Lutheran baptismal regeneration as solas biblically vindicated

 This is my response to Lauran’s blog attacks on our baptismal views as “false gospel,” that is filled with misrepresentations. It can be found here:

https://lauranlou.wordpress.com/2020/11/06/baptismal-regeneration-life-or-death/?preview=true&fbclid=IwAR1AQY75aeE6x92U0C_AfnQ9MNjy_978FOJ5aozygI9X03DUvv1XQo0fm18

Let me put the blogger’s words in quotes with my response that follows each time.

“The burden I felt as I researched this doctrine was overwhelming. I began to see there was just so much error and contradiction to the gospel. I now feel so compelled to write on this topic as to not allow the gospel of Christ to be distorted in this way. I will begin to lay out my argument using Scripture as my only guide and Authority. ‘ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.’ Galatians 1:8”

So ironic in wanting to throw anathemas at Lutherans, she quotes from the very same epistle that also states we are joined to Christ, through faith in baptism. Last I check Galatians 3:27 reads: For as many of you as haue bene baptized into Christ, haue put on Christ.

“This blog will be pertaining to the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration, which is not only a Lutheran doctrinal error, but is found among many denominations including Church of Christ, Anglican churches, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventist’s, United Pentecostalism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.”

Here is an attempt to try to poison the well by lumping the Lutheran position with other variations of baptismal regeneration, to the point of throwing out anti-Trinity groups in the mix. But let’s deal first with this attempt at guilt by association with the Roman Catholicism. Its Council of Trent Session VII: condemned the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration as anathema.

“CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.

“CANON X.-If any one saith, that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism which has been received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted, or made venial; let him be anathema.”

So Rome’s own council was in agreement with Lauren’s anathema at the Confessional Lutherans for affirming baptism not only saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, but continues to save by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone for the entire Christian life thereafter.

“I’m aware that many of the early church fathers held to and taught a form of baptismal regeneration.”

Not just many, but unanimously held.

“Even though many of these teachers were spot on, in the end, these were fallible men. They are not above the Scripture. The Word must be our ultimate authority over all matters.”

The problem is according to you, they are all lost heretics. That mean only Gnostics early on would qualified as saved to you since they were the ones who rejected baptismal regeneration.

“Creeds and confessions can not be our authority. There is only one, the Written Word of God.”

To deny creeds and confessions for rule of faith is a complete perversion of sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura means Scriptures alone infallibly informs our views. But that isn’t a denial of creeds and confessions as truthful expressions of sola Scriptura.

It is also self-defeating as well since we would have to reject her blog post since it isn’t the Bible. Claiming to be biblical or saying she cite Scriptures isn’t a defense here since creeds and confessions both claim to be biblical and cite Scriptures, and she dismiss them as not God’s word. So her blog post must be dismissed then by her logic.

“So with that said, the first error within the Lutheran doctrine is the belief that baptism is a necessary component for salvation. Otherwise known as, baptismal regeneration. To quote Charles Spurgeon- ‘We ourselves are not dubious on this point, we protest that persons are not saved by being baptized. In such an audience as this, I am almost ashamed to go into the matter, because you surely know better than to be misled. Nevertheless, for the good of others we will drive at it. We hold that persons are not saved by baptism, for we think, first of all that it seems out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ came to teach, that he should make salvation depend upon mere ceremony.’ “

First off, Lauran quotes Spurgeon as if against Lutherans when Luther and Lutherans don’t make salvation dependent on “mere ceremony” but on God’s word that works through means. While baptism is a means by which God sends forth His word, it isn’t the only means.

Secondly, Christianity isn’t a spiritual only religion. The Incarnation was physical. Christ’s death for our sins and resurrection were physical. His ascension was physical. Even preaching of the word (which Spurgeon was famous for, deservingly so) was physical. Hearing of the word is also physical as well.

Only Gnostics historically denied physical means God uses, as extension of their denials of the Incarnation.

(Quoting Spurgeon) “The false religions of the heathen might inculcate salvation by a physical process, but Jesus Christ claims for his faith that it is purely spiritual, and how could he connect regeneration with a peculiar application of aqueous fluid?”

The irony. The heathen Gnostics were the ones who denied physical means God uses.

And how could Christ connect regeneration to fluid? 

How could He connect regeneration to the word preached when it is a human preacher speaking physically?

Because He is God, and He can. And He does many times in the New Testament by His own word spoken or through those He had write His word (Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Romans 6:3-4, 1 Corinthians 6:11, Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 5:25-27, Colossians 2:11-13, Hebrews 10:22, 1 Peter 3:21, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 22:17.

(Again quoting Spurgeon) “I cannot see how it would be a spiritual gospel, but I can see how it would be mechanical, if I were sent forth to teach that the mere dropping of so many drops upon the brow, or even the plunging a person in water could save the soul.”

Except that Lutherans don’t hold to it is the water itself that goes the saving in baptism. What’s affirmed is that water is there as visible means of God’s word of gospel

promise of Christ’s forgiveness proclaimed to us, by which God gives us faith and rebirth. 

(Again Spurgeon) “This seems to me to be the most mechanical religion now existing, and to be on a par with the praying windmills of Thibet, or the climbing up and down of Pilate’s staircase to which Luther subjected himself in the days of his darkness.”

Except that the Lutheran is the exact opposite. Baptismal regeneration in the Lutheran view holds to salvation lies outside ourselves, not dependent on anything in us. It is gospel-centered based salvation in Christ alone given unto us from outside ourselves through such means as baptism, by which faith alone receives Christ alone. 

So ironic to appeal to what Luther went through in his pre-Reformation days.

Luther’s baptismal regeneration theology was a reaction to those days. In fact, his Babylonian Captivity of the Church criticized Rome for in effect destroying baptismal salvation assurance by its denials of sola fide: 3.3 It was the duty of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with all diligence to lead Christians to the true understanding of baptism, so that they might know what manner of men they are and how Christians ought to live. But instead of this, their work is now to lead the people as far astray as possible from their baptism, to immerse all men in the flood of their oppression, and to cause the people of Christ, as the prophet says, to forget Him days without number.

“When speaking to those who hold to this view of baptismal regeneration they have several Scriptures they will refer to that supposedly support this, one of them being John 3:5. 5 ‘’Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’ Let’s take a look at this passage. To assume that a water baptism itself is in mind because of a reference is made to water is unwarranted. The entire passage is talking about the spiritual aspect of being born again.”

First off, we as Lutherans don’t deny born again is spiritual, given we affirm the unconverted human wills are bound to sin unless regenerated solely by the Holy Spirit through means of Word and Sacrament.

Secondly, to argue as if we hold to water baptism saves as apart from Spirit baptism shows how unfamiliar she is with what we believe. We don’t hold to those two are different baptisms. Nor do we hold to a water baptism as if Spirit-less. We hold to it’s baptism, period where there’s water, but the work is fully done by the Holy Spirit. Period.

Thirdly, what’s unwarranted is to assume God can’t use physical means to convert us then force Scriptures to fit her own man-made tradition. Ephesians 5:26 does say Christ washes us with water through the Word.

“So it goes to reason that he was not referring to literal water (in either baptism or physical birth referring amniotic fluid) but the need for spiritual cleansing.”

Question begging isn’t reason.

Acts 22:16 reads “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Scriptures do give such examples of God using physical means to give spiritual cleansing.

“So let’s look at other passages. For example, Psalm 51:2 asks God to, ‘Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!’ Even in the New Testament, water is sometimes used in reference to the idea of spiritual cleansing or purifying. Titus 3:5, for example, says, ‘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.’ Here both washing and the Spirit are paired together just as Jesus does in John 3:5.”

And did Paul say waterless means or non-physical means God ideas to give us regeneration? No. It must be assumed into the text.

“Staying in that same chapter vs 8 tells us how the Spirit regenerates a person. ‘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.’ Just as wind cannot be controlled or predicted, neither can a person control or predict a persons regeneration.”

First off, even Lauran holds to God uses preaching of the word as means He gives rebirth. So away with preaching of the word by her logic?

 

Secondly, Lutherans do not hold to God is bound to baptism to give regeneration. In fact, the Augsburg Confession affirmed God gives faith to us when and where He wills using both means of Word AND Sacrament, not just sacrament: That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is gven, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are receved into grace for Christ’s sake.

“And going further in that same passage vs 16 tells us again how one is saved, no baptism mentioned. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’ “

Except, that as we pointed out, baptism is mentioned in John 3:5. And that was the view of all Christianity for most of its history, too. It is taking a text at face value that rebirth involves water and Holy Spirit, which we define baptism as. We don’t define baptism as water only.

And going by this logic, since John 3:16 doesn’t mention born of water and Spirit, then being saved by her logic, means we need no rebirth or “Spirit baptism”? Two can play that game.

“Romans 6:3-5 is another passage that is used to back up this view.  ‘Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,’ The phrase ‘baptized into’ occurs five times in the NT in four different verses. To be baptized ‘into Christ,’is to be publicly identified with the thing you are being baptized into. The focus is not the baptism itself but on the thing the baptism represents. In the case of Rom. 6:3-5, being baptized into Christ is a public identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection which is clearly laid out in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4”

What Lauren did here is corrected what Paul wrote in Romans 6:3-4. He didn’t say to be baptized into Christ is to as our work public identify with Him. No. Paul wrote that we were baptized into His death, and since His death is saving, we are baptized into His salvation. He wrote that we are buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life. The union with Christ itself is stated as occurring in baptism. Galatians 3:27 states that those who are baptized into Christ, through faith, are also clothed with Him. Being clothed with Him isn’t merely public identification with Him. It isn’t our work to be clothed with Christ.

“One who is baptized is not made dead to sin by baptism or even cleansed from sin by the physical water itself.”

More strawman. We as Lutherans reject physical water itself cleanses us from sin. What we affirm is that water provides the visible means of Christ’s blood cleansing us from sins, through faith that receives Him there. And we affirm all there persons of the Trinity are present: the Father to show us mercy, the Son to wash away our sins with His forgiveness won at the cross for us, and the Holy Spirit to give us faith in the gospel word of promise in Christ attached to the water.

“The Scripture is clear. With blood. What gives remission of sin? The blood. So if one adds any kind of physical or external component, such as water, and makes that necessary for cleansing or remission of sins it alters the entire gospel.”

Still more strawman. Lutherans don’t assert baptism adds to the Cross or is another atonement.

What we affirm is Christ won forgiveness of sins for us at the Cross and uses means of grace (such as baptism) by which by faith alone we receive what He did for us 2000 years ago

If that is “adding a physical or external component” then by her logic, she would have to accuse Spurgeon as well. Spurgeon as human preacher was that physical and external component using her logic since what Christ did needs to be preached. And preaching is done by a human preacher who is flesh and blood. In other words, physical. Hearing the word is physical as well.

It isn’t adding an external or physical component to the Cross. Word preached and sacraments are external and physical means by which the Cross is delivered to us. It’s objective and outward salvation that doesn’t depend on anything in us. Exact opposite of works salvation.

“The waters of baptism itself do not do the saving!”

More strawman. Lutherans reject the waters of baptism are what do the saving.

We confess with Luther’s Small Catechism that it isn’t water in baptism that saves us, but the gospel word of promise proclaimed through it that saves: It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost, as St. Paul says, Titus, chapter three: By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Savior, that, being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a faithful saying.

“So here we have direct quotes from within the Lutheran doctrine linking baptism with delivering us from the jaws of the devil, making us God’s own, suppressing and taking away sin, remaining efficacious until the end, it works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and evil, gives eternal salvation to all who believe ‘this.’ And then guess what they use to back up that entire view? Only one verse appears- Mark 16:16. “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” That verse clearly does not teach that baptism saves because looking at the back half of that verse, the lost are not condemned for their ‘lack of baptism’ but for their unbelief.”

First off, if Lauran had read the Small Catechism, she would have known that her claim that Lutherans hold to water itself saves is false, but continually beats down that strawman.

Secondly, her claim that Luther only cited Mark 16:16 for his views in the catechism article on baptism is a lie. Luther quoted Matthew 28:19-20: Answer: Christ, our Lord, says in the last chapter of Matthew: Go ye into all the world and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luther also quoted Titus 3:5 as seen above and quoted already from the catechism.

And finally, her argument strawman the Lutheran view as if we hold to a person having faith is still lost if he died before he gets a chance to be baptized, a view we reject.

Mark 16:16 says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. We affirm. The same text also says only unbelief condemns. We affirm that as well.

We hold to baptism saves because it is a means of grace through faith that receives Christ. In fact, we hold to God uses baptism as means to give saving faith and rebirth. What we don’t hold to is God is limited to baptism to give faith and rebirth.

“What is a glaring issue with the very idea of baptismal regeneration is the idea that a person passes from being a ‘natural man’ to a ‘spiritual man’ through baptism; yet, from where does this desire to be baptized come?!”

What’s really glaring is all the strawman and made up arguments she make about our views.

First off, Lutherans hold to the bound will can in no, way, shape or form cooperate in own conversion. The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord reads: Thirdly, in this manner, too, the Holy Scriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal, and all that belongs to their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost, as also the Apology teaches.

Secondly, given that in the Lutheran view, baptismal regeneration primarily takes place in infant baptism, where God gives faith and rebirth, how is that the work or choice of the infant towards conversion? That is as monergistic as it gets.

“I was told by one in the Lutheran church that ‘baptism completes salvation.’This is at odds with the teaching of total depravity. If such a person is the enemy of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a spiritual thing as to desire to be baptized? “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins,’ Ephesians 2:1 Obviously, this is impossible. You would have to be regenerated or justified before you got in the water in which case baptism is no longer necessary to salvation. Let me state this clearly- To believe that water baptism saves is no minor error, but a spiritually fatal one.”

Again, more strawman on Lauran’s part.

Lutherans hold to God uses Word AND Sacrament, as noted before, as means by which He gives us faith. That means, especially for the adult, He can and does faith to the adult to

justify that adult prior to baptism.

Lauran continues to harp on as if Lutherans hold to baptism only regeneration. But baptismal regeneration as historically defined doesn’t mean only baptism regenerates.

Thirdly, salvation isn’t a one time thing. We were saved, being saved and will be saved. We hold to even conversion, God continually saves us by not only giving faith but preserving that faith in Word and Sacrament.

None of that goes against the total depravity.

In fact, Lauran would have to accuse not only Lutherans but also early Calvinists, even Baptist ones, of denying total depravity for affirming baptism is means of grace to save through faith (granted not the same as regeneration at baptism but a view she would despise since that has baptism as salvation after conversion). Reformed Baptist Keach’s Catechism, for example said: Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. 

So why just Lutherans? Anathematize all the Calvinists then as well, Lauran.

“Acts 2:38 is probably the most quoted of passages in the baptismal regeneration camp.”And Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ So how do we interpret this passage? The word ‘eis’ in the passage translated for is sometimes translated in the Bible against, among, at, unto, upon, etc. It might properly be translated here ‘baptized upon the remission of your sins’ or ‘baptized referring to, or pointing toward the remission of your sins,’ or ‘baptized in the remission of your sins.’ When one repents, he receives the remission of his sins.”

Can’t have it both ways. Can’t say usage of eis means Acts 2:38 say  “be baptized after receiving (how she defines “upon”) the remission of your sins,” then turn around and say repentance is to receive the remission of sins. The word “eis” or “for” is in regards to both “repent and be baptized,” not just “be baptized.” And one can say point out “upon forgiveness of sins” means coming unto forgiveness of sins rather than what she claims.

What’s more, regardless, Peter said the gift of the Holy Spirit follows repent and be baptized regardless of the word eis means in regards to remission of sins.

Also, saying be baptized towards or in remission of sins actually refutes her claim of being baptized has nothing to do with remission of sins.

“If you use the exact same reasoning as Acts 2:38 and applied it to Matthew 12:41 it would make no sense. It would read “the people of Nineveh repented in order to receive the preaching of Jonah.’ We know Jonahs preaching occurred first and THEN the people repented.”

What the blogger doesn’t tell you if we use her “upon” being baptized for eis argument, then every other texts would sound silly.

And if Lauran really believes that on

Acts 2:38, she would have to say repent because of already or after been forgiven. Convenient to argue eis applies to “be baptized” but not “repent” when it is used for both. And convenient to ignore the text says the gift of the Holy Spirit is promised as a result of repent and be baptized, regardless of what eis means.

“Yet it seems so many have literally formed their doctrine from this one verse without taking into account that holding to the view that a water baptism unites us to Christ would have to contradict the entire rest of the Scripture that tells us otherwise.”

The fact that the blogger spent time trying to explain away other baptismal salvation texts show she knows that the claim that we form our doctrine on this one verse is false.

Acts 22:16 does say, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

 And we got Galatians 3:27 that say “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Not to mention texts like Romans 6:3-4, 1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5, that she try to explain away.

Hardly an appeal to one text on our part. And she knows that.

“This was a believers baptism. They were believers who upon repentance were baptized. So the teaching in Acts 2:38 cannot be teaching that we are baptized for the cleansing of our sins.”

Except there is no substantiation there. Just an assertions what eis must mean but no proof. And goes against like every translation to do so.

“We are brought near and united to Christ by one thing- ‘But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.’ Ephesians 2:13”

We hold to Word and Sacrament are outward, objective means we are brought near by the blood of Christ, through faith.

“The last part of the concerning doctrine pertaining to baptism is the belief that the water combined with the Word, somehow mysteriously turns into ‘divine water’ and therefore baptism itself becomes a Work of God. Notice the following statements from the Book of a Concord- ‘to answer the question what baptism is, namely this, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God’s Word and command and sanctified thereby; so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that not that the water itself is nobler than other water, but that God’s Word and command are added.’ ‘Baptism is quite another thing than all other water, for God Himself stakes His honor, His power, His might upon it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water.’ So there in front of you is the Lutheran view of baptism. But what saith the Scripture? There were no Scripture references given to back up this view, that the water when combined with the Word become ‘divine.’”

First off, if Lauran knows that us Lutherans hold to baptism isn’t just water, but also the word, then why claim over and over again falsely that we hold to water is what saves us?

Secondly, isn’t truthful to claim Luther’s Large Catechism didn’t quote Scriptures to argue baptism is means of salvation through faith alone.

In fact, right at the start of his catechism article on baptism, Luther directly referenced not one, but two Scriptural passages:

3In the first place, we must above all things know well the words upon which Baptism is founded, and to which everything refers that is to be said on the subject, namely, where the Lord Christ speaks in Matthew 28:19

4 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Likewise in St. Mark 16:16

5 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Then Luther repeated his Matthew 28:19 reference:  9 If hitherto people could consider it a great thing when the Pope with his letters and bulls dispensed indulgences and confirmed altars and churches, solely because of the letters and seals, we ought to esteem Baptism much more highly and more precious, because God has commanded it, and, besides, it is performed in His name. For these are the words, Go ye, baptize; however, not in your name, but in the name of God. 10 For to be baptized in the name of God is to be baptized not by men, but by God Himself.

On top of that, he referenced Christ’s own baptism before referencing Mark 16:16 again: 

21 Thus, and much more even, you must honor Baptism and esteem it glorious on account of the Word, since He Himself has honored it both by words and deeds; moreover, confirmed it with miracles from heaven. For do you think it was a jest that, when Christ was baptized, the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost descended visibly, and everything was divine glory and majesty? 22 Therefore I exhort again that these two, the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper’s baptism. But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism. Let this be the first part, regarding the essence and dignity of the holy Sacrament. 23 In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives, and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Moreover, he also cited Titus 3:5 as well to argue for sola fide view of baptismal regeneration: 

27 But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3:5

28 But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further.29 But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure?

And he argued for sola fide view of baptismal regeneration citing Mark 16:16 again: 33 This is again most beautifully and clearly expressed in the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. That is, faith alone makes the person worthy to receive profitably the saving, divine water. For, since these blessings are here presented and promised in the words in and with the water, they cannot be received in any other way than by believing them with the heart.

That isn’t to mentioned the fact that washed with water through the Word is straight from Ephesians 5:26.

“There is power in one place- the righteousness of Christ and His gospel and is revealed by faith. The gospel is in the power of God to salvation and it tells us what is necessary in order to be saved. Paul leaves baptism out of this passage because he clearly did not consider baptism necessary to salvation. “

Newsflash: Lutherans affirm imputed righteousness and justification by faith alone. 

And Paul didn’t leave out baptism as means of us being joined to the righteousness of Christ, through faith, in Romans 6:3-4.

“The gospel reveals that on the basis of faith and faith alone, God will impute His righteousness to ungodly sinners. We are justified without a water baptism according to Scripture.”

More strawman. Lutherans do not hold to baptism is work we do to add to faith alone, but means God uses to bring us to faith alone in Christ alone.

“Any teaching that implies our sins are not cleansed until we are baptized is a teaching that is NOT according to the Scripture. “

Except that the claim that Lutherans hold to we are not cleansed of sins, even if we have saving faith, is an utter lie. The blogger has been corrected many times by Lutherans on that yet insists on wanting to repeat that lie.

Lutherans do not hold to baptism only regeneration. We hold to baptismal regeneration which means baptism is one of the means God uses to give us faith and regeneration but not the only means. We hold to God can and does give faith, forgiveness of sins and rebirth to especially adults prior to baptism.

“29 Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, (B)that you believe in him whom (C)he has sent.’ Did Jesus just forget to mention baptism in there? No. Scripture lays out time and time again why saving faith looks like apart from a water baptism”

That is because Christ was present there seen by folks He was speaking to. We have the objective baptismal promise that Christ is present with us to give us His word as well. Scriptures that speak of baptism as means of saving faith do exist time and time again: Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, etc

“We cannot make the claim that God stakes any power whatsoever in the water. That is an absolute clear contradiction to Scripture.”

You mean like all the Scriptures passages you try to explain away by throwing strawman after strawman at your Lutheran opponents?

“To make the claim that one such as an infant, who has no understanding of the gospel can be baptized into Christ and regenerated is absolute contradiction to the Scripture which teaches us that we will be given understanding according to the gospel and experience sorrow over sin and trust in Christ.”

Actually to deny God can’t give infants faith is to contradict Scriptures that say God can and does give faith to infants (Psalm 22:9-10, Luke 18:15-17, 2 Timothy 3:15, and Matthew 21:15-16). And note none of those passages are even the unborn John the Baptist example.

Furthermore, it isn’t monergism to say God can only convert you only if you old enough to reason. Monergism is as Luther put in his Small Catechism, I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith.

 

And finally, it isn’t justification by faith alone to posit another way of justification or salvation for infants.

“Lastly, to address the claim that baptism is ‘God’s work.’ The definition of a work is this- ‘Any physical, religious, ceremonial or moral activity that would be required for a believer to gain salvation, or to be justified.’l

Newsflash: what you give isn’t Scriptures.

“So in order for baptism to fall into the category of ‘God’s work’ as our faith and salvation, it would have to be monergistic in nature ( the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will) and it would have to be a “gift” from God. Nowhere in the Scripture is baptism referred to as a ‘gift’ like our faith is in Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” 

Except that being buried with Christ in and raised with Him is stated as means God made us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins, to save us through faith in Colossians 2:11-13 (compare with Ephesians 2:1-8), showing that baptism is itself a means God gives faith as a gift.

“Also we know baptism is a work the Bible because the Scripture considers circumcision a work.”

Circumcision was treated as a work by the Judaizers. Paul said don’t get circumcised. If you want to equivocate, don’t get baptized.

Still zero Scriptures that say baptism is our work.

“Among those works of the law was circumcision! We are commanded to be baptized in the Scripture, but we are not told baptism is a gift nor are we told it is ‘God’s work.’”

Still no Scriptures that say baptism is a work of the law. 

There are Scriptures that say baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21, Mark 16:16). Who saves us in baptism but God? There are Scriptures that say those baptized into Christ, through faith are clothed with Him, and those buried with Christ and are raised with Him to new life. Who clothes us with Christ? God. Who buried us with Christ in baptism and raised us with Him to new life? God.

“Baptism requires participation and cooperation on the part of man.”

Lauran in the forums argued that in regards to infant baptism when infants are not the ones choosing to be baptized, reborn or given faith. Somehow that is synergistic since it requires pastor baptizing and parents bringing the infant to be baptized.

Way to twist terms there.

By that logic, anytime one preaches the gospel to adults, one is  a Synergist since that requires participation of both that preacher and the adult listener!

“The following verses demonstrate baptism is a work of the one who is doing the baptizing.”

None of the texts you quote remotely say baptism is our work. That is her own tradition adding to the text.

If Acts 10:47 is the prooftext that salvation takes place prior to baptism (which we don’t even deny can take place), on grounds the Holy Spirit is received prior to baptism, by that logic, salvation takes place once  baptism occurs in Acts 8:15-17 and 19:5-6 since it took place prior to people receiving the Holy Spirit.

And since she  insisted that baptism is our work, then by your logic, human work saves or takes place prior to salvation (or receiving the Holy Spirit) in those texts!

In regards to the abuse of 1 Corinthians 1:14, to claim baptism is our work, Paul was saying he was glad he didn’t baptize so that no one can say salvation is in Paul. Context matters. Verse 15 states the reason why he said that: so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. And verse 13 provides more context: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 

In other words, in drawing a paralleling between those name we are baptized under and who was crucified for our sins, Paul was saying that here’s proof that salvation isn’t of Paul. Baptism not being God’s work to save would have done nothing for his point that salvation isn’t of Paul when he said he was glad he didn’t baptized so no one can say baptism is in in Paul’s name.

“Baptism is a work of man. Baptism is not a monergistic act. A monergistic act is our spiritual circumcision of the heart that regenerates us according to Colossians 2:11-12 ‘ In whom also you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:’ We do not cooperate or participate in this ‘ spiritual circumcision’ made ‘ without hands’ which indicates it’s a divine, heavenly act of God.”

Again, strawman. Lutherans reject the bound will can cooperate with saving  grace  towards conversion.

What Lauran left out of the passage is this: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.

The text says being buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life is means of monergistic conversions. That refutes her claim that Romans 6:3-4, saying we are buried with Christ in baptism etc. means baptism is our work to publicly identified with Christ.

“To believe that water baptism saves is no minor error, but a spiritually fatal one. Baptism does not save the souls of men and I fear many are being deceived. Please understand how crucial this error is. It is the difference between life and death. The difference between the gospel according to Scripture and a gospel that damns.”

Then according to Lauran,not only the entire church for most of its history is damned, but early Calvinists, not just Lutherans as well. After all, Calvin, Westminster Large Catechism, even Reformed Baptist Keach’s Catechism etc. all affirmed in some form  baptism (and supper) are effectual means of salvation through faith that receives Christ in them.

Here we stand.