explanation of Luther's view is thus: Luther held the sacraments are a form of the Word of God. Luther believed that the Word of God was oral, written, and sacramental. The Word comes to change our hearts, minds, reason, and will. If one is baptized in faith, they have received one of the promises that God will be their savior. It is His promise to us that he will save those with faith. Luther held that Word of promise is the power of God unto salvation, not works of penance like the Romanists of his day popularly held. Baptism establishes that we are children of God. Luther argued that the validity of the promise does not rest on faith. Faith is simply the response. It grasps and makes use of the benefits, but the promise of God is there. Christ saves, not faith. Faith only receives the salvation Christ gives. Luther believed that God, through the power of His Word, establishes the relationship with His people.

If you read through the link to the Catechism (I've provided above), you'll notice Luther places a heavy emphasis on Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be." So, with the quote you've asked me about, Luther is using baptism as an assurance of salvation, or holding God to His Word. He says in the Catechism,
"...since we now know what Baptism is and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn for what purpose it was instituted, that is, what benefits, gifts, and effects it brings. Nor can we understand this better than from the words of Christ quoted above, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to “be saved.” To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever."
He then states,
Our know-it-alls, the new spirits, assert that faith alone saves and that works and external things contribute nothing to this end. We answer: It is true, nothing that is in us does it but faith, as we shall hear later on. but these leaders of the blind are unwilling to see that faith must have something to believe — something to which it may cling and upon which it may stand. Thus faith clings to the water and believes it to be Baptism in which there is sheer salvation and life, not through the water, as we have sufficiently stated, but through its incorporation with God’s Word and ordinance and the joining of his name to it. When I believe this, what else is it but believing in God as the one who has implanted his Word in this external ordinance and offered it to us so that we may grasp the treasure it contains?
Baptism is God's Word and God's Promise. According to Luther it is God's work:
Without faith Baptism is of no use, although in itself it is an infinite, divine treasure. So this single expression, “He who believes,” is so potent that it excludes and rejects all works that we may do with the intention of meriting salvation through them. For it is certain that whatever is not faith contributes nothing toward salvation, and receives nothing.

However, it is often objected, “If Baptism is itself a work, and you say that works are of no use for salvation, what becomes of faith?” To this you may answer: Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work but God’s (for, as was said, you must distinguish Christ’s Baptism quite clearly from a bath-keeper’s baptism). God’s works, however, are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith they could not be grasped. Just by allowing the water to be poured over you, you do not receive Baptism in such a manner that it does you any good. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in the name of God, you may receive in the water the promised salvation. This the hand cannot do, nor the body, but the heart must believe it.
According to Luther, when one goes through doubt or struggle, one must cling to God's Word of promise:
To appreciate and use Baptism aright, we must draw strength and comfort from it when our sins or conscience oppress us, and we must retort, “But I am baptized! And if I am baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and have eternal life, both in soul and body.” This is the reason why these two things are done in Baptism: the body has water poured over it, though it cannot receive anything but the water, and meanwhile the Word is spoken so that the soul may grasp it.

81 comments:

Andrew said...

Sometimes when I listen to Michael Horton he seems to come pretty close to Luther's position on baptism. I know that Dr. Horton and you are the same denomination. Am I hearing Dr. Horton incorrectly? Or am I hearing him correctly and his view is sort of unique? Or am I understanding him correctly and the URCNA holds to a view of baptism that is close to Luther's at some points; but isn't quite Luther's view in the final analysis?

Joe said...

Hi Andrew.

As having worshipped in both Reformed and Lutheran faiths...one point of difference between Horton and say Luther would be that the Reformed approach to baptism would say that the efficacy of it is not tied to the actual time of baptism. That the salvific benefits of baptism (other benefits would include being place within the community of faith, where the word and sacraments are concentrated), are tied to faith and this may happen years later.

Whereas, the Lutheran view would be regeneration at the point of baptism.

At least, that is my understanding.

In Him,

Joe

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Keep in mind though, I'm not a Lutheran, so while I can explain his view of baptism, this doesn't mean I hold to Luther's view of baptism."

Thanks for the qualifier, James.

Joe: "Whereas, the Lutheran view would be regeneration at the point of baptism."

Some infants are baptised by Lutherans within days or weeks of birth.

Joe said...

Hey TUAD.

You said: Some infants are baptised by Lutherans within days or weeks of birth.

Me: Yes of course. And, sometimes there is even an emergency baptism right at the delivery if it is suspected the child may not survive.

In Him,

Joe

James Swan said...

I haven't listened to Horton in years. Yes, he's URCNA, so he's agreed to the Three Forms of Unity (which is a collective name for the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Heidelberg Catechism, which are accepted as official statements), so his view of baptism should be the views expressed in these confessions... should be.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Me: Yes of course. And, sometimes there is even an emergency baptism right at the delivery if it is suspected the child may not survive."

Joe, do Lutherans believe in baptisms without having to confess one's faith in Jesus Christ?

Joe said...

Joe, do Lutherans believe in baptisms without having to confess one's faith in Jesus Christ?

Well, yes...this would apply to all infants or children that are not capable of confessing faith in Christ.

But for adults or children able to confess...then no, there would have to be a professio of faith prior baptism.

It mirrors the OT commands of circumcism, where adults would have to have profession of faith, and the children of these professed believers would also have the children receive the sign of the covenant prior faith(males only of course in OT, whereas baptism is more inclusive to male and female).

In Him,

Joe

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"It mirrors the OT commands of circumcism"

Joe, do you think there were OT circumcised Israelites who ended up in Hell?

Note: Not asking for infallible certainty. Just your best reasoned answer.

Joe said...

Joe, do you think there were OT circumcised Israelites who ended up in Hell?

Yes.

"For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical."

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"It [Lutheran baptism] mirrors the OT commands of circumcism"

Joe, do you think there were OT circumcised Israelites who ended up in Hell?

Yes."


Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?

steelikat said...

TUAD, I hope you finally get the answers you are looking for, or better yet, you realize that you don't need them.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?

steelikat said...

I think if I had asked the same handful of questions that you had, over and over, and still had not got an answer (or the answer I was looking for?) I would have just given up long ago.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

An evangelist asks people all the time:

"Who do you say Jesus is?"

The evangelist doesn't give up.

------

Steelikat, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?

Andrew said...

TUAD: The answer is yes. What are you driving at?

steelikat said...

TUAD:

"An evangelist?"

Are you saying you think "there are baptized Lutherans in Hell" is the Good News?

I'm sorry if I'm being irreverent, but that's hilarious!

That reminds me of a story I heard about the late Rev. Carl Schevenius, a bishop in the Norwegian Danish Methodist Episcopal Church. Occasionally when he preached against Baptist theology, he would joke "We believe in backsliding, but those Baptists practice it!"

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Andrew: "TUAD: The answer is yes."

Do Lutherans represent one's baptism as full assurance of one's salvation?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Andrew: "TUAD: The answer is yes."

Do Lutherans teach others that one's baptism is full assurance of one's salvation?

steelikat said...

TUAD:

There are no Lutherans in Hell. You apparently want Christians to doubt their salvation or you wouldn't troll the comment areas of all the Christian blog areas trying to sow doubt. You must think Christians are pretty stupid if you think your strategy will work. I mean if you had an ounce of imagination yourself you would at least add some variety to your impish ploy by not asking the same three questions over and over and over. Are you really not aware that you are only annoying people and exposing your true nature?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Steelikat, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Andrew: "TUAD: The answer is yes."

Steelikat: "There are no Lutherans in Hell."

Steelikat, thank you for finally providing your answer. It would be interesting to see whether there are no baptized Lutherans in Hell.

"You apparently want Christians to doubt their salvation"

Steelikat, you badly misunderstand. Consider this, is it possible that someone self-deceives themselves into believing that they have salvation when they don't? I.e., is it possible for some Hell-bound person to mistakenly think that they are going to Heaven because of some false assurance that was given to them or taught to them?

steelikat said...

TUAD

Jesus said that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. Was he telling the truth or was he lying?

If reflecting on that question doesn't answer the question you keep obsessively and desperately asking over and over to everybody you encounter in blog comment areas, you are not using the brain that God gave you.

steelikat said...

TUAD

" is it possible that someone self-deceives themselves into believing that they have salvation when they don't? "

That is a dishonest question and you know it. Of course it is possible for a "someone" to falsely believe he is saved. Atheists believe that (though they have a different idea as to what salvation is), Hindus believe that, people who think they can save themselves by their own works believe that. You weren't talking about any old "someone," though, you were talking about Christians who believed Christ was telling them the truth when he said they were saved and baptized them so that they would have his promise to point to. You are trying to hint to them that they cannot be sure of their own salvation. And you are apparently dumb enough to think your impish ploy will work. Don't you know that Christians are smarter than you give us credit for?

"is it possible for some Hell-bound person to mistakenly think that they are going to Heaven because of some false assurance that was given to them or taught to them?"

NO, not if, as you are trying to insinuate, the assurance that was given to them and taught to them was Christ's promise. Jesus does not lie and he keeps his promises.

(of course if somebody believed in Hindu karma or his own works or some other false assurance he could falsely be assured that he would escape hell but those aren't the people you were referring to in your obsessive, repetitive trolling questions)

steelikat said...

TUAD

I asked you a question and you haven't answered it.

Jesus said that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. Was he telling the truth or was he lying?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat: "TUAD

Jesus said that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved. Was he telling the truth or was he lying?"



Steelikat, you have to read Scripture carefully, faithfully, and intelligently.

"Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16)

It helps immensely to look at other passages that Jesus has said:

John 6:47: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life."

John 3:15: "that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."

An intelligent person will notice that it's a whole-hearted trusting belief that Jesus is speaking of when it comes to receiving eternal life.

NOT baptism.

Look at the ending part of Mark 16:16 and don't neglect or overlook it: "but he that believeth not shall be damned."

What damns is not believing in Jesus or not trusting in Jesus.

Not being baptized will not damn a person.

An intelligent, thoughtful reader will see the on-point parallel to Mark 16:16 here:

"He that starts his car and washes his face will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't."

From this parallel, it should be apparent to the intelligent reader that washing one's face (a parallel to getting baptized) has nothing to do with driving home (a parallel to getting saved).

Does that help you better understand Mark 16:16, Steelikat?

Jesus told the salvific truth to fully believe in Him.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Steelikat, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Steelikat: "There are no Lutherans in Hell."

Lutheran historian Martin Marty wrote the following.

Question: What do the following have in common? Anders Behring Breivik, killer of scores of innocents in Norway; assassins Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK) and Sirhan Sirhan (RFK); serial killers: Dennis Rader (Kansas, murdered 10); Charles Starkweather (Nebraska, 11); Jeffrey Dahmer (Wisconsin, 17); and Dylan Kiebold (Columbine, CO, 13).

Answer: They were all Lutheran Christians.

Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church. Then think further; it is hard to picture that Breivik was anything but one of the 97 percent of the members who never shows up. That he caught many ideas from this religious background is clear from citations in his monstrous manifesto and elsewhere. But he probably could not even recite Luther’s Catechism and may not have been seen at the communion table since who knows when—if ever.

-----

o Nearly 4 million members of the Lutheran State Church in Norway.

o It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church.

o 97 percent of the Lutheran members never show up.

o Steelikat: "There are no Lutherans in Hell."

steelikat said...

TUAD

You are evading my question and still attempting (unsuccessfully, I'm sure) to sow doubt in the minds of Christians that they can believe Christ's promise.

Why? What drives a person to want to do that?

I'll ask again, do you believe Christ was telling the truth or lying when he said that if you are baptized and believe in him you will be saved?

Be brave, be a man, and answer frankly and forthrightly, without fear of the disapproval of others. You will feel better about yourself if you do.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

Answered above at the 2:41 pm comment. I hope you're able to comprehend both the 2:41 comment and the 2:53 comment above.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Q: "Steelikat, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Steelikat: "There are no Lutherans in Hell."

Q: "Do Lutherans represent one's baptism as full assurance of one's salvation?"

Steelikat, would it be an accurate representation based upon your earlier answer that there are no Lutherans in Hell that Lutherans do indeed represent that one's baptism is full assurance of one's salvation?

steelikat said...

In your comment of 2:53, you strung together a bunch of statistics and interspersed them with "Steelikat: 'There are no Lutherans in Hell'"

I assume this was a further fruitless attempt on your part to sow doubt in the minds of Christians by vague insinuation. Instead of whispering and insinuating, like a little imp, why don't you be a man and say what you mean frankly and forthrighly?

Are you insinuating that there are people in Hell who are Lutherans? If so you are being blasphemous and lying about Christians.

I suggest you not discredit yourself further by saying that Andrew agrees with you that there are Christians in Hell. You know very well that the reason he answered "yes" is because you tricked him into thinking you were asking him if he thought there were people who, having been baptized Christians in their life, willfully abandoned faith in Christ and in that way damned themselves.

If you let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no" and speak frankly instead of in whispers and insinuations, you will be more impressive and have more success influencing people.

steelikat said...

TUAD

"Answered above at the 2:41 pm comment."

In that case, the part where you answered the question got deleted. I'll ask again. Do you think Jesus was lying or telling the truth when he said that if you are baptized and believe in him you will be saved?

Do you think that's a trick question?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat: "Are you insinuating that there are people in Hell who are Lutherans?"

I can't say with infallible certainty, but yes, I do believe that there some baptized Lutherans in Hell.

I wonder if some of those Lutherans in Hell are in Hell because they had received false assurance from Lutheran dogma regarding baptism.

If so, how sad. A connection between bad dogma and souls in Hell.

steelikat said...

TUAD

"Steelikat, would it be an accurate representation based upon your earlier answer that there are no Lutherans in Hell"

Of course it is an accurate representation. It's a direct quote, for pete's sake.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Q: "Steelikat, would it be an accurate representation based upon your earlier answer that there are no Lutherans in Hell that Lutherans do indeed represent that one's baptism is full assurance of one's salvation?"

A: "Of course it is an accurate representation."

Once baptized, always saved, eh?

steelikat said...

"I wonder if some of those Lutherans in Hell are in Hell because they had received false assurance from Lutheran dogma regarding baptism."

I'm glad you are being a man. It makes it easier to talk to you and I don't get that vague slimy feeling.

As long as we speak man-to-man I will treat you as if you are benevolent and not just trolling for "lulz". Rest assured that I am treating you better than I think you deserve, however.

I feel almost certain that if you honestly think about the question, you will quickly come to the understanding that there are no Lutherans in Hell. it is not not possible for a damned person suffering the torments of Hell to have the faith in Christ that Luther had. Anyone in Hell is in Hell because, one might say, he is not a Lutheran, that he is not a person who believed Christ's promises.

steelikat said...

TUAD

"Once baptized, always saved, eh"

Please say what you mean by that. Don't answer with trick questions and attempts at clever verbal manipulation, don't insinuate and whisper, you aren't good at it anyway (you should be happy that you aren't). Explain frankly and openly, in plain words what you mean to say. Be brave! If you have integrity, I can't hurt you.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat, because you're blindly loyal to faulty dogma, you have behaved poorly on this thread. You became aggressive when Lutheran dogma on baptism did not show up well under careful scrutiny.

Your behavior is very similar to someone who is blindly loyal to Obama and his policies. They behave poorly and become aggressive when Obama's thinking and his policies do not show up well under careful scrutiny.

Andrew said...

Steelikat, worry not. I was not tricked. I knew where TUAD was going and just wanted him to come out with it.

TUAD, yes baptism is a source of assurance for us Lutherans. But nobody who understands what we believe, teach, and confess can think that our doctrine of baptism gives people false assurance. (Not that there are no Lutherans with false assurance) Baptism is a source of assurance in so far as one believes the promises of Christ given in baptism. So you can be a baptized person who clings to the promise of Christ to save all who believe through faith. Or you could also be a baptized person who does not believe the promise and is therefore faithless and unsaved. I hope that clears it up a little.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Andrew: "Not that there are no Lutherans with false assurance"

For those baptized Lutherans with false assurance, what is the basis or the reason for their possession of false assurance?

Andrew said...

Also if I may add something about your discussion with Steelikat:
I think you may have missed what was really being said when he stated "There are no Lutherans in Hell". I am open to Steelikat's correction of his comment; but I think he did not mean to say "If you are baptized and confirmed Lutheran you can never go to Hell". I think he meant that there are no Lutherans in Hell in the sense that anybody who dies believing the gospel, which a real "Lutheran" does, will not go to Hell. Therefore those "Lutherans" in Hell are not really so because they did not and do not have faith in Christ.

Andrew said...

"For those baptized Lutherans with false assurance, what is the basis or the reason for their possession of false assurance?"

Did you have someone specific in mind? I really don't know how I can answer that. But I'll give it a shot. A baptized person could be putting his trust in his good works and think he is earning salvation. Like I said though, without a specific example I don't really know what to say about it.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Did you have someone specific in mind? I really don't know how I can answer that. But I'll give it a shot. A baptized person could be putting his trust in his good works and think he is earning salvation. Like I said though, without a specific example I don't really know what to say about it."

Would you be able to work with the following?

"Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church. Then think further; it is hard to picture that Breivik was anything but one of the 97 percent of the members who never shows up. That he caught many ideas from this religious background is clear from citations in his monstrous manifesto and elsewhere. But he probably could not even recite Luther’s Catechism and may not have been seen at the communion table since who knows when—if ever.

-----

o Nearly 4 million members of the Lutheran State Church in Norway.

o It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church.

o 97 percent of the Lutheran members never show up.

o Steelikat: "There are no Lutherans in Hell."

-----

Andrew, suppose Martin Marty is correct and mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran. Furthermore, suppose Breivik was killed instead of taken alive on the day of the mass murder.

And suppose you were a tourist in Norway the day before the mass murders and had a chance conversation with Breivik at a local coffee shop. And somehow the conversation came to this:

Breivik: "I'm a baptized Lutheran."

Andrew: "That's wonderful! So am I."

Breivik: "I did it because I was taught that you had to be baptized in order to be saved. And that once I was baptized I was taught that I now have full assurance of my salvation."

Andrew: "Wonderful! You were taught well!"

Breivik: "Most everyone I know who's been baptized doesn't go to church anymore. Our lives are virtually indistinguishable from unbaptized pagans."

Andrew: "Hey, we all struggle at times. Cling to the promises of your baptism."

Breivik: "Once baptized, always saved. That's the promise."

----

The next day Breivik murders so many people. And suppose he's killed instead of taken alive.

Breivik believes he has full assurance of his salvation. Did he have a false assurance of his salvation, Andrew?

steelikat said...

Andrew:

"I think he meant that there are no Lutherans in Hell in the sense that anybody who dies believing the gospel, which a real "Lutheran" does, will not go to Hell. "

Yes, of course.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

Nonsense. What you have done is make up a implausible and untrue story about the mass murderer (who was a real person by the way so since you have no reason to believe the story you are telling is true you are simply lying), you are careful to give an ambiguous description of the murderer's "faith", so that you can later engage in the dishonest tactic of equivocation in order to try to trip Andrew up, and you think you are rubbing your hands in impish glee, thinking you've "got him" now.

You aren't Wormtongue. You don't have the skills that Wormtongue had. Your insinuations will never shake the faith of Christians nor their trust in Christ no matter how cleverly you think you are doing it. You're wasting your time. If you want to emulate someone, emulate the much younger faithful and brave Grima, before his decay, who had the courage and self-respect to simply state what he meant and mean what he said. Tell us Christians point blank that you think we're deluded and stupid. You'll feel better about yourself for being a man.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Breivik claimed that he is a Christian in various forums, but most explicitly and in greatest detail in the 1,500-page manifesto he compiled over several months and posted on the Internet.

"At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church," the 32-year-old Breivik wrote. "I consider myself to be 100 percent Christian."

---

Lutheran historian Martin Marty is correct. Mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

"Breivik believes he has full assurance of his salvation. Did he have a false assurance of his salvation, Andrew?"

Nonsense. You gave an ambiguous description of "Breivik's" assurance (a person you made up, I remind you, and dishonestly labeled with the name of a real murderer) and you expect Andrew to answer your childish trick "question."

Be honest, be forthright and brave. Be a man and say what you mean and mean what you say. You aren't Wormtongue, you aren't a tiny fraction as good at it as he was, and believe me, you don't want to be.

Here's the true answer to your "question," an answer from Christ and the scriptures: An actual (not made-up) Christian who believes in the gospel and believes in Christ's promises is saved and can be sure of his salvation. That is real assurance, and assurance from Christ's lips. We know it's true not because of anything we did or didn't do but because it's Christ's promise and he does not lie or go back on his promises. Such a person could hypothetically be a mass-murderer (I am not saying your made-up story that Breivik was a Christian is true or false, btw--I have no idea and neither do you). It wouldn't matter because we are not saved by our own works.

But none of that of course applies to anyone with a false assurance. You deliberately described your made-up "Breivik's" alleged "assurance" in an ambiguous way so that you can try to engage in rhetorical trickery later.

I see what you are doing. I think probably everyone reading this sees clearly what you are doing but I'm calling you on it, just to be sure there is no doubt.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

Your hostility reflects badly upon you.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

If you know this person's mind, why do you describe his alleged "faith" in an ambiguous way? Why don't you come right out and honestly say one way or another?

Look, it doesn't matter what he did. We aren't saved by our own works. I am as bad as any mass-murderer, even though I never literally pulled the trigger. Does that prove that Christ is a liar, that his promises to me are false, that my assurance is a false assurance?

Here is your argument, boiled down to its essence:

P1. Christians think they are saved by faith, not by their own works.
P2. Some Christians do really bad things.
C Therefore, Christ is a liar, we cannot believe His promises and have assurance.

As much as it thrills you to think about how stupid we Christians are, as deluded as you think we are, your conclusion is illogical. It does not follow from the premises.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

You are constructing your own strawman and then burning it.

You're too hostile and angry.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Me: "Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Andrew: "TUAD: The answer is yes."

Me: "I wonder if some of those Lutherans in Hell are in Hell because they had received false assurance from Lutheran dogma regarding baptism."

Andrew: "Not that there are no Lutherans with false assurance"

Andrew, at least you're a more reasonable and calm Lutheran than Steelikat.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

I'm simply making sure you don't get away with what you are trying to do, that everyone here sees exactly what you are doing. In what sense is that hostility?

And why don't you answer my question? I'll ask it again, do you think when Christ said that if you believe and are baptized you will be saved he was telling the truth, that he was making a promise to Christians that we can count on, or do you think he was lying?

You ask the same question repeatedly of a person, and expect it to be answered. When someone does that to you, you refuse to answer. Would you call that hypocrisy?

Do you think it's a trick question? Do you think I'm trying to trip you up? Are you familiar with the phrase "a taste of his own medicine?"

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

Answered above at the 2:41 pm comment. I hope you're able to comprehend both the 2:41 comment and the 2:53 comment above.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

I don't understand how you think you know I"m hostile and angry. Well, I'm pretty annoyed, I guess. You are insinuating that Christ is a liar and attacking the assurance of Christians. Why wouldn't that make someone angry?

Anyway, what I'm doing is making sure you don't get away with it, that everyone can see clearly what you are doing and what your agenda are.

You do this on every Christian blog you can find, you attack the gospel with trick questions and insinuations. Why?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat, because you're blindly loyal to faulty dogma, you have behaved poorly on this thread. You became aggressive when Lutheran dogma on baptism did not show up well under careful scrutiny.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

I looked at the 2:41 comment more than once. I understand every word that's in it and all that is left in the comment is an evasion of the question. Maybe you originally answered the question but then accidentally deleted that part of your comment--I don't know.

I'll ask it a little differently:

Christ said that if we are baptized and we believe we will be saved. Is it right for Christians to construe that as the truth, and be assured by it, or should Christians not take it as the truth?

Do you think I'm trying to trick you, is that why you won't give the yes or no answer that you demand of others to your questions?

Have you ever heard of the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander?"

steelikat said...

TUAD,

"because you're blindly loyal to faulty dogma"

Why do you characterize the promises that Christ made to Christians as faulty dogma? Is it because you think the Bible doesn't transmit Christ's words accurately?

And what do you mean by "aggression?" I'm simply stating the truth, clearly and frankly. I'm saying what I mean and meaning what I say instead of using rhetorical trickery, insinuation, and vague implication that I can easily distance myself from later. That's not "aggression" that's honesty and frankness.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat: "I looked at the 2:41 comment more than once. I understand every word that's in it and all that is left in the comment is an evasion of the question."

No, you don't understand.

An intelligent person will notice that it's a whole-hearted trusting belief that Jesus is speaking of when it comes to receiving eternal life.

NOT baptism.


Look at the ending part of Mark 16:16 and don't neglect or overlook it: "but he that believeth not shall be damned."

What damns is not believing in Jesus or not trusting in Jesus.

Not being baptized will not damn a person.

An intelligent, thoughtful reader will see the on-point parallel to Mark 16:16 here:

"He that starts his car and washes his face will drive home; but he that doesn't start his car won't."

From this parallel, it should be apparent to the intelligent reader that washing one's face (a parallel to getting baptized) has nothing to do with driving home (a parallel to getting saved).

Jesus told the salvific truth to fully believe in Him.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

Did you read Breivik's manifesto? Can you show us using Breivik's words that his profession of faith was genuinely a Christian faith rather than, as real theologians and Pastors who have read it allege, nothing but a fascist cultural and political ideology with Christian trappings?

If you can't do that than you have again engaged in toxic anti-Christian insinuations. Why are you doing this, what are you getting out of it, when you aren't fooling anybody here?

Is it nothing but a nihilistic "YHBT YL"?

Listen, I don't care if I've been trolled, I've made sure you have no credibility and that you will have zero success in your impish plot to annoy and attack the faith of any Christians who might still be reading these comments.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

You're making my point for me rather well. Thank you.

Martin Marty: "Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church."

Steelikat: "Can you show us using Breivik's words that his profession of faith was genuinely a Christian faith rather than, as real theologians and Pastors who have read it allege, nothing but a fascist cultural and political ideology with Christian trappings?"

Steelikat, mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran, and per Lutheran dogma, he has the full assurance of his salvation because of his baptism.

Andrew said...

TUAD: You wrote in part "Breivik: "Most everyone I know who's been baptized doesn't go to church anymore. Our lives are virtually indistinguishable from unbaptized pagans."

Andrew: "Hey, we all struggle at times. Cling to the promises of your baptism."

In your scenario the man I am talking to doesn't actually seem to be clinging to Christ's promise at all. I reject the words you put into my mouth and I wouldn't say them to a person who doesn't attend worship and unrepentantly behaves like a pagan. In other words he would not be clinging to the promises of baptism. I would first remind him of the law which condemns him and then we could talk gospel.

The is a person who may read this who knows that I am actually struggling with some of our distinctly Lutheran doctrines and that my Lutheranism is kind of "leaky" at present. But what you have done so far is simply put the worst possible construction on what you understand Lutheran doctrine to be. I know this because I have been reading Lutheran theology and trying to make sure I understand it on its own terms. You might want to try that before you make any more critiques. Refusing to let people mean what they mean when they say what they say is bearing false witness.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

"NOT baptism."

Can you prove that when Christ said if we believe and are baptized we will be saved that he wasn't talking about baptism?" "Baptized" is a participle derived from "to baptize" and "baptism" is a verbal noun derived from "to baptize." Why would anyone think He isn't talking about baptism?

"Look at the ending part of Mark 16:16 and don't neglect or overlook it: 'but he that believeth not shall be damned.'"

I haven't neglected nor overlooked it. I believe that Christ was telling the truth when He said that. Are you saying that Christ was telling the truth in the second half of the sentence but lying in the first half? Why should anyone think that makes sense? You aren't even skilled at insinuating. I could have done better.

"Not being baptized will not damn a person."

Nonsense. Every sin a person commits will damn him. No sin is trivial, they just seem trivial to us (when they do) because we have depraved consciences. That's one of the reasons our works won't save us.

Of course I understand what you are saying, I am just puzzled that you use insinuation and vague implication rather than proclaiming it forthrightly. If it really is something you believe you shouldn't be ashamed of it and tiptoe around it, while working like the dickens to try to plant doubt in the minds of Christians. You insinuate, without coming out and saying it, that the bible is mixing a truth with an untruth, and that Christians are fools for trusting in the promises that the bible tells us are Christ's very words.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Andrew, suppose a baptized Lutheran said the following to you:

"Most every Lutheran I know who's been baptized doesn't go to church anymore. Our lives are virtually indistinguishable from unbaptized pagans."

What would you say to this baptized Lutheran who is part of Dr. Martin Marty's "97 percent of the members who never shows up" who's been taught that he has the full assurance of his salvation because he's been baptized a Lutheran?

steelikat said...

TUAD,

"Steelikat, mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran, and per Lutheran dogma, he has the full assurance of his salvation because of his baptism."

So you say. Again, have you read the words that Breivik wrote in his manifesto and do you know that the faith he professes with those words is a Christian faith? Intelligent people who should know, Pastors and theologians, have assured us that what he was professing was nothing but fascist politics and neopaganism with Christian trappings.

I don't know that those Pastors and theologians are right and you are wrong, but so far you haven't even said that you read his manifesto. Why should we believe you?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat,

Do you deny that Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran?

Andrew said...

TUAD SAID: "What would you say to this baptized Lutheran who is part of Dr. Martin Marty's "97 percent of the members who never shows up" who's been taught that he has the full assurance of his salvation because he's been baptized a Lutheran?"

Lutherans don't teach that your assurance comes from being baptized a Lutheran. You would know that if you read some Lutheran theology, or listened to waht Steelikat and I are saying. The assurance comes from Christ's promise and that promise is attached to baptism. Again, the person who doesn't attend worship and acts like a pagan is NOT believing the promises. So your continued use of that example is irrelevant. I have already told you what I would do in that situation. Why keep asking?

Andrew said...

TUAD: You are clearly uninterested in understanding your opponents here. That's too bad because it could be an opportunity for iron to sharpen iron. Instead you're using it as an opportunity to be obtuse. I am going to be done with this exchange. If you change your mind and really want to understand the Lutheran position and THEN critique it, let me know.

steelikat said...

TUAD,

More nonsense from you. What would Luther say to someone who has abandoned the faith he once professed and brags about his apostasy and embrace of paganism? He would offer to that person the second part of Christ's promise, the one about people who don't believe being damned. The objective assurance that we find in Christ's promises is for repentant Christians who fear they are "one of the elect" or who think they aren't good enough to be saved, not for people who used to be Christians but have apostasized and become "neo pagans."

Your attempts to make Christians doubt and lose their assurance are failing, just as they have failed every time. Why do you keep doing it? Why do you waste your time?

steelikat said...

"Steelikat,

Do you deny that Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran?"

I am reading conflicting testimony, one story from a theologian and some Pastors, and a different story from you. I have caught you being less than honest in this very discussion. I have also witnessed you, in the past, do some crazy things that make no sense, I won't remind you what they are. Why should I believe you rather than them? You haven't assured me of your trustworthiness.

If I ever read Beivik's manifesto, I guess I'll make up my own mind without relying on the testimony of others. Actually probably not even then. It would be silly for me to think I can understand Norwegian well just because I can read and speak German a little.

steelikat said...

Andrew,

Of course TUAD is uninterested in understanding what his "opponents" believe. He has done this on several other blogs and at each of them he was told the truth as you have done. He doesn't care what you believe, and he will forget everything you and I have said to him and do this again, perhaps even on this very blog.

Why does he do it? People who engage in the hobby of "trolling" are looking for someone to respond to them, first of all, they are looking for attention, any response, even a very simple one, is a point to them. But mostly they are trying to elicit anger. That's their main goal. If they can get somebody to positively hate them it's like winning the Superbowl. They are heroes in the trolling subculture. Why do you think TUAD kept suggesting that I am "hostile" or "aggressive?" It's because that's his main goal, to elicit hostility. He's not going to think he's really won the game if he doesn't make somebody angry.

steelikat said...

And if that seems perverse and abnormal to you, it should. People who like "trolling" aren't really normal and they get pleasure from things that wouldn't give a normal person pleasure.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Lutheran Professor Martin Marty: "3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran... 97 percent of the members who never shows up."

Andrew: "Again, the person who doesn't attend worship and acts like a pagan is NOT believing the promises."

Andrew, so are you saying that a baptized Lutheran who doesn't attend worship services and acts like a pagan unknowingly nullifies a claim of believing in Christ's promises, and unfortunately, because of that, then possesses a false assurance of his eternal salvation through baptism?

steelikat said...

TUAD

Andrew has said he is done.

Of course people who were Christians but aren't any more aren't "nullifying" a belief in Christ's promises, and it is blasphemous for you to hint that they are. A Christian who believes in Christ's promises is thus assured of his own salvation, he isn't assured of the salvation of a bunch of non-Christians he doesn't know.

People who have abandoned the Christian faith for paganism don't have an assurance of salvation in the Christiaan sense, and certainly don't point to their baptism as evidence of Christ's assurance of salvation. They don't believe in baptism. Their beliefs are pagan.

You must be getting tired. You aren't even trying anymore.

steelikat said...

All, if anyone doubts that TUAD is trolling, or that he has impish agenda, or thinks that he might be honest or sincere, google:

"baptized Lutherans" hell

You will see that he is doing this on blogs all over the place. If look at the links, you will see that he has a predictable modus operandi. If you take the time to read a bunch of them, eventually it will become crystal-clear to you that his pretense of ignorance is just that, he has been corrected and told what Lutherans really believe multiple times, but continues to come back acting as if he's ignorant. You will also gradually begin to see that what he is doing is not a mere "prank" like the typical troll, but that he acts exactly as though he has a truly diabolical anti-Christian motivation. It will begin to look very ugly to you after awhile.

If you don't believe me, try it. Take the time to read lots of examples of exchanges like these. I am pretty certain it will become clear to you that my description is accurate.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat: "People who have abandoned the Christian faith for paganism don't have an assurance of salvation in the Christiaan sense, and certainly don't point to their baptism as evidence of Christ's assurance of salvation."

If you met a baptized Lutheran that fits that description, would it shock you?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

Steelikat: "If I ever read Beivik's manifesto, I guess I'll make up my own mind without relying on the testimony of others. Actually probably not even then."

What does that have to do with your acceptance of the fact that mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

While thankful for Luther’s great contributions to the Church and recognizing that there is no scholarly consensus on this issue, this paper will argue that Luther’s doctrine of baptism is inconsistent with his doctrine of justification by faith alone.

...

A related problem is that Luther’s view of the efficacy of baptism is in tension with his belief that baptism signifies and accomplishes full and complete justification. This tension is created by the fact that baptized people apostatize. Since people apostatize then either baptism does not save infants or complete justification is not given in baptism. Though both options are unacceptable to Luther, the fact that the work of baptism is not completed until death lends itself to the latter. Interestingly, in order to resolve this tension, later Lutheranism taught that what is given in baptism can be lost."

Excerpted From: Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism.

steelikat said...

TUAD

"If you met a baptized Lutheran that fits that description, would it shock you?"

Obviously that's a meaningless question, as you know. Someone who is a pagan is not a Lutheran. Paganism and Lutheranism are two different and contradictory things.

Personally Zen Koans or whatever you people call them just don't get a reaction from me.
"What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
"Say Maynard, why don't you get a job and do something
useful instead of talking nonsense."

steelikat said...

"What does that have to do with your acceptance of the fact that mass murderer Anders Breivik is a baptized Lutheran?"

I never said that I accepted the fact that Anders Breivik is Lutheran. Now you are just acting like a spoiled eight-year-old looking for attention. OK, I give up. I've been trolled. I lose, you win!

Happy now?

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?"

Andrew: "TUAD: The answer is yes. What are you driving at?"

Answer:

Regeneration and Baptism

"How many people are in Hell today because they thought 'I was born again when I was baptized'? That's tragic."

Joe said...

Hi TUAD.

I have been on a mini-vacation since last thursday, so that is the reason for my slow response.

Anyhow...you asked.

Joe, do you think there are baptized Lutherans who ended up in Hell?

Yes.

Do Lutherans represent one's baptism as full assurance of one's salvation?

Well, what do you mean by full assurance? I would say yes that a believer can look back to their baptism as well as watching other baptisms and receive assurance of their salvation.

I would say no to the unbeliever.

In Him,

Joe

Joe said...

Hi TUAD.

Also, those who have been baptized and are non-believers, Baptism is assurance that they will drown in their sins.

You said: "How many people are in Hell today because they thought 'I was born again when I was baptized'? That's tragic."

Me: Well, none. If one is mistaken on when they were baptized, this does not send them to hell.

In Him,

Joe

Tom Moeller said...

To make the old dusty argument clear... Attend to the details.
There are no Christians in hell. Lutherans are Christian.
Why not? A Christian is not an unbeliever. Unbelievers are in hell.
An unbeliever can call himself a Christian. Doesn't make it so.
TUAD... Dishonest and unchristian. You aim to confuse or misdirect in your effort to tear down a truth you refuse to accept.
Baptism is the assurance of salvation, God's gift to man.
Assurance of the gift does not prohibit rejection of the gift.

With these simple realities... go figure for yourself your error.