"John Calvin believed in infant baptism which contradicts election"

Here a snippet from a diatribe against John Calvin from the CARM forums. It appears to be being put forth by someone not only against Calvinism popularly, but also infant baptism:

Calvin's beliefs 
09-17-17, 12:56 PM 
I want to preface this by saying that I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian since I don't follow the teachings of humans, I follow the bible alone. I want to demonstrate what happens when people follow a human and use his name to talk about what God says. John Calvin believed in infant baptism which contradicts election. 

For Calvin, infant baptism was a far older tradition than the Catholic Church, but in fact had divine origins[55]. Furthermore, he states that:

"Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ…it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men."

This is only a sample of what was posted. The original can be found here.  This person went on to state, "Calvin said that he was converted between 1532-1533. Converted from what? Being regenerated when he was baptized as an infant?" and also, "So the only reason to listen to this fruitcake was because he was a college graduate. Well college graduates rule the world and we know where the world is headed! This again confirms that college degrees do not make people "Men of God". The Holy Spirit does..." And as a final example:

This is elementary for anyone who has actually read about Calvin. It is a fact that infant baptism contradicts election along with the fact that even atheists, the Mafia and the Nazis were baptized as infants. So continuing to support Calvin is continuing to OPPOSE FACTS and DENY TRUTH.

An ironic aspect of this person's Calvin diatribe is that for something entitled, "Calvin's Beliefs," only one actual quote from John Calvin was provided (cited above). Let's take a look at the sole shred of proof offered and see if Calvin's view of infant baptism contradicted his view of election and if he really was a "fruitcake."

Documentation
Initially, the thing that jumped out at me was not what Calvin said, but rather, "[55]." What in the world is that number doing in the sentence? Is it some sort special number related to "divine origins"? No. While no documentation was provided, this post originally ended with a cryptic link to thoughtsofalivingchristian (later edited out by a forum moderator).  This "[55]" is a footnote from this link. Now I'm not sure if the CARM participant is the author of this blog article. It appears this blog article may have been written by someone named Aaron Chidgzey. If the CARM participant is this same person, then he simply cited himself. If not, it looks like there's some Internet wild west stuff going on (aka, intellectual theft). I suspect the later.  Here's what the blog article states (I placed the plagiarized words in bold text):

Calvin, despite having little first-hand contact with Anabaptists[52], labeled the Anabaptists as ignorant, stating that “these vermin differ from all other heretical sects in that they not only err in certain points, but they give rise to a whole sea of insane views”[53]. He was astounded by the varying nature of the different Anabaptist groups, who had “so many absurd views that it is a marvel how creatures who bear the human figure can be so void of sense and reason as to be so duped and fall victim to such brutish fantasies”[54]. For Calvin, infant baptism was a far older tradition than the Catholic Church, but in fact had divine origins[55]. Furthermore, he states that:

Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ…it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.[56]

[55] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989). 529. 

 [56] Ibid. 530.

The version of The Institutes being cited is a one-volume edition published in 1989 of Henry Beveridge's translation of the 1537 Institutes. Beveridge's translation was originally released in 1846. what's being cited is Book IV, 16, 2.

Context

2. In the first place, then, [infant baptism] is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed,—that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies, but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism—its object and true character—must not stop short at the element and corporeal object. but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.

Conclusion
Earlier in chapter 15, Calvin states:

Now, it is clear how false is the teaching, long propagated by some and still persisted in by others, that through baptism we are released and made exempt from original sin, and from the corruption that descended from Adam into all his posterity; and are restored into that same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have obtained if he had remained upright as he was first created. For teachers of this type never understood what original sin, what original righteousness, or what the grace of baptism was (Institutes IV: 15:10).

While this quote certainly seems clear, the quote in regard to infant baptism does not. I freely admit that working through the entirety of Calvin's statements in IV,16 on infant baptism can certainly appear as if he's advocating the baptismal regeneration of all infants. Calvin at one point does say that an infant can be regenerated (IV, 16, 17-18), as was the case with John the Baptist.  Notice though what he goes to say about baptized infants:

For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature—a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the tact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit. [IV, 16, 20]. 

The question in understanding Calvin then becomes, does "the secret operation of the Spirit" form the seed of faith in all baptized infants?  No. In III, 21, 6, within the covenant community, certain  individuals were eternally elected unto salvation while others were not.  Here is a helpful clarifying excerpt from John Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition: A Historical and Practical Theology:

Riggs goes on to examine the "seed" issue noting some of the logical problems produced by Calvin's use of the term, It: "implies a nonpersonal divine activity that guarantees a result, such as planting a seed in the earth. When the gardener plants, the ground cannot refuse." Analogies fall apart when pressed too far. Which is the correct way to understand the analogy: a divine seed must harvest, or a divine seed only sprouts when watered by the irresistible grace of the Holy Spirit? Riggs holds the former. Calvin appears to hold the later.

Addendum
Some years back I was given the honor of contributing entries to James White's Alpha and Omega Ministries web site. Here's an entry I put together in regard to Calvin and baptismal regeneration: Calvin Said What?

More musings on Kauffman's articles on Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church

I linked to Timothy Kauffman's articles before, and now have some further thoughts.  This is not complete, and will probably be an ongoing increasingly larger project.  I mainly interact with Kauffman's analysis of Ignatius and Justin Martyr on the issue.

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/refutation-of-baptismal-regeneration-in-the-early-church/

A good Biblical explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 against Baptismal Regeneration

A Biblical explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 by Stephen C. Halbrook (see brief bio at bottom; and for more, under "about" at his blog.)  Note:  Some of the videos and links that he links to are no longer there.

I had linked to this blog article before, but after reading it again, I noticed afresh that the explanation of John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 is excellent and thorough and probably the best I have ever read.  

The article covers other verses that other groups use to defend baptismal regeneration, but I wanted to just focus on John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 here.  

These two verses are the last 2 verses analyzed, after he works through Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16 and a combined analysis of Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27 and Colossians 2:11-14. (I was surprised that I have not seen 1 Peter 3:21 in his list.) 

V. John 3:5 and Titus 3:5

^“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’” (John 3:5)

^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)

1. Right off the bat, we most note that neither of these passages mention baptism in connection with “water” (in John 3:5) or “washing” (in Titus 3:5). Thus right away we must question the insistence of baptismal regenerationists that these texts are even about water baptism.

To insist that “water,” “washing,” and any related words must refer to physical water is arbitrary and absurd. Can we honestly say that the following texts refer to physical water?:

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.”
(1 Corinthians 3:6)

“These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved.”
(2 Peter 2:17)

“and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:9)

“Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” (James 4:8)

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7)

Regarding John 3:5 in particular, when one insists “water” self-evidently must refer to physical water, one faces a serious problem in the very next chapter:

“but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:14)

Also consider another nearby chapter:

“On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, “Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”’” (John 7:37-38)

Now, to consistently maintain his argument that the word “water” self-evidently refers to physical water, will one who holds to baptismal regeneration really argue that Jesus is saying salvation depends on drinking physical water, which will literally become a physical spring within one’s insides “welling up to eternal life,” or will literally become physical rivers flowing from one’s heart?

No, to avoid appearing foolish a baptismal regenerationist must equivocate and say, “well, the meaning of water must depend on the context.” Once he does this, he surrenders any hope that the context of John 3:5 demands a baptismal regeneration reading.

2. Let us focus specifically on Titus 3:5. Again, it reads:

^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5)

Again, the only hope for a baptismal regenerationist reading is that “washing” refers to physical water—but nothing in the context demands this to be the case. Now here are two reasons within the text itself why a baptismal regeneration reading is impossible:

A. It says, ^“he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness ….”

The Bible considers water baptism a work, since:

(1) Romans 4:1-12 considers circumcision a work. If circumcision is a work, so is water baptism, since both are external marks of the church, with water baptism replacing circumcision in the New Covenant era.

(2) Consider also Matt. 3:14, 15:

“John would have prevented him, saying, ‘I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?’ But Jesus answered him, ‘Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.’ Then he consented.”

Jesus considered His water baptism as part of fulfilling all righteousness. Is not fulfilling all righteousness works? Compare “fulfill all righteousness” with “he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness,” in
Titus 3:5.

Thus, Titus 3:5 denies water baptism’s role in salvation even before the verse gets to “the washing of regeneration.”

B. Now, as far as “the washing of regeneration” is concerned, consider the following from Gordon Clark:

“if [water] baptism caused, or was, regeneration, the phrase would have been ‘the regeneration of washing.’ The actual phrase ‘the washing of regeneration’ indicates that regeneration washes, not that washing regenerates.” (Gordon Clark, Commentary on Titus,http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/192a-FalseShepherd.pdf )

In short, Titus 3:5 does not teach that external washing (from water baptism) causes regeneration, but that regeneration causes an internal washing: One is saved by “the [spiritual] washing of regeneration”—not by “the regeneration of washing [by water baptism].”  Gordon Clark writes, “The washing effected by regeneration is the renewal, that is, the renewing the Spirit does to us” (Ibid.).

3. Now we move on to John 3:5, which reads:

“Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”

We have already demonstrated the absurdity of insisting this passage must speak of water baptism simply because it mentions “water.” We only need to go to the very next chapter (John 4:14) to show this.

There are several proposed interpretations of this text, and since the Bible uses the word “water” with more than one meaning, we have already cast in doubt the interpretation that says water baptism saves.

Moreover, it should be enough that from front to back the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith and not by works (cf. Romans 4:1-12 and Ephesians 2:8, 9), so unless we want to say the Bible contradicts itself, we must rule out immediately any salvation by water baptism interpretation.

But beyond this, all we need to do is examine the surrounding context of John 3:5 to rule out such an interpretation.

A. Just three verses after John 3:5, we read:

“The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:8).

On this passage Robert L. Reymond writes:

From the analogy which he drew between the wind’s natural operation and the Spirit’s regenerating work (John 3:8), Jesus taught, in addition to the facticity (“The wind blows”) and the efficacy (“and you hear the sound of it”) of the latter, both the sovereignty (“The wind blows wherever it pleases”) and the inscrutable mysteriousness (“you cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes”) of the Spirit’s regenerating work. (Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 720).

This makes clear man cannot be born again because of his water baptism. He cannot have water sprinkled or poured upon himself, or immerse himself into water, and expect the Holy Spirit to save him as a consequence. The new birth is a sovereign act of God, on God’s timetable; the new birth cannot be programmed by water baptism.

Otherwise, instead of saying “The wind blows where it wishes,” it would say, “The wind blows where man wishes” (i.e., the Holy Spirit must save man out of compliance with man’s wish to be water-baptized). And, instead of saying “but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes,” it would say, “but you do know where it comes from or where it goes” (since in this scenario man would know exactly when he is regenerated: right after his water baptism).

B. Verses 6-8 rule out water baptism by emphasizing only the Holy Spirit. Sam Storms writes (this is not an endorsement of Storms himself, as we disagree with some of his theology).

Just as v. 5 is explanatory of v. 3, vv. 6-8 further develop the idea set forth in v. 5. But note: in vv. 6-8 “water” is conspicuously absent; there is mention only of the Spirit. Note again in v. 6 and v. 8b – why just “born of the Spirit” and not “born of water and the Spirit”? The answer is that “Spirit” is fundamental and “water”, whatever it means, must be subsumed under or defined as an elemental part of the operative work of the Spirit in regeneration. Had our Lord regarded “water” as an independent agency in regeneration and important in itself (i.e., as distinct from the agency of the Spirit), he surely would have mentioned it again and given it more prominence. Instead, he describes the birth “from above” as effected by the Spirit alone and wholly outside the sphere of the “flesh” (v. 6).
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

This is consistent with John 1, which likewise describes regeneration as an act solely by God, outside the realm of man and man’s works:

^“But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:12, 13)

Here we have it: there is nothing man can do to cause the new birth. Hence he can neither “will” himself to be born again by getting water baptized, nor “will” himself to cause others to be born again by baptizing them in water.  Contrast the denial of man’s will in causing the new birth in John 1: 12, 13, with the affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s will in causing the new birth in John 3:8.

Moreover, John (the author) regularly describes the new birth as an act solely of God. Storms writes,

“John typically describes regeneration not in terms of repetition but as a divine birth, something that finds its source or origin in God. It is of God, being heavenly; not of man, who is earthly (cf. John 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18).”
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

C. One cannot make an inseparable relationship between water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism in John 3:5. Consider this: The only two possible water baptisms John 3:5 can refer to (if it does at all) are Christian baptism or John’s baptism. However,

1. It cannot refer to Christian baptism, since it wasn’t instituted until the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19). Sam Storms writes, “Would Jesus have rebuked Nicodemus for ignorance of an ordinance about which nothing had yet been said?” (John 3:10).http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/john-35-part-i/

2. It cannot refer to John’s baptism, since, as Sam Storms writes, “the text clearly coordinates water and Spirit whereas John uniformly contrasts his baptism, which is in water, with the baptism of the Messiah, which is in Spirit (cf. Mt. 3:11)” (Storms, Ibid.)

On the unitary nature of “water and Spirit” in John 3:5, Storms also writes:

The “begetting” or regeneration of which Jesus speaks is unitary, that is to say, there are not two births experienced, each with its respective agency, one by water and another by the Spirit, but one birth “by water and Spirit” in which the Spirit is the dominant factor. The text does not say “born of water and of Spirit” but “born of water and Spirit.” One preposition (ek) governs both nouns. It is a single “water and Spirit” birth.[2] Hence “water” is to be understood as coordinate with the “Spirit” rather than independent of or contrasted with it. (Storms, Ibid.)

And one cannot argue that those who received John’s baptism would in time inevitably receive Holy Spirit baptism. Prior to Holy Spirit baptism which commenced at Pentecost, it was believers—not those baptized by John—who were promised Holy Spirit baptism:

“On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and cried out, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” (John 7:37-39)

D. The Jesus in John 3:5 is the same Jesus who saved people without requiring them to be baptized in water. Consider the following:

“And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.’”(Matthew 9:2)

^“ ‘Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.’ And he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’ And he said to the woman, ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace.’” (Luke 7:47-50)

“And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, ‘Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.’” (Luke 19:8-10)

And so the question is, if Jesus teaches salvation by water baptism in John 3:5, is this a different Jesus in the passages above, since he saves these people without water baptism? Of course not. Jesus saves without water baptism, as the passages clearly indicate. And by implication, the passages rule out the view that John 3:5 teaches salvation by water baptism.

We must note how the Luke 19 passage above mentions, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.” Jesus did not baptize Zacchaeus in water. And yet Jesus saved him.

In light of this consider that John 4:2 says, ^“(although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), …” One would think that if water baptism is necessary for salvation, then Jesus would have baptized those He saved during His earthly ministry.

But the way Jesus sought and saved men during his earthly ministry (as well as today) is through the internal cleansing of the word, not external cleansing of water baptism. Jesus says in John 15:3: ^“Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you”—He does not say, “Already you are clean because of water baptism.”

When we miss this important distinction between internal and external cleansing, we are no better than blind Pharisees. As Jesus scolded the Pharisees of His day:

^“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.” (Matthew 23:25, 26)

This post is a work in progress

About the Author:

My name is Steve C. Halbrook, and I am Reformed in my theology.  I regularly study theology, and have an M.A. in Government from Regent University.

Finally!! The Early Church Fathers and Baptismal Regeneration Analyzed by a Reformed Protestant

I just found this.  Finally !!

Did the Early Church fathers really teach bapstismal regeneration?

Part 1

http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/17/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt1/

Part 2


http://www.whitehorseblog.com/2014/08/24/that-he-might-purify-the-water-pt2/

Luther on the Death of Unbaptized Infants

This is a follow-up to my previous post, Calvin on the Death of Non-Elect Infants and the Age of Accountability.

Here's an interesting quote from Luther as to what happens to child who is not baptized. In his treatise, Concerning Rebaptism (1528), Luther presents a number of reasons why "Anabaptism" is wrong:

First, because child baptism derives from the apostles and has been practiced since the days of the apostles. We cannot oppose it, but must let it continue, since no one has yet been able to prove that in baptism children do not believe or that such baptism is wrong. For even if I were not sure that they believed, yet for my conscience’s sake I would have to let them be baptized. I would much rather allow them baptism than to keep them from it. For if, as we believe, baptism is right and useful and brings the children to salvation, and I then did away with it, then I would be responsible for all the children who were lost because they were unbaptized—a cruel and terrible thing. If baptism is not right, that is, without value or help to the children, then I would be guilty of no greater sin than the Word of God had been spoken and his sign given in vain. I would not be responsible for the loss of any soul, but only of an ineffectual use of the Word and sign of God.    (LW 40:254)

Luther's position in not quite the Roman Catholic position. For Romanism, a child receives grace in baptism without faith. Luther states in a Postil sermon:

This they have inferred from the former opinion, that little children receive grace in this way without faith, solely by the virtue and power of the sacrament, as, they dream. Therefore they also ascribe the same thing to adults and to all men, and utter such things from their own mind, and thereby they have in a masterly way eradicated and made void and unnecessary the Christian faith, and have set up human works alone by virtue of the power of the sacraments.

Of course, Rome has an entire theological development on what happens to an unbaptized infant. There was "Limbo" up until fairly recently. Self-proclaimed interpreter of Romanism Jimmy Akin commenting on Rome's recent Limbo development states,

The document that the International Theological Commission has been working on concerning limbo has now been published. AS ANTICIPATED, it casts doubt on the doctrine of limbo without claiming anything certain regarding the fate of infants dying without baptism, instead encouraging an attitude of hope regarding their salvation.This is in line with the development of Catholic thought in the last few decades regarding the fate of such children, as well as the discussion of their fate in the Catechism.

Addendum: The Most Effective Baptism is Infant Baptism
For Luther, the most effective baptism was infant baptism:

I maintain as I have written in the Postil that the most certain form of baptism is child baptism. For an adult might deceive and come to Christ as a Judas and have himself baptized. But a child cannot deceive. He comes to Christ in baptism, as John came to him, and as the children were brought to him, that his word and work might be effective in them, move them, and make them holy, because his Word and work cannot be without fruit. Yet it has this effect alone in the child. Were it to fail here it would fail everywhere and be in vain, which is impossible. (LW 40:244)

And in his Postil sermon:

Therefore we here conclude and declare that in baptism the children themselves believe and have their own faith, which God effects in them through the sponsors, when in the faith of the Christian church they intercede for them and bring them to baptism. And this is what we call the power of alien faith: not that anybody can be saved by it, but that through it as an intercession and aid he can obtain from God himself his own faith, by which he is saved.

32. So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Mt 19,13-15; Mk 10, 13-16; Lk 18, 15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God" etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, be bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture...

So we also say here, that children are brought to baptism by the faith and work of others; but when they get there and the pastor or baptizer deals with them in Christ's stead, he blesses them and grants to them the faith and the kingdom of heaven: for the word and deed of the pastor are the word and work of Christ himself.

I think it's interesting that Luther limits the power and efficacy of baptism. He staunchly maintains the absolute power of baptism in infant baptism, but yet limits the power of baptism in adults:

I think, if any baptism is certain, the baptism of children is most certain, because of the Word of Christ, where he commands to bring them, whereas the adults come of themselves. In adults there may be deception because of the reason that is manifest; but in children there can be no deception, because of their hidden reason, in whom Christ works his blessing, even as he has bidden them to be brought to himself. It is a glorious word and not to be treated lightly, that he commands us to bring the children to him, and rebukes those who forbid it.

Typically my blog entries on Luther are interested in simply presenting the historical evidence. Whether or not I agree with Luther's position is irrelevant. I personally don't follow Luther's reasoning here (and yes, my position is still irrelevant!). Since when is the regenerating power of God thwarted by a human will? I think if Luther were consistent here, an unbelieving adult being baptized (whose family and church were praying for him as in, "the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them," that person, according to Luther, should similarly receive the gift of faith.

Here's an interesting link as well: Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the Doctrine of Baptism. One may disagree with the conclusions of the author, but he does a good job laying out Luther's position on baptism.

A Primer on Luther's View of Baptism For Non-Lutherans

I've recently come across a number of Lutheran-related discussions on baptism. More often than not, the majority of non-Lutherans in these exchanges have little understanding of the Lutheran position, and to make matters worse, very few Lutherans in these discussions appear to actually have the ability to explain their view succinctly and cogently to those who oppose it. This makes for a heated discussion with little or no substance or progress from either side.

I don't claim to have any sort of expert knowledge on the various strands of Lutheranism, but it should be possible to read the historical record of what Martin Luther said on baptism and outline his view.  To understand an historical position does not imply that one must agree with that position. However, if one wants to respond effectively, one must first demonstrate an understanding of that which one opposes. I offer the following to my non-Lutheran friends in an effort to help clarify at least Luther's view. Whether or not the particular Lutheran you're interacting with holds this view or not is up to you to determine. As you read each of the points below, ask yourself  if you to agree or disagree with Luther's view. I've also added some related questions to consider. In other words, as the explanation moves along, try and pinpoint where you actually have the disagreement with Luther's view.

For my Lutheran friends, I would indeed welcome any comments or clarifications on Luther's view of baptism. If I've taken Luther out of context or missed something substantial in his theology, I would appreciate any corrections or clarifications.

BC= Book of Concord
LW= Luther's Works (English)

1. Baptism is a Form of God's Word
One of the first keys to unlocking Luther's view is that for Luther, baptism is a form of God's Word. Therefore, to reject the crucial importance of baptism or think of it as a  human "work" is to reject God's Word and God's work. Just like when one reads the pages of Scripture and hears the very voice of God promising that if one trusts in Christ alone and Christ's work that person will be saved, so to in baptism, God promises that baptism "effects forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal salvation to all who believe, as the word and promise of God declare" (BC, 348).

Question: Do you think that baptism is a form of God's Word? Is this sacrament another way in which God communicates?  Is minimizing the significance and importance of baptism akin to taking God's Word for granted?


2. The Sacrament of Baptism is a Divine Promise Attached to an Outward Sign
In one of Luther's early writings (1520), The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther argued the sacraments collectively were divine promises (God's Word) attached to outward signs (Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc.). The promise is that God will forgive sins. It isn't the water of baptism that forgives sins, it's the Word of God connected with the water (BC 349).

Question: Can God's Word be "attached" to a sign? Is there Biblical precedent establishing this basic principle? Is it similar to the Old Testament temple and such things like the Ark of the Covenant and the slabs in which God wrote the Ten Commandments?


3. Our Personal Faith Must Trust God and His Promises Conveyed in Baptism
The basic structure of Luther's theology of baptism is a triad of divine promise, sign, along with a third thing: faith. An atheist can read God's promise to forgive his sins, but does this mean such a person merely reading the words has salvation? In the same way, if one were to force a group of atheists into a Lutheran church to be baptized, does this mean that such a group has been saved by such a baptism? Of course not.

In Luther's historical context, Rome taught that the sacraments gave God's grace to everyone who does not block that grace with mortal sins. Luther responded,

These adversaries of mine and all their masters up to the present time cannot show how the priest remits guilt unless they do so by advancing that heretical but usual opinion which says that the sacraments of the new law give justifying grace to those who place no obstacle in the way. But it is impossible to proffer the sacrament in a salutary manner except to those who already believe and are just and worthy. The one who approaches the sacrament must believe [Heb. 11:6]. Therefore it is not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament, that justifies. (LW 31:106)

Luther says elsewhere on the essential role of faith:

"Therefore let us open our eyes and learn to pay heed more to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or use of the sign. We know that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be effective apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there is a promise, and the promise is not established unless it is believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the efficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from the faith is to labor in vain and to find condemnation. Thus Christ says: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned” [Mark 16:16]. He shows us in this word that faith is such a necessary part of the sacrament that it can save even without the sacrament, and for this reason he did not add: “He who does not believe, and is not baptized.” [LW 36:67].

Question: According to this quote from Luther, can the administration of Baptism on a person without faith ultimately save that person? According to this quote from Luther, can a person be saved without being baptized?


4. Infant Faith and Baptism 
The question then arises that if baptism only has effect when faith grasps the promise of grace in the sign, why should infants be baptized? Why baptize an infant that can't demonstrate a fides viva (living faith)? Luther's position on baptism developed on this issue but did not contradict itself.

Early on Luther simply relied on the medieval notion that a child was baptized into the faith of others (the faith of the church and the faith of the parents). Luther stated:

Therefore we here conclude and declare that in baptism the children themselves believe and have their own faith, which God effects in them through the sponsors, when in the faith of the Christian church they intercede for them and bring them to baptism. And this is what we call the power of alien faith: not that anybody can be saved by it, but that through it as an intercession and aid he can obtain from God himself his own faith, by which he is saved. It may be compared to my natural life and death. If I am to live, I myself must be born, and nobody can be born for me to enable me to live; but mother and midwife can by their life aid me in birth and enable me to live. In the same way I myself must suffer death, if I am to die; but one can help to bring about my death, if be frightens me, or falls upon me, or chokes,crushes or suffocates me. In like manner, nobody can go to hell for me; but he can seduce me by false doctrine and life, so that I go thither by my own error, into which his error has led me. So nobody can go to heaven for me; but he can assist me, can preach, teach, govern, pray and obtain faith from God, through which I can go to heaven. This centurion was not healed of the palsy of his servant; but yet he brought it about that his servant was restored to health. 32. So here we also say, that children are not baptized in the faith of the sponsors or of the church; but the faith of sponsors and of the church prays and gains faith for them, in which they are baptized and believe for themselves. For this we have strong and firm Scripture proof, Mt 19,13-15; Mk 10, 13-16; Lk 18, 15-16. When some brought little children to the Lord Jesus that he should touch them, and the disciples forbade them, he rebuked the disciples, and embraced the children, and laid his hands upon them and blessed them, and said: "To such belongeth the kingdom of God" etc. These passages nobody will take from us, nor refute with good proof. For here is written: Christ will permit no one to forbid that little children should be brought to him; nay, be bids them to be brought to him, and blesses them and gives to them the kingdom of heaven. Let us give due heed to this Scripture.

  As the Reformation progressed, the radical Anabaptists forced him to define his position with more depth. In the mid 1520's, Luther wrote about children actually demonstrating they did indeed have faith. A favorite example I've come across in his writings is John the Baptist moving in his mother's womb when near the womb of the Virgin Mary. Doesn't such a Biblical example prove that a child can most certainly have some sort of faith? For Luther therefore, a child should be baptized and that child may receive the promises attached to the sign of the sacrament of baptism. Luther says,

That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. Even today there are not a few whose doctrine and life attest that they have the Holy Spirit. (BC 442)

for Luther, the best time to baptize someone is during infancy:

I maintain as I have written in the Postil that the most certain form of baptism is child baptism. For an adult might deceive and come to Christ as a Judas and have himself baptized. But a child cannot deceive. He comes to Christ in baptism, as John came to him, and as the children were brought to him, that his word and work might be effective in them, move them, and make them holy, because his Word and work cannot be without fruit. Yet it has this effect alone in the child. Were it to fail here it would fail everywhere and be in vain, which is impossible. (LW 40:244)

But that infant faith doesn't simply remain intact and steadfast. It's the responsibility of a child's parents and church to nurture a child's faith:

We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God. Why? Because we know that God does not lie. My neighbor and I — in short, all men — may err and deceive, but God’s Word cannot err. (BC 444)

One of the main differences between Lutherans and the Reformed concerns the gift of faith. For a Reformed person, faith, while it may have times of great confidence and great weakness, can never be lost. For a Lutheran, faith can also have times of great confidence and great weakness but can be lost. The Reformed typically don't speak about the gift of faith being given to an infant during baptism while Lutherans do. That gift of faith given to a child in infancy, if not nurtured, can be eternally lost.  Both of these views on faith and infant baptism must be distinguished from the Roman Catholic view during Luther's day. Luther describes the view as follows:

21. Now the question is, what becomes of the young children, seeing that they have not yet reason and are not able to believe for themselves, because it is written in Rom 10, 17: "Belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." Little children neither hear nor understand the Word of God, and therefore they can have no faith of their own. 22. The sophists in the universities, and the sects of the pope have invented the following answer to the question: Little children are baptized without their own faith, and on the faith of the Church, which the sponsors confess at the baptism; thereupon the infant receives in baptism the forgiveness of sins by the power and virtue of the baptism, and faith of its own is infused with grace, so that it becomes a new born child through the water and the Holy Spirit. 23. But if you ask them for the proof of this answer and where this is found in the Scriptures, it is found up the dark chimney, or they will point to their doctor's hat and say: We are the highly learned doctors and we say so; therefore it is true, and you must not inquire any farther. For almost all their doctrine has no other foundation than their own dreams and imaginations... 24. From this falsehood they have gone farther and have even come to the point, where they have taught and still teach, that the sacraments have such power, that even if you have no faith and receive the sacrament (provided you have no intention to sin), you shall still receive the grace and the forgiveness of sins without faith. This they have inferred from the former opinion, that little children receive grace in this way without faith, solely by the virtue and power of the sacrament, as, they dream. Therefore they also ascribe the same thing to adults and to all men, and utter such things from their own mind, and thereby they have in a masterly way eradicated and made void and unnecessary the Christian faith, and have set up human works alone by virtue of the power of the sacraments.

Question: Is is possible for an infant to have faith? According to the Luther quotes from the Book of Concord, is Luther affirming that every child that is baptized has the same sort of faith that the pre-born John the Baptist had? what are the differences between the Romanist view and Luther's view of infant baptism? Are the differences substantial or insignificant?


5. Baptism Should Not Be Based on the Faith of the Person Being Baptized
By the late 1520's and early 1530's, Luther strongly argued against basing baptism on the faith of the person to be baptized (See specifically his treatise, Concerning Rebaptism (LW 40). The Anabaptists were blatantly denying infant baptism. According to Luther their basic error was grounding baptism in human faith. Here's Luther's reasoning:

a) Baptism is God's activity. Our faith can fluctuate, but God's promise in the sign of baptism always remains. Throughout Luther's writings one can find him exhorting his readers to look back to the seal of baptism and God's promises contained therein. This recollection is a helpful remedy to someone in times of doubt and despair.

b) Even if someone's baptism was incorrectly administered, such would not negate God's promises.

c) Our lack of faith cannot negate our baptism in the same way Israelites acting incorrectly voided God's covenant with them.

d) Most importantly, faith itself is not something that can be ostensively measured like picking up a rock. That is, the Anabaptists did not have the ability to look into another person's heart and know with certainty someone actually had faith. The Anabaptists therefore really couldn't baptize anyone if baptism can only be administered on someone with faith. The Anabaptists could theoretically baptize someone 100 times and not really know with certainty if the person truly had faith.

For Luther therefore, the divine word of promise in baptism was intimately connected with human faith (but was not grounded on faith). There was the sign / promise and the faith that grasped the sign. Depending on what Luther was writing, he either emphasized one or other without contradicting either. In writing against Romanists he opposed the notion that baptism was salvific without faith. Writing against the Anabaptists, he emphasized the work of God in baptism- that baptism really does contain God's promises, and even if administered to an unbeliever, it is still a form of the Word of God.

Question: If baptism is a form of God's Word, does Luther make any valid points about basing baptism on faith? In other words, does his reasoning here follow based on the premises outlined above (1-4)? Is Luther's reasoning in #d a strong epistemological argument or not? That is, if baptism is only given to those who profess faith, what guarantee is there that the person being baptized truly has faith?


6. Treating Baptism Indifferently is Sinful
When one approaches Luther's Large Catechism, one finds the themes mentioned above. As his exposition begins, Luther treats Baptism with the respect and importance it deserves.

a) Baptism is God's commandment. If we claim to be Christians and "regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat" such a person will not be saved (Mark 16:16). Luther specifically has the Anabaptists in mind here. Baptism isn't simply common water, but God's Word added to it. To treat baptism flippantly therefore is to deny God's Word. Can a true Christian deny God's Word? No! That's why someone who treats baptism indifferently will not be saved. such a person demonstrates no faith in God's promises. for someone to emphasize faith and minimize baptism is nothing else than placing faith in opposition to the Word of God in the sacrament.

b) A little bit later Luther addresses faith in regard to baptism:

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. 29 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?

30 Now, these people are so foolish as to separate faith from the object to which faith is attached and bound on the ground that the object is something external. Yes, it must be external so that it can be perceived and grasped by the senses and thus brought into the heart, just as the entire Gospel is an external, oral proclamation. In short, whatever God effects in us he does through such external ordinances. No matter where he speaks — indeed, no matter for what purpose or by what means he speaks — there faith must look and to it faith must hold. 31 We have here the words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” To what do they refer but to Baptism, that is, the water comprehended in God’s ordinance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s Word, faith, and Christ, who directs us and binds us to Baptism.

Note the last sentence: those who reject baptism (or as he stated earlier: treat it with indifference) are denying God's Word. Such a person will not be saved. Then Luther states:

32 In the third place, having learned the great benefit and power of Baptism, let us observe further who receives these gifts and benefits of Baptism. 33 This again is most beautifully and clearly expressed in these same words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved,” that is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive the salutary, divine water profitably. Since these blessings are offered and promised in the words which accompany the water, they cannot be received unless we believe them whole-heartedly. 34 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.

Question: When Luther states, "Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects God’s Word, faith, and Christ, who directs us and binds us to Baptism," to what sort of person or group is he referring? What does Luther mean when he uses the words, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved"?

7. Baptism is not a Human Work
Luther's Large Catechism also explains why baptism is not a work:

35 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. 36 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.

37 Thus you see plainly that Baptism is not a work which we do but is a treasure which God gives us and faith grasps, just as the Lord Christ upon the cross is not a work but a treasure comprehended and offered to us in the Word and received by faith. Therefore they are unfair when they cry out against us as though we preach against faith. Actually, we insist on faith alone as so necessary that without it nothing can be received or enjoyed.

Question:  Why would Luther argue that baptism is not a human work? Which person or group during Luther's lifetime would say baptism is a human work, and why?

Conclusion
This is simply a short review of Luther's view as I understand it. Don't be surprised to find much lengthier treatments of Luther's view on baptism. A good selection of material can be found in What Luther Says by Ewald Plass  (18 pages consisting of two columns on each page!). See also The Theology of Martin Luther by Paul Althaus  pp. 345-374. Also, I've cited this Postil sermon from Luther a few times above. It's a good overview of Luther's position on infant baptism

Addendum #1
As an addendum, I've attached some material I posted a few weeks ago in response to Chris Pinto.  In that post I chastised Mr. Pinto for not really describing Luther's view of baptism, but picking and choosing what agreed with his own view. Mr. Pinto clung to the notion that Luther held faith could save without baptism, citing this quote from What Luther Says:

145 Faith Saves without Baptism Not Baptism Without Faith
A person can believe although he is not baptized; for Baptism is no more than an external sign to remind us of the divine promise. If one is able to get Baptism, it is well. Then one should take it, for no one should despise it. But if one were not able to get it or one were denied it, he is nonetheless not damned provided that he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is there Baptism also is and everything a Christian needs, because damnation follows upon no sin except unbelief alone. This is also the reason why the Lord says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." He does not say: He that is not baptized; but is silent about Baptism. For Baptism is useless without faith. It is like a letter to which seals are attached but in which nothing has been written. Therefore he who has the signs (which we call Sacraments) and not faith has seals only, seals attached to a letter without any writing. (W 10 III, 142 - E 12, 196 - SL 11, 953 f)

Pinto concludes that Luther's views on baptism are much like his own and what modern evangelicals believe. He says he agrees with Luther that "water baptism is not necessary for salvation." Obviously as demonstrated above, Luther's view of baptism isn't as simple as Pinto claims it is. In fairness to Mr. Pinto though, there are other comments from Luther about faith saving rather than sacraments:

It cannot be true, therefore, that there is contained in the sacraments a power efficacious for justification, or that they are “effective signs” of grace. All such things are said to the detriment of faith, and out of ignorance of the divine promise. Unless you should call them “effective” in the sense that they certainly and effectively impart grace where faith is unmistakably present. But it is not in this sense that efficacy is now ascribed to them; as witness the fact that they are said to benefit all men, even the wicked and unbelieving, provided they do not set an obstacle in the way—as if such unbelief were not in itself the most obstinate and hostile of all obstacles to grace. To such an extent have they exerted themselves to turn the sacrament into a command and faith into a work. For if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it, then indeed I receive grace by virtue of my work, and not by faith; and I gain not the promise in the sacrament but only the sign instituted and commanded by God. Thus you see clearly how completely the sacraments have been misunderstood by the theologians of the Sentences. In their discussions of the sacraments they have taken no account either of faith or of promise. They cling only to the sign and the use of the sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, away from the word to the sign. Thus, as I have said, they have not only taken the sacraments captive, but have completely destroyed them, as far as they were able. (LW 36:67)

Furthermore, St. Paul says in Rom. 14[:23], “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” How, then, can the sacraments give grace to unbelievers who in all their works and ways do nothing else than sin so long as they do not believe. Indeed, how can they remove the obstacle if they remain in that unbelief which makes all that they do sin, as St. Paul here states? Yet they teach that faith is not necessary in order to receive the sacraments and grace and, condemning me, they condemn these clear passages of Scripture. For the same reason, St. Paul quotes in Rom. 1[:17] and Heb. 10[:38] the saying of the prophet Habakkuk as one of the chief articles in all Christian teaching when he says, “The righteous shall live by his faith” [Hab. 2:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]. He does not say that the righteous shall live by the sacraments, but by his faith, for not the sacraments, but faith in the sacraments, gives life and righteousness. Many receive the sacraments and obtain from them neither life nor godliness, but he that believes is godly and will live. That is also the meaning of Christ’s saying in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” He puts faith before baptism for where there is no faith, baptism does no good. As he himself afterwards says, “He who does not believe will be condemned,” even though he is baptized, for it is not baptism, but faith in baptism, that saves. For this reason, we read in Acts 8[:36f.] that St. Philip would not baptize the eunuch until he had asked him whether he believed. And we can see every day that wherever in the whole world baptism is administered, the question is put to the child, or the sponsors in his stead, whether he believes, and on the basis of this faith and confession, the sacrament of baptism is administered. (LW 32:13-14)

Moreover, St. Paul says (Rom. 10[:10]) that, “A man believes with his heart and so is justified.” He does not say that it is necessary that he receive the sacraments, for one can become righteous by faith without the bodily reception of the sacraments (so long as one does not despise them). But without faith, no sacrament is of any use, indeed, it is altogether deadly and pernicious. For this reason, he writes in Rom. 4[:3] that, “Abraham believed, or trusted, God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” or godliness. This Moses had previously written in Gen. 15[:6] and it was set down in order that we might know that nothing makes us good and righteous except faith. Without faith, no one can have any dealings with God, nor receive his grace. (LW 32:15)

For the word can exist without the sacrament, but the sacrament cannot exist without the word. And in the case of necessity, a man can be saved without the sacrament, but not without the word; this is true of those who desire baptism but die before they can receive it. (WA 38:231)

Addendum #2
Here's an interesting overview from A.A. Hodge on the Lutheran view of the Necessity of Baptism:

41. What is the Lutheran view ?

Their standards state the necessity of the sacraments without apparent qualification (See “Aug. Confession” Art. 9, and “Apol. Aug. Confession,” p. 156, quoted under last chapter). But Dr. Krauth has shown from the writings of Luther and their standard theologians, that their actual view was that (1) baptism is not essential (as e. g., Christ’s atonement is), but that (2) it is necessary, as the ordained ordinary means of conferring grace, yet (3) not unconditionally, because the “necessity” is limited (a) by the possibility of having it, so that not the deprivation of baptism, but the contempt of it condemns a man, and (b) by the fact that all the blessings of baptism are conditioned on faith. (4) Baptism is not always followed by regeneration, and regeneration is not always preceded by baptism, and men may be saved though unbaptized. (5) That within the church all infants are saved although unbaptized. (6) As to infants of heathen, the point undecided, because unrevealed, but hopeful views entertained.––Krauth “Conserv. Reform.,” pp. 557–564. Hodge, A. (1996). Outlines of Theology. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. (electronic ed. based on the 1972 Banner of Truth Trust reproduction of the 1879 ed.) (628). Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation.

Luther vs. Lutheranism on Baptism?

I was sent a link to the following: Luther vs. Lutheranism by Chris Pinto. The link is to an mp3 broadcast:

LUTHER VS. LUTHERANISM Chris discusses the modern day Lutheran Church and their teachings on baptism. Is baptism required for salvation? Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ..." (Mark 16:16) Lutherans take this to mean that immersion in water is quite literally what is required. Does this amount to works salvation? And more importantly, is this teaching consistent with the doctrines of Martin Luther himself? Was Luther a Lutheran?

I've never heard of Chris Pinto before. He appears to be some sort of baptist with strong leanings toward the KJV and dispensational prophecy studies.  He describes himself in this broadcast as "a defender of Martin Luther and the Reformers overall... whenever somebody thinks they've got some bad info on Luther or Calvin they usually send it to me." He describes as well his efforts to save the historical John Calvin from the hands of modern-day "neo-Calvinists." I'm not exactly sure what he means, but I would speculate he may ascribe to the theory that Calvin was not a Calvinist in the same sort of way Norman Geisler, Dave Hunt, and a number of other non-Reformed evangelicals have interpreted Calvin. Again though, I know almost nothing about Mr. Pinto, other than listening to this one broadcast and skimming his website.

In this brief broadcast, Pinto takes on the notion that Lutherans generally and confessionally believe water baptism is essential for salvation while Martin Luther did not. This exploration is mixed together with another question: Did Martin Luther believe water baptism saves? That these two questions are mixed together made his presentation confusing and unhelpful. Perhaps this was due to time restraints, but shouldn't the treatment of such a complicated theological and historical topic be handled more carefully?

Mr. Pinto never specifically cites a Lutheran confession on the topic, but does cite a Lutheran blog article, Does Baptism Save? in order to outline the Lutheran position. He states that "the modern Lutheran confession is a belief in water baptism for salvation." I found it curious that even in the Lutheran blog article he cites, careful consideration was not given to the following statement found in that blog article:

Those who do not baptize children often raise questions at this point about how a Lutheran explains the baptized child who ages to be a pagan or atheist adult or other similar scenarios. Lutheranism would never propose that the adult who rejects Christ would be saved because of their having been Baptized. For a Lutheran, it is not contradictory to say that a baptized child is saved at one point, then rejects his Baptism and his Lord later in life, resulting in the loss of salvation as long as he does not repent.

Pinto cites Luther once and concludes Luther was not a Lutheran on the issue of baptism. He cites "Luther's own writings" using the anthology, What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. The specific entry is #145 (found on page 54 in volume 1 of my 3 volume set):

145 Faith Saves without Baptism Not Baptism Without Faith
A person can believe although he is not baptized; for Baptism is no more than an external sign to remind us of the divine promise. If one is able to get Baptism, it is well. Then one should take it, for no one should despise it. But if one were not able to get it or one were denied it, he is nonetheless not damned provided that he believes the Gospel. For where the Gospel is there Baptism also is and everything a Christian needs, because damnation follows upon no sin except unbelief alone. This is also the reason why the Lord says: "He that believeth not shall be damned." He does not say: He that is not baptized; but is silent about Baptism. For Baptism is useless without faith. It is like a letter to which seals are attached but in which nothing has been written. Therefore he who has the signs (which we call Sacraments) and not faith has seals only, seals attached to a letter without any writing. (W 10 III, 142 - E 12, 196 - SL 11, 953 f)

Pinto concludes that Luther's views on baptism are much like his own and what modern evangelicals believe. He mentions a few examples from the Bible of those who were saved either without or previous to baptism (the thief on the cross, etc.). He says he agrees with Luther that "water baptism is not necessary for salvation."

Contrary to a comment left about this show, the quote cited via Plass was not "one Luther quote pulled out of 55 volumes of Luther's writing." The context for the quote though does indeed exist in an English translation, but not in LW. In can be found in The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 2, 1: 195-208, with the exact quote on page 204 (Day of Christ's Ascension into Heaven, Second Sermon, Mark 16: 14-20, 1522). The sermon can be found on-line here. In the context Luther is recorded as blatantly saying "Faith alone, of itself, without any works, as the Word of God here clearly says, brings us salvation, and works help nothing at all toward righteousness or salvation." He then explains that baptism is an outward sign that is accompanied with God's Word to strengthen our faith. That's about the extent of the discussion on baptism in this sermon. In other words, the statement from Luther used by Pinto is more of a passing comment than a detailed explanation of Luther's view.

I can certainly understand how Mr. Pinto read this quote cited by Plass and concluded he and Luther were on the same page. On the other hand, this brief quote from Plass certainly doesn't completely describe Luther's view, and if indeed Mr. Pinto has What Luther Says he should be aware of the rather complex view outlined by Plass (18 pages consisting of two columns on each page!). The question then I would have for Mr. Pinto is whether or not he really agrees with the entirety and complexity of Luther's view, or simply the one quote he used. For instance, the very next entry in What Luther says is entitled, "Yet Baptism is Valid Even Though Not Believed." The entry after that is entitled "For Faith is Not of the Essence of Baptism." Luther's sermon cited by Pinto comes from 1522. Citing Luther correctly on baptism really requires (especially for someone like Pinto) to look into Luther's writings after he became engaged in disputes with Anabaptist theology. My gut is telling me that Mr. Pinto really isn't familiar with Luther and therefore should not be commenting on whether or not contemporary Lutherans are at odds with Luther on baptism. Lutherans have every right to be suspicious of  his historical conclusions until he proves in some way that he actually understands the two positions he is comparing and contrasting. That he didn't cite any Lutheran confessions, and that he only could cite one Luther quote from an anthology makes me suspicious of his conclusions, and I'm not even a Lutheran. [In a follow-up broadcast, Mr. Pinto basically confirms my suspicion that he has little knowledge of Lutheranism. I've yet to hear anything from Mr. Pinto as well demonstrating any sort of familiarity with Luther's writings].

In fairness to Mr. Pinto, there are other comments from Luther about faith saving rather than sacraments:

It cannot be true, therefore, that there is contained in the sacraments a power efficacious for justification, or that they are “effective signs” of grace. All such things are said to the detriment of faith, and out of ignorance of the divine promise. Unless you should call them “effective” in the sense that they certainly and effectively impart grace where faith is unmistakably present. But it is not in this sense that efficacy is now ascribed to them; as witness the fact that they are said to benefit all men, even the wicked and unbelieving, provided they do not set an obstacle in the way—as if such unbelief were not in itself the most obstinate and hostile of all obstacles to grace. To such an extent have they exerted themselves to turn the sacrament into a command and faith into a work. For if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it, then indeed I receive grace by virtue of my work, and not by faith; and I gain not the promise in the sacrament but only the sign instituted and commanded by God. Thus you see clearly how completely the sacraments have been misunderstood by the theologians of the Sentences. In their discussions of the sacraments they have taken no account either of faith or of promise. They cling only to the sign and the use of the sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, away from the word to the sign. Thus, as I have said, they have not only taken the sacraments captive, but have completely destroyed them, as far as they were able. (LW 36:67)

Furthermore, St. Paul says in Rom. 14[:23], “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” How, then, can the sacraments give grace to unbelievers who in all their works and ways do nothing else than sin so long as they do not believe. Indeed, how can they remove the obstacle if they remain in that unbelief which makes all that they do sin, as St. Paul here states? Yet they teach that faith is not necessary in order to receive the sacraments and grace and, condemning me, they condemn these clear passages of Scripture. For the same reason, St. Paul quotes in Rom. 1[:17] and Heb. 10[:38] the saying of the prophet Habakkuk as one of the chief articles in all Christian teaching when he says, “The righteous shall live by his faith” [Hab. 2:4]. He does not say that the righteous shall live by the sacraments, but by his faith, for not the sacraments, but faith in the sacraments, gives life and righteousness. Many receive the sacraments and obtain from them neither life nor godliness, but he that believes is godly and will live. That is also the meaning of Christ’s saying in the last chapter of Mark [16:16], “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” He puts faith before baptism for where there is no faith, baptism does no good. As he himself afterwards says, “He who does not believe will be condemned,” even though he is baptized, for it is not baptism, but faith in baptism, that saves. For this reason, we read in Acts 8[:36f.] that St. Philip would not baptize the eunuch until he had asked him whether he believed. And we can see every day that wherever in the whole world baptism is administered, the question is put to the child, or the sponsors in his stead, whether he believes, and on the basis of this faith and confession, the sacrament of baptism is administered. (LW 32:13-14)

 Moreover, St. Paul says (Rom. 10[:10]) that, “A man believes with his heart and so is justified.” He does not say that it is necessary that he receive the sacraments, for one can become righteous by faith without the bodily reception of the sacraments (so long as one does not despise them). But without faith, no sacrament is of any use, indeed, it is altogether deadly and pernicious. For this reason, he writes in Rom. 4[:3] that, “Abraham believed, or trusted, God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” or godliness. This Moses had previously written in Gen. 15[:6] and it was set down in order that we might know that nothing makes us good and righteous except faith. Without faith, no one can have any dealings with God, nor receive his grace. (LW 32:15)

For the word can exist without the sacrament, but the sacrament cannot exist without the word. And in the case of necessity, a man can be saved without the sacrament, but not without the word; this is true of those who desire baptism but die before they can receive it. (WA 38:231)

These sort of quotes though need to be balanced by Luther's interaction with Anabaptist theology. The Anabaptists seized on Luther's theology here and thus often devalued the sacraments. Luther then argued for the "indissoluble relationship of the sacraments to faith" as Paul Althaus explained. See his overview in The Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 348- 352.  If Mr Pinto reads this blog entry, I would direct him as well to the treatment of Luther's view of baptism found in the same book, pp. 353-374.