Bible Churches?

What exactly is a "bible" church? They seem to be everywhere. What do they believe? I will endeavor to show, in this post, that so-called "bible" churches aren't really faithful to what the actual bible teaches.

To begin, a bible church is typically non-denominational and independent. This is to say, the spectrum of beliefs in bible churches varies to an extent, since individual bible churches are not committed to any catechism or confession of faith. Generally speaking, a bible church will have an independent statement of faith developed by the elders or deacons of their church that is in accord with the bible, but is independent of any other church.

This being said, bible churches do have a specific large influence and, perhaps, starting point. Hence, bible churches, commonly, have specific beliefs that are in common with the vast majority of other bible churches, despite each individual church concocting its own unique statement of faith.

That influence is Dallas Theological Seminary, the classic American dispensational seminary.

A bible church will nearly always believe the following doctrines and openly teach them as biblical Christianity.

1. Premillennial and Pre-Tribulation Eschatology

This is not, I repeat, absolutely not, a Lutheran belief. This is the commonly held belief in a secret rapture where Christ whisks away his church and leaves all the unbelievers behind to endure seven years of God pouring out His wrath on the Earth, before Christ returns in judgment and sets up an earthly 1,000 year kingdom where Christ rules humanity from His throne in Jerusalem. This belief was popularized by authors such as Hal Lindsey (Late, Great, Planet Earth) and Tim Lahaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (Left Behind series).

The problem is, this theology was never taught in early church, nor did it have any adherents until very recent history. Certainly there were some premillennialists in the early church - Justin Martyr is an example of one - but no pre-tribulation teachers.

More so of a problem is that to get pre-tribulationism out of the bible, one must impose a systematic theology on to the Scriptures. Namely, dispensationalism. Dispensationalism would claim that theirs is the plain, literal reading of the Scripture, but as we shall see, it's not.

2. Expository Preaching

This is the method of preaching that works its way verse by verse through Scripture and explains and expounds on the passage being read. On the surface, this really isn't a bad thing. However, what gets lost in expository preaching quite often is a clear proclamation of the law and the gospel. This is not to say that bible church pastors and teachers reject the law and the gospel, but it is to say that when they preach, the law and gospel are not always clearly proclaimed, in distinction from a Confessional Lutheran sermon.

3. Credobaptism as an Act of Obedience to God

That is to say, bible churches are nearly always Baptist in their theology of baptism. The vast majority, I dare to say almost all, of bible churches will only baptize believers who can articulate their faith. They will not baptize infants. Also, they outright reject baptismal regeneration. Baptism is, in their theology, an act of obedience done by the believer as a response to a command of Christ.

The problem here is, their theology of baptism is not at all how the bible speaks of baptism. Here we could rattle off Scripture after Scripture that speaks against the bible church doctrine.

4. Holy Communion as an Act of Obedience

And by the way, it's just bread and grape juice, there is no bodily presence of Christ. Their theology tells them that the Eucharist is nothing more than a remembrance meal done in obedience to Christ. It is not, as Christ says, "...for the forgiveness of sins." (Mat 26)

I would argue, as a Lutheran, on the basis of Scripture, that numbers 1, 3, and 4 are outright wrong because Scripture says so - and the entire history of the church agrees up until recently - and number 2 runs the risk of shielding and hiding the gospel when in reality believers and unbelievers alike need to hear the gospel as often as possible.

The conclusion is that bible churches are not really bible churches in their beliefs. Certainly there are many things they also have right. They're trinitarians, for instance. They also affirm the inerrancy of Scripture and justification by faith alone (albeit a bit of a different idea than Luther).

However, at the end of the day, a bible church rejects all sorts of core biblical truth as a Lutheran understands Scripture.

+Pax+

Objectivity of Christ > Baptist Decisional Theology

I was raised in a Baptist environment. The church(es) we attended were not necessarily Baptist in name, but certainly were hard line Baptist in theology. I was baptised as any good Baptist is - after I could properly articulate my faith and give a proper testimony. Thus, as numerous traditional church members can usually say; that they were baptised on the 2nd day, or the 8th or 10th day, I could say that I was baptised in about the 10th year, only after I could give a proper testimony. And of course after my baptism by full immersion in a lake, the congregation sang "I Have Decided to Follow Jesus." So, while my baptism is certainly valid, the underlying theology of baptism is in direct opposition to what the Scriptures teach about baptism.

Ultimately, when one's theology of the sacraments is completely emptied of their biblical import and meaning, defined by our Lord Jesus Christ, something else always rushes in to fill the void. So whereas a Lutheran can say "I was saved in my baptism," a Baptist would never say such a thing, because of the Baptist's theology of Baptism. In fact, to say such a thing would be paramount to heresy in a Baptist church. God forbid you were saved by your obedience! (Because baptism is nothing more than a work of obedience in baptist theology)

So what rushes in to replace the completely objective washing for the forgiveness of sins that is baptism? Why, it's my personal decision to choose Christ, of course! This is usually done by praying a certain prayer (the Sinner's Prayer or something like it), or walking forward at the end of the service to answer an "altar call" by submitting their life to Christ.

Far from being an isolated incident, I was asked, literally, numerous times: "If you don't know the moment you made a choice for Jesus, how do you know you're saved?" 

Yes, this is really a common question in Baptist circles; especially those of a more fundamental baptist ilk. The problems with this sort of statement and theology are numerous. First and foremost, the Bible doesn't teach it anywhere. Nowhere does the Scripture ever exhort us to make a decision for Jesus, or ask Him into our heart, make Him our personal Savior, have a relationship with Him (everyone already has a relationship with Christ. They're either under grace and saved, or they're lost. Either one is a relationship), or other such ideas. Second, it actually rails against what Scripture actually says about the topic. Whereas Scripture repeatedly tells us that we are dead in sins (Eph 2), unable to obey God (Rom 8, 1Co 2), and that God alone saves us unilaterally apart from ourselves (Eph 2, Rom 8, etc), and not because of ourselves and our choice(s); this theology says the opposite; namely, that we are able to decide for ourselves with our free will.

In opposition to this wrong headed theology, which is utterly subjective and based upon something we must do and decide, the Scriptures give us pure objectivity. This objectivity is rooted in an unchanging God, who cannot lie (Tit 1). This objectivity is based on the Christ who created the world (Gen 1, Col 1). But where is this objectivity found? In our choice? Or elsewhere?

Since our choices and decisions are based on us, they are therefore subjective and fleeting. Christ, however, is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13). God, in His infinite wisdom, has given us objective means based solely on Himself, that are for the forgiveness of sins and the salvation of the world. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism: "For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation." (SC VI)

Thankfully, God has seen fit to actually tell us where this objectivity is found. He has bound Himself to His Word, and His Word tells us that Baptism, the Word itself, Absolution, and the Holy Supper are the places in which He forgives sins. Far be it from overriding the cross and resurrection of Christ, these are the actual places that Christ has said deliver these benefits of the cross to us. In baptism, we are buried and raised with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2). In the Holy Supper of Christ in which we receive the body and blood of our Lord, we receive the forgiveness of sins (Mat 26, Mar 14, Luk 22, 1Co 10, 11). In the creative power of the Word of God, we are saved (Rom 10). This is the same creative Word that spoke the universe into existence (Gen 1). Christ has given us these means, based upon Himself, so that we would not be stuck floundering in subjectivity, and our salvation would be based on something certain and sure - Christ Himself. The predestination of God and His election to salvation is carried out, in time, through these means, which are always for you.

I'll take the Scriptures and the objectivity of our unchangeable God over myself and my choices all day, every day, and right on into eternity.

Praise be to God for His infinite wisdom.

+Pax+

Faith alone in Christ alone and the Visible Gospel

For the Lutheran view of sacramental grace and faith alone being complementary to each other to make any sense, start with our doctrine of the cross and law/gospel distinction.

We affirm that all are born into sin and thus by nature are opposed to the things of God. Under the law, all are guilty before God.

It is because all are bound to the sin under the law, the law can never save nor can it offer salvation to us.

Only the gospel can save us. What is the gospel? The gospel is God Incarnate, or God in the flesh, crucified for our sins. That is Christ took our place on the cross for our sins that kept us separate from God.

It is what Christ did that provided payment for our sins on our behalf. He provided the cure. Better yet, He IS the payment. He IS the cure.

Now objectively He provided salvation for on the cross. Folks will say if He did it for all, all must be saved. It does not follow. Payment made for us is not same as payment received. We still need to receive the payment which is in other words Him!

Suppose someone sent you a check to pay your fine for you. If you don't make use of it, it is of no benefit to you. Suppose there is a disease that affects everyone and is deadly to everyone. If a doctor discovers the cure objectively for all, it doesn't mean in subjective sense, all receives it. Some may not believe it is the cure.

Now, folks will say if Christ died for all, and not all are saved, it must mean His work on the cross doesn't save anyone. Again, that is incorrect. His work saves. In of itself, it saves. Independent of whether we believe it not, the work was finished in its saving value. It doesn't depend on us believing for it to be for us. It is objectively true for us even if we don't receive it, and in that case, it didn't get applied to us. But when receive in passive sense, it is applied to us. It is still on its own monergistic.

The gospel then is Christ crucified for our sins, and saves us by grace through faith in what He did for us. It is faith in that objective fact. Rejecting that makes God out to be a liar because it is true for those who don't believe also.

Folks will say if Christ died for them, then it is unjust for them to be in hell since their sins are paid for.

Again, that conflates what was done for at the cross with reception of that finished work.

As long as we are without Christ, we remain under law. The gospel is given for us objectively but unless it is possessed by grace through faith, it remains outside ourselves.

The gospel is offered to us and given to us objectively through outside means- word and sacrament. If it is faith alone that receives the cure or payment so to speak given for us and offered to us as gift wrapped to us in word and sacrament.

And what makes word and sacrament given to and for us? The work of God's grace to call us to receive what was done for us at the cross that is from outside ourselves and independent of anything we do.

Through such means we are called to receive Christ who comes to us via outward, objective and tangible means. In baptism through faith, we are clothed with Christ. We receive Him and His righteousness imputed to us, meaning from outside ourselves. It is foreign to who we are. Our assurance is in Christ and His objective word for us.

Hence, we can say the Sacrament is the Visible Gospel. It is offered to us from outside ourselves. Faith alone receives what God gives from outside ourselves. And what we receive is Christ Himself and His work that He comes with to present to us. It's the gospel given for us from outside ourselves that we receive by faith alone. Apart from reception of Christ, we remain under the law and outside the gospel of Christ crucified for us. What's done for us needs to be received for it to benefit us. Just as the sacrament which offers Christ's work to us is no benefit if we don't receive by faith, though God's promises for forgiveness as His word stands.

Here we stand.

Lutheran Sacraments Are Uniquely Lutheran

I was talking with my priest today about what Sacraments we Lutherans have in common with Roman Catholics.

The answer?

None.

We count their Baptism as valid, but they don't think it washes away future sins.

Our Baptism washes away all sins, past, present, future, and original.

Their Eucharist is their own doing, their own "sacrifice" offered for the living and the dead.

Our Eucharist is pure Gospel, with Christ coming down to us, giving Himself to us for the forgiveness of sins.

Their Absolution is dependent upon works of contrition, and upon supposedly reciting every sin one has committed.

Our Absolution is pure Gospel. It is impossible to remember every sin we have committed, and sinful desires (concupiscence) are indeed sin. Absolution for us is God's kind and gracious disposition toward us in Christ, forgiving us.

Their Holy Orders is based on supposed "apostolic succession," and leaves an "indelible mark" whether one has pure doctrine or not.

Our Holy Orders is purely based on the Gospel. Our priests are connected to the Gospel, and our apostolic succession is purely in the Gospel.

We do not consider Confirmation to be a Sacrament at all, but simply a rite. Rome considers it a sacrament because they see the sacraments as fuel for holy living.

We see the Sacraments as pure forgiveness. Not law, but pure Gospel.

Everything in Lutheranism is about the Gospel.

Paedobaptism, Calvinism, and Federalism

I came across a Presbyterian (Presbyterian is a Reformed Church. AKA Calvinist. The blog I am critiquing is a conservative Presbyterian blog, not to be confused with the ultra-liberal PC-USA) blog defending the practice of paedobaptism from a Covenant Theology perspective yesterday and with the author's permission, I am going to interact with the blog. The blog I am referencing can be found here: A Case For Infant Baptism

Hopefully, by the end of my blog, you the reader will be able to see why we should heavily privilege the Lutheran case for infant baptism over the Presbyterian case for the same.

From the outset, we ought to be glad that Presbyterians employ the biblical practice of infant baptism. However, for the life of me, I can't make good biblical sense of their reasoning, or square it with what the Scriptures teach.

I also would be remiss not to mention that within Reformed Theology, there are numerous nuances and differing stances on the reasoning behind paedobaptism. I am interacting with Mr. Chris Cole's blog and not every nuance of Reformed paedobaptism. It is certain that someone along the line will read this and say that I am misrepresenting Reformed paedobaptism or that I really don't understand it. This is not that case. I am simply replying to one particular blog.

The title of Mr. Chris Cole's blog post is: Are the Children of Christians Little Pagans? A Case for Infant Baptism. Throughout this posting, I will be quoting from the aforementioned blog post with Lutheran responses underneath.

"Do credobaptists, that is, those who hold to the baptism only of professing believers, really think of their children as pagans, heathens, idolaters, atheists?"

Well, Lutherans are definitely not credobaptists, but we do have a response to this. I understand why Presbyterians formulate this argument. They are children of believers and will be raised in the church, and so on. One such argument put forth in Reformed circles here is called presumptive regeneration. This doctrine basically states that the election and regeneration of the children of believers is assumed. Therefore, it is valid to baptize them. Mr. Cole rejects this line of thinking in a later statement in his post. The other line of thought is what is loosely referred to as federal headship. In the words of Mr. Cole from a later section of his post, "Rather, they are federally holy, or holy collectively with their parents, not necessarily in a personal, redemptive sense."

The presumptive regeneration argument falls apart when we recognize that God has given specific means of grace wherein He has promised to meet us in grace and mercy and regenerate us. We don't need to say anything else here; Mr. Cole himself rejects this.

Back to the rhetorical posed by the author. Do Lutherans too see their children as pagans? Sinners in need of grace? Well, yes, we do. That is precisely why we bring them to Holy Baptism. They need Holy Baptism precisely because they are sinners and baptism is one place where God has promised to meet us in grace, bury and raise us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4), and save us (1 Pet 3:21).

He goes on to make his case by quoting Isaiah 54:13, Ezekiel 16:20, and Acts 2:38-39. He continues on, saying, "These aren't promises that all of the children of believers will eventually become believers." 

This is where the P in the famous TULIP just flat out gets in the way of Reformed Theology and causes numerous other "covenant" interpretations of Scripture. This federal holiness idea essentially wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants some sort of special, non-redemptive blessing from God for their children. It wants God to claim them for His own.

But what is the point of any of that if the blessings are ultimately non-redemptive? It seems like a grasping at straws to retain the practice of paedobaptism. It makes very little sense. What parent would want special blessings for their kids when they ultimately are not saving? And what sort of God would dole these blessings out when they ultimately just end up being a heap of condemnation? In the end, being federally holy but non-elect (this is a Calvinist term) would probably be the worst possible situation a person could be in. Ultimately there is very little grace for someone who has received the sign of the covenant of grace. Their baptism ends up screaming against them and condemning them. Does this federal holiness increase the child's chance that they are elect? No Calvinist would argue that, but the only way they could deny it is to divorce baptism from salvation completely. This stance almost smells like the preparationist nonsense you hear from Reformed Baptists like Paul Washer.

The P is short for the Perseverance of the Saints. This doctrine states that if a person is elect, they will be regenerated and can never fall from grace and be lost - even if they get it back later. Once regenerated, always in grace. Therefore, baptism can't save because there are clearly a lot of baptized non-Christians in the world. The P is a non-negotiable in Reformed Theology. In its wake, it ends up not allowing for biblical interpretations of plain and clear passages - such as those about Holy Baptism. But of course, the P fails to properly distinguish law and Gospel, taking only the promises of Christ's security seriously while inventing novel interpretations for the dire warnings of falling away from grace written all over Scripture; especially in Galatians and Hebrews.

The final paragraph in Mr. Cole's post is telling. He states, "We don't believe that baptism will save them. Nor do we believe that baptism is a promise of their future salvation." In contradistinction to Scripture, the Reformed federal argument actually says the exact opposite of what St. Peter says in 1 Peter 3:21. Not to mention, this baptism, at the font, with water and the Word, is salvation come to that infant in the here and now.

"Rather, we believe that God has placed His special claim on out children as His own, so that they have a right to the mark of the covenant of grace."

This is the final statement Mr. Cole writes. Here is where the rubber meets the road. Does baptism have to do with salvation or not? You can't have it both ways here. He seems to want to argue that God is claiming the children of believers as His own, but not actually saving them in the process. Or at very best, He might save them somewhere along the line.

Baptism simply cannot be divorced from salvation. The New Testament (as well as some Old Testament prophecy) is very clear that baptism buries us and raises us with Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12). It gives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38-39). It washes our sins away (Acts 22:16). It puts on Christ (Gal 3:27-29). And it saves us (1 Pet 3:21).

Now, I am not sure if Mr. Cole would argue for different baptisms in some of these passages. I will have to ask him. I refer to a common American Evangelical argument that Romans 6:3-4 (among many others) is referring to spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit and not physical water baptism. But then, that would put the Presbyterian squarely in credobaptist dualism land, the exact place he would like to avoid.

At the end of the day, if you cannot argue that infants are sinners that need to be saved and that baptism effects this (i.e. it saves them), paedobaptism is either a) pointless, or b) a hindrance if the infant is non-elect and will never be regenerated. Some excess covenant blessing apart from salvation is, to put it bluntly, pretty useless if justification is not involved. Moreover, it's not biblical unless one forces a covenant theology onto the Scriptures.

Keeping paedobaptism alone does not prove the much desired catholicity the Reformed Churches want, especially when the practice is justified on reasons that sound nothing like how Scripture talks about baptism. Throw in a few other heterodox doctrines and the desired catholicity ends up lacking.

But I digress. The federal holiness stance, as well as the presumptive regeneration stance, both do not hold water when stacked up to Holy Scripture as well as the history of the Church. They simply do not say what Scripture says about baptism without encroaching an entire systematic theology onto the text, and in some cases saying the opposite thing that Scripture does. In the end, paedobaptism is a pointless practice unless baptism buries us and raises us with Christ and saves us. But hey, that is exactly what Scripture says! At the end of the day, we should greatly privilege the Lutheran doctrine of paedobaptism.

+Grace and Peace+

GOD LOVES THE PHYSICAL BECAUSE GOD LOVES TO FORGIVE

Mankind's greatest need is and continues to be forgiveness from God and forgiveness from others. It is not even moral transformation, as moral transformation in this life will always be incomplete. We cannot be told to look to the quality of our faith, as that is always going inward and will always, always, always lead to despair. We will never, ever, measure up.

For those who are strong enough to simply say "Oh I know I'm forgiven", I truly am glad for them that their faith is that strong. But I don't know about you, but even though I know I'm forgiven, I do not always *feel* forgiven. 

This is serious pastorally. For those who do not have the Sacraments, my heart breaks for them because they are many times simply being told to look back again to their faith, which is already weak, if they don't feel forgiven. This is detrimental to their comfort, because they will never have enough faith.

But God Who is rich in mercy has given us the Sacraments and the Word of the Gospel to comfort us who have weak faith.

He has washed our sins away in the Waters of Holy Baptism.

Every time in Divine Service He comes down to us in the mouth of the minister and declares us forgiven in the Sacrament of Holy Absolution.

Then the Gospel is proclaimed and Christ Himself gives us His Body to eat and His Blood to drink for the forgiveness of our sins in the Sacrament of the Altar.

Even as the Sacraments are physical, God loves the physical. Christ clothed Himself with physical flesh to redeem the world.

Your sins are forgiven.

"You Lutherans hold to works salvation since you affirm baptism saves!"

One of the most misunderstood doctrines ever is the Lutheran viewpoint of baptismal regeneration. In the world of most evangelicals, to hold to baptism saves in any form means one holds to one does work of baptism to contribute to salvation, and so to them, that is denial of both grace alone and faith alone. So we get accused of denying Christ alone saves us at the cross on top of that.

But that only highlights how badly they don't understand where we are coming from.  We do not deny that Christ alone saves us at the cross. Nor do we deny it is by grace alone through faith alone we are saved by what Christ did for us 2000 years ago.

To us, baptism is not a human work we do to save ourselves. It is outward means of God's word delivered to us. In our understanding, Christ as God Incarnate comes to us through that outward means. We are passive receivers, by grace alone through faith alone of what Christ did for us 2000 years ago. He comes to us and offers us His forgiveness He won for us at the Cross through such outward means. Faith alone clings outwardly to what Christ did for us and given unto us in that objective outward means.

In our understanding, faith alone does not look inwards to what we do. Nor to our own faith even. We look outside ourselves to the objective promises of Christ's forgiveness offered unto us through outward means.

So we deny baptism is a work we do to earn Christ's forgiveness. It is God's work by which He brings us to Christ who washes us with His forgiveness, by His word. It is His word indeed, not just plain water, that makes baptism. We can look at baptism as the objective work the Holy Spirit did to bring us to Christ and to clothe us with Him and His forgiveness. We can also look at that as the work of the Holy Spirit to seal us. It is indeed sign and seal in that sense.

Folks may say it is commanded for preachers to carry out good works such as preaching and baptizing, so baptism then must be a human work. But they are ignoring the fact that their own argument then must apply also to preaching of the word. By such logic, they are saying they are saved by the word preached to them as if it is somehow their work. They will deny that, of course But they can't argue then baptism is our work when we convert on grounds of it being done to us by another (pastor) without also saying the word preached by the pastor to them for them to believe is somehow their work.

Here's the thing. Zero passages say baptism is our human work. We are told many times it is God's grace to us. 1 Peter 3:21 says baptism that saves you now. Mark 16:16 says those who believe and are baptized will be saved. Galatians 3:27 says those who have been baptized into Christ are also clothed with Him. Acts 22:16 says get up and be baptized, washing your sins and calling on His name. Acts 2:38 says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 5:25-27 says Christ washed us with water through the Word.

These are explicit Scriptures. Who does the saving? God. Who forgives us of our sins? God.

So baptism is God's work of grace to us, not our own human work. We are receivers of God's grace which He chose to use the means of baptism to come to us with His word.

Folks will continually say look at Ephesians 2:1-9 saying God's grace alone through faith alone is what saves us. But that presents no problem for us. That passage speaks of God's grace as His work to make us alive with Christ when we were dead in our sins and trespasses to give us saving faith as a gift. Guess what Colossians 2:11-13 say is the means by which God makes us alive with Christ when we were dead in sins and trespasses? Yes, the passage says that we were buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life (see also Romans 6:1-4).

Or folks will argue that the thief on the Cross was saved without the benefits of baptism so that must negate any view of baptism saving.

But that is an argument that does not follow. First off, we do not hold to all unbaptized are lost (nor hold to all baptized are saved). We reject baptism is our work, but God's grace. We do not limit God's grace to only baptism. He is God. He can go outside of baptism to grant saving faith to even folks who never had a chance to be baptized before they were saved. Baptism is God's objective means of grace for the assurance of those who are in Christ and have been baptized, but not for us to assume those who are unbaptized are all lost (while the first half of Mark 16:16 says baptism is means of salvation for those who believe, the second half says only unbelief, not lack of baptism, condemns).

Secondly, such an argument does not take into account our understanding of the Incarnation (nor realizes that using that example actually undercuts their own denial of the real presence of Christ in regards to our conversion and continual reception of Him through means of grace). We hold to baptism (as well as the Eucharist) gives us what the thief on the Cross got- the real presence of Christ. the objective word of Christ's forgiveness, being one with Him in death and resurrection).

Thirdly, such an argument assumes (without any Scriptural proof) that the thief was unbaptized. We don't know either way. But to use that as an argument, without knowing, makes it an invalid argument.

Such an argument highlights how often folks caricatured our views. When they aren't arguing we hold to works based salvation, they are arguing we hold to all unbaptized are lost.

We reject both views.

Scriptures do not pit grace alone/faith alone passages against baptismal regeneration. Nor pit Christ saves alone passages against baptismal regeneration.

Indeed, we believe Scriptures teach baptismal regeneration when properly taught as means of the Gospel delivered to us, rather than treated as our work or as some form of law, actually go hand in hand with affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to save us.

In actuality, the nasty side effect of denying any outward means of grace and seeing baptism as a human work or some form of law is that one ends up seeing baptism as something one accomplishes before God, which if anything undercuts the very grace alone and faith alone view one purports to defend in denying baptismal regeneration. And it gets worse, when one looks to one's own fruits or experience of faith for assurance. That is no different then from faith in own faith. Faith then becomes its own form of a human work when that occurs.

We affirm baptismal regeneration because Scriptures teaches it (and the witness of the entirety of church history attests to the fact that this is the historic Christian view of what Scriptures teach on the subject).

We make zero apologies for affirming that while also affirming grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Here we stand.

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah,while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22 (ESV)

Here we have one of the clearest baptism passages in the New Testament. Unfortunately, this text has been a major battleground among Christians over the last few hundred years or so. There have been numerous interpretations put forth regarding the proper meaning of this passage. Some have been good, others feasible, and still others have been quite a stretch. I think, at the end of the day, it is not that difficult of a passage to figure out.

Top: John Piper Bottom: 1 Peter 3:21

Certainly, interpretations of this passage fall along denominational lines. Consider Baptist pastor John Piper: "Now the problem with this is that Peter seems very aware that his words are open to dangerous misuse. This is why, as soon as they are out of his mouth, as it were, he qualifies them lest we take them the wrong way. In verse 21 he does say, "Baptism now saves you" - that sounds like the water has a saving effect in and of itself apart from faith. He knows that is what it sounds like and so he adds immediately, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience - through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.""

And then later, "God saves you through the work of Christ. But you receive that salvation through calling on the name of the Lord, by trusting him. And it is God's will all over the world and in every culture - no matter how simple or how sophisticated - that this appeal to God be expressed in baptism."

Piper's article can be found here: Piper - Baptism

Hence, Pastor Piper is essentially arguing that Peter put the words in verse 21 regarding "removal of dirt" as a warning to not use his words to mean that baptism saves. As an aside, why would Peter write that at all if he thought they could be dangerously misconstrued to mean what they say? That makes a grand total of no sense whatsoever. And finally, Piper concludes that baptism is a symbolic appeal or pledge to God done by the believer as an expression of faith.

The most glaring problem with Piper's interpretation of this passage is that the passage simply does not say that. Peter is drawing a type and antitype parallel here. He references Noah and the ark. Moreover, Peter also is clear that Noah and his family were brought safely through the water. This is a type. The flood, in which Noah and his family were on the ark, were brought safely through the water. They were quite literally saved through the water in the physical realm.

The antitype, the greater reality which the flood pointed to is baptism. Just as Noah and his family were safely brought through the waters and saved, Peter says baptism, which corresponds to the flood, now also saves you.

And in this light, I agree with Pr. Piper when he says that Peter inserts language about removal of dirt as being important in that Peter does not want his words to be misused. However, the parallel that Peter is drawing actually speaks in the opposite direction as Pr. Piper would have us believe. Pr. Piper is essentially saying that Peter is saying that baptism now saves you, but not really saves you. It doesn't make you clean. In short, Piper is inserting somewhat of a contradiction into Peter's words in order to fit his preconceived theological leanings.

The more likely meaning, and really the plain meaning of this passage, is that Peter does not want his readers to believe that baptism is a strict one for one parallel with the flood. In other words, when Peter says that baptism now saves you and then continues with the removal of dirt language, he is telling us that baptism does not save us physically and temporally as God saved Noah and his family through the water. This water of baptism is a Word of God and is not a physical salvation from calamity. It is an eternal salvation. It is the greater antitype. Hence, Peter continues on: "...but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him." (1 Peter 3:21b-22)

In other words, whereas Noah was temporally delivered through the water, we are eternally delivered through the water. How? How can water do such things? Well, it can't. But God can. As Luther reminds us in his Small Catechism:

How can water do such great things?

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.

How then? Peter answers thus: Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Baptism gives us Jesus. All the power and authority that Jesus has due to His crucifixion and resurrection is given to us in Baptism. (Matt 28:18-20)

Hence, Pr. Piper's answer, while creative and in attempt to be faithful to the biblical report, is untenable. Not only because Piper creates a contradiction in Peter, but also in that his preconceived theology simply will not allow the passage to speak clearly as it does. Where Pr. Piper thinks he is doing the church a service by exegeting Peter, he is in reality teaching people the opposite of what Peter has said, and that is never a good thing.

Baptism now saves you. Thanks be to God.

+Pax+

God is For Us

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Romans 8:31-32 (ESV)

This is great news! God is for us, not against us. If a vengeful and wrathful God is what you seek, you must look somewhere other than Christ. For God gave up Christ to be crucified for us as an act of love. The Incarnation of Christ and His subsequent crucifixion and resurrection is all the proof we need that God is definitely for us.

Not only so, but this is the definitive proof that God has given us. We needn't look elsewhere to seek out God. Only in Christ is where He will be found. God does not desire for us to look elsewhere. We do not need dreams. We do not need visions. We do not need to raise someone from the dead, talk gibberish, or experience any other charismatic mania to know that God is for us. He has sent His Son to die for us and rise again, defeating Satan, sin, and death in one fell swoop.

Moreover, it is a surety. God has done it all and continues to do it all. Christianity is not a religion of ladder climbing, where God weighs our good against our bad and then makes an infallible judgment call on the quality of our lives. Whereas good works are very important to Christianity, they are never able to merit us any sort of standing or favor before God.

Instead, Jesus Christ comes to be born in a manger with animals around Him, lives a perfect life fulfilling the law on our behalf, and then dies for our sins and rises again. Continuing into today and throughout history until He returns, He will continue to save people through His powerful creative Word, given to us in the preaching of the Gospel, the Sacraments, and the Office of the Keys which He instituted.

Christ came and lived, died, and rose for you due to nothing good in yourself. (1 Cor 15:1-4, Jer 17:9, Rom 3:10-12)

God is for us.

The good news of this life, death, and resurrection is preached to you. (Rom 10:9-17)

God is for us.

You are forgiven of your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (John 20:23)

God is for us.

He washes us in the waters of Holy Baptism and buries us and raises us in faith. (Rom 6:3-4, Col 2:12, Gal 3:27, Tit 3:5)

God is for us.

He gives us His true body and blood to nourish us, forgive our sins, and deliver to us life and salvation. (Mat 26:26-28)

God is for us.

And best of all, He is for all of us. desiring the salvation of everyone. (1 Tim 2:4-6, 2 Pet 3:9)

God is for us. All of us. Even you.

+Pax+

Get the Babies Wet - It Saves

For many years, I took a Baptist stance on Baptism. First of all, I was raised with that belief. Second of all, I never really questioned it since I was taught it from childhood. Third of all, even when I started digging into various theological authors as well as Scripture, I never bothered with Baptism, because I had always thought that infant baptism was just a Romanist carryover. Thus, no need to question the topic of Baptism. I thought it was a non-issue and that Christian churches following Scripture only dunked believers after a credible question of faith.

Then I read some guys I shouldn't have. The Reformed authors I read made some sense, but no more than the Baptist authors that I read. This is mainly due to the continuity of the covenant idea that Reformed authors import in order to justify paedobaptism. I don't think that argument is necessarily bad, but it's not a slam dunk case for paedobaptism either. I think that is why there are Classic Calvinists who baptize infants and there are also Calvinistic Baptists, who hold to the sovereignty of God in salvation and the TULIP and all that stuff, but will only Baptize professing believers.

Thus, whereas I was still firmly a Baptist, I now at least understood that some evangelicals can make a case for paedobaptism and at the very least stopped seeing the doctrine as nothing more than a Romanist error that carried over into the Reformers.

But what about all those churches that held to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration? After all, the doctrine is a huge heresy in Reformed as well as Baptist circles. It's considered heretical because in their theology, it adds to faith alone, hence mingling works into justification and thus salvation by extension.

So how did I ever end up Lutheran? I was an unlikely candidate to jump to Wittenberg, that is for certain.

To put it simply, I re-examined all of the passages in the New Testament that spoke of water and baptism and simply read them and compared them to what different churches believe. By different churches, I mean the big ones like Rome and the East, and the Lutherans, and the Reformed, and the Baptists. I wanted to have a clear understanding of Baptism and what it is.

To begin with, the Baptist understanding of Baptism has holes in it. Every passage in Scripture that links Baptism directly to salvation must be interpreted in a manner that is different than what the text plainly reads. Usually this is done by saying that the Baptism spoken of in those passages is a reference to "Baptism of the Holy Spirit." Essentially, this "Baptism" is accomplished by God at the moment of belief. In other words, this Baptism of the Holy Spirit in Baptist theology is nothing more than when the Holy Spirit indwells a person and they are saved. Hence, in an instance like Romans 6:3-4, the passage could be read as those who believe. They are the ones baptized into Christ. That interpretation certainly fits their theology. Hence, all the Scriptures that speak of Baptism and link it to salvation end up speaking of Baptism of the Holy Spirit and not "Water Baptism."

To prove this doctrine, the Baptists will go to passages that speak about faith and say that because of the faith passages, the Baptism passages can't be speaking about water Baptism. I am not going to rehash that interpretation as to why it is wrong, because I already did. It can be found here: Faith - Baptism Likewise, how do these interpretations that there are multiple baptisms jive with St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5? Not to mention, how do they connect with passages that link water and the Word, or water and Spirit? Normally, the pat Baptist answer here is to eliminate Water Baptism from the passage altogether, thereby making water nothing more than a symbolic reference to something else. Sometimes it refers to being cleansed figuratively by the Spirit and other times it can even refer to the amniotic fluid that a baby is born from.

Thus, suffice it to say, my Baptist presuppositions were rocked to the core. Eventually I came to realize that the Holy Scriptures, nor the early church and the Fathers, do not teach the Baptist doctrine of Baptism.

Yet, I was still stuck in Reformed world. So, I embraced the Reformed Covenantal view of paedobaptism. But this has holes that might be even bigger. It's much easier to simply say that Baptism (and the Eucharist for that matter) is just a picture and deny all efficacy altogether of the ordinance (what we call a Sacrament). Reformed Theology wants to have the cake and eat it too. They want to affirm, along with St. Peter, that Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you (1 Pe 3:21). They want to say that Baptism does something for the infant. And they answer that it makes the infant part of the Covenant Community and then subsequently works into the assurance and sanctification of the infant later in life. Not to mention, the Reformed simply cannot affirm what the Scriptures plainly say about Baptism simply because to do so would annihilate the precious L and P in the TULIP. In my mind, however, if it does not do something in a salvific manner, what is the point? So I stayed Baptist, despite agreeing to an extent with the Reformed Covenant stance on paedobaptism.

Enter Lutheranism. (Yes, I looked at Rome and the East too, but this is already getting too long, so I will forego those two. Suffice it to say that I rejected those churches for other reasons.) Lutheranism gave me a clear and concise answer to Baptism, all the while upholding sola fide. (See the link above) Lutheran Theology gives us a clear and plain reason to Baptize infants that is completely biblical and does not need to extrapolate from Genesis 12-17 and the Abrahamic Covenant. I'm not saying there are no correlations there, of course. Certainly St. Paul makes this link in Colossians 2:11-12. Not to mention, Lutheranism affirms another doctrine that I was 100% convinced is taught clearly in the Scriptures: Election. Yet, in passing from Reformed Theology to Lutheranism, I did have to relinquish the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation or double predestination. That one was also difficult, but in the end, I have come to realize that this too is what Scripture teaches on the topic: single predestination, precisely as the Lutheran Confessions hold (See: Solid Declaration - Election)

That dirty heresy of baptismal regeneration (as I was always told), I was coming to realize, is true. Why? Because the Bible clearly teaches it. It is plain as day. One has to read a presupposed theology into the Bible in order to deny it.

The explanation is so simple that many people reject it because it's just far too simple. All you need to know are two very important theological truths. The easy argument goes like this.

1. All people, including infants, are sinful. Therefore, even our infants need to be saved.(Rom 5, Ps 51) This is called the doctrine of original sin. Denying this doctrine leads to numerous other enormous errors. Ultimately, the Gospel itself is undermined.

2. Baptism buries us and raises us with Christ (Rom 6, Col 2), and saves us (1 Pe 3).

3. Conclusion. Baptize infants. They need it. It's pure Gospel promise for them. The work of God given to them through the means of grace that Christ instituted.

That's it. Simple and to the point. We do not need a long extrapolated argument of covenant continuity (Calvinist Covenant Theology). Likewise, we err when we reinterpret clear and plain didactic teachings to be symbolic or figurative (Baptists, Dispensationalism). Ironically, the Dispensational Baptists interpret the book of Revelation literally and clear didactic teachings symbolically or figuratively. Seems backwards to me.

Done. Your kids need it. It saves them. Not only is this argument simple and almost too easy, it's 100% biblical. Not to mention, it's what the Church has always believed. For instance, the Council of Carthage in 253 AD took infant Baptism for granted and instead debated if the Baptism should take place on the 8th day like circumcision. There was no debate over Baptism in the early church. Certainly with a core doctrine like Baptism, you would expect to see all sorts of theologians and pastors protesting paedobaptism. Nobody did.

Likewise, if this clear and plain reading of Baptism is correct and the Scriptures are not a big puzzle on this topic, then it is the gravest of sins for a Christian parent to withhold Baptism from their children. Such is equivalent to withholding Jesus and His pure Gospel from them.

If there are Baptist readers here, one objection might be that getting an infant wet does nothing. This objection is empty and vain. To answer that, I will leave a link to Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism below. Read and enjoy!

Small Catechism - Baptism

+Pax+

Tertullian the Montanist as your supposed Trail of Blood Baptist

There's some documented Trail of Blood Baptist views of Tertullian.

In On Baptism, Chapter 1, he wrote:

"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!"

In Against Marcion, Book I, Chapter 28, he wrote:

"And what will happen to him after he is cast away? He will, they say, be thrown into the Creator's fire. Then has no remedial provision been made (by their god) for the purpose of banishing those that sin against him, without resorting to the cruel measure of delivering them over to the Creator? And what will the Creator then do? I suppose He will prepare for them a hell doubly charged with brimstone, as for blasphemers against Himself; except indeed their god in his zeal, as perhaps might happen, should show clemency to his rival's revolted subjects. Oh, what a god is this! everywhere perverse; nowhere rational; in all cases vain; and therefore a nonentity! — in whose state, and condition, and nature, and every appointment, I see no coherence and consistency; no, not even in the very sacrament of his faith! For what end does baptism serve, according to him? If the remission of sins, how will he make it evident that he remits sins, when he affords no evidence that he retains them? Because he would retain them, if he performed the functions of a judge. If deliverance from death, how could he deliver from death, who has not delivered to death? For he must have delivered the sinner to death, if he had from the beginning condemned sin. If the regeneration of man, how can he regenerate, who has never generated? For the repetition of an act is impossible to him, by whom nothing any time has been ever done. If the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, how will he bestow the Spirit, who did not at first impart the life? For the life is in a sense the supplement of the Spirit. He therefore seals man, who had never been unsealed in respect of him; washes man, who had never been defiled so far as he was concerned; and into this sacrament of salvation wholly plunges that flesh which is beyond the pale of salvation! No farmer will irrigate ground that will yield him no fruit in return, except he be as stupid as Marcion's god. Why then impose sanctity upon our most infirm and most unworthy flesh, either as a burden or as a glory? What shall I say, too, of the uselessness of a discipline which sanctifies what is already sanctified? Why burden the infirm, or glorify the unworthy? Why not remunerate with salvation what it burdens or else glorifies? Why keep back from a work its due reward, by not recompensing the flesh with salvation? Why even permit the honour of sanctity in it to die?"

And he wrote in On the Resurrection of the Flesh, he said,

"Now such remarks have I wished to advance in defence of the flesh, from a general view of the condition of our human nature. Let us now consider its special relation to Christianity, and see how vast a privilege before God has been conferred on this poor and worthless substance. It would suffice to say, indeed, that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe while it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God."

So as we can see here, he affirmed the Trail of Blood Baptist views of baptismal regeneration and Eucharistic presence.

Oh wait, both are complete opposite of what Baptists believe!

Folks need to stop parroting that woefully inaccurate book Trail of Blood  with claims like Tertullian and the Montanists (who he identified himself with) held to their views when the opposite is true.

Like, seriously.

Here we stand.

Christ is Sufficient

Christ is sufficient. This is most certainly true. If there is anything humanity needs to do in order to be saved, two things are also true. First, Christ would be insufficient, in Himself, as a Savior. Second, nobody would be saved.

Christ did it all. There is nothing more that needs to be done in order to be saved. Works will not get you there, for there is one who died and rose on your behalf and made satisfaction for all of your sins. Not just some, and certainly not just your sins before you became a Christian. No. All of them. Not only so, but Christ Himself established a Church and He delivers this free grace to us through Word and Sacrament. He washes us clean in our Holy Baptism. He pronounces us forgiven in absolution. He delivers us His Word in the preaching of the Gospel. He feeds us His body and blood for the forgiveness of our sins. It's all a one-sided deliverance of gifts. This is Gospel. This is THE Gospel. To turn around and say that we have to add to that is to effectively deny the Gospel. To say that there is something more to add is to claim that Christ did not do enough. May it never be so!

If Christ is not sufficient by Himself, nobody would be saved. Not one. If you think that Christ saved you, but now it's up to you to make good of grace to finish your salvation, then it's safe to say that you probably don't understand grace or your sinfulness. Different churches sometimes teach exactly this idea in different ways. Some churches flatly say that we are justified by faith plus works. Hey, 10 points for honesty and clarity. Others give you Christ and then take Him right back once you've made a decision - putting you on the treadmill of living out the life in a victorious way.

The truth is, even for the Christian, you can never move beyond the Gospel. You can never move beyond Christ. He is the center of everything for us. And Christ has done it all.

But Christ had to do it all, didn't He? I mean, just look at what the Holy Scriptures say about who we are and what we have done.

Jeremiah 17:9: The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

Romans 3:10-12: as it is written, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

Then go ahead and read verses 13-18. Not to mention, keep in mind that it's impossible to totally stop sinning, and God still has a standard of absolute perfection. Of course, that is why Christ does it all. The epistles of St. Paul point this out quite nicely. He writes numerous letters to first century churches addressing sin problems. 1 Corinthians is a great example. And he never hesitates to call these people brothers. They're simultaneously sinner and saint. Thus says St. Paul.

And to further the good news, Christ directly delivers His grace and good gifts to us directly and objectively through means. He does not grace us secretly in a Gnostic manner so then we can turn around and show Him how obedient we are by getting baptized and eating crackers and Welch's grape juice. That's not what the Scriptures say. The Bible does not talk about these sacraments in an ornamental fashion. It talks about them in a Sacramental fashion. They are God's objective means to save us.

That completely sufficient Christ gives us Himself in completely sufficient means of grace. Pretty nice, huh?

Hence, it's quite important that your theology and worship majors on the majors, so to speak. Who is Christ? What do we believe? How is man made right before God? To put it simply, if worship and theology is not Christocentric, it's missing the point and ends up majoring on the minors, so to speak.

The completely and perfectly sufficient Jesus at the center. All the time. For you.

+Pax+

The proof against baptismal grace? Actually, quite the opposite!

The often quoted prooftext from the Bible against the concept of baptism, as means of grace by which God joins us to Christ and His saving work, is 1 Corinthians 1:17. People love to jump at the statement in that verse that Christ did not send Paul to baptize to say, “see, that proves baptism does not save since if it did, Christ would have sent Paul to baptize.”

In actuality, when read in context of what Paul was trying to say, the passage is saying the exact opposite of what they are arguing. What was Paul’s point? Let’s back up to verse 11. The apostle mentioned there was a quarrel going on among the Corinthians. What seemed to be the problem? Verse 12 is where Paul stated that they were divided between those who said they followed Paul while others said they followed Apollos. And there were others who say they followed Cephas (or Peter). And of course, others said they followed Christ.

That was a huge problem because the Corinthians, except the ones who said they followed Christ, misunderstood the nature of baptism. Baptism was for the purpose of making us followers of Christ, not followers of those ministers who baptized us. God used them to baptize us. Paul made it clear in verse 13 that the issue in regards to baptism was indeed it saves, but that it saves in the name of Christ, not Paul. That was why he said in verses 14-16 he thanked God that he did not baptize but a few. It was so that most who were baptized can’t say they were baptized in Paul’s name as he pointed out in verse 15. His point was not that baptism did not save, but that it did not save in Paul’s name. That is a huge difference in what he said. 

If baptism does not save and is not a means of grace, Paul would have no need to say he was glad he was not sent to baptize so no one would make the mistake of thinking baptism was in Paul’s name or made those baptized followers of Paul (or whoever baptized them in person). He would have said it is irrelevant if he baptized or not, since baptism does nothing. His statements were the exact opposite: the fact that Paul hardly baptized disproved the claims salvation was of Paul or people were made followers of Paul via baptism. Or he would have said that he was glad he was not sent to preach the word so no one can say Paul saved, given folks who denied baptismal grace usually affirmed God saves through means of the word preached. 

If anything, the passage often quoted against baptismal grace proves baptismal grace. It is a fallacious argument to say that since they were not baptized by Paul, they were not baptized at all for the forgiveness of sins. And such an argument has an unintended nasty side effect: it ends up arguing against one’s own view of being baptized right away even for profession of faith. Take such an argument to its logical conclusion, and one can say baptism is not even needed to show one’s faith.

Other passages disprove this argument. We read in 1 Corinthians 6:11 that those very folks were indeed baptized. They were washed, sanctified and justified. Paul addressed the same point in 1 Corinthians 3 in regards to salvation being of Christ, and not of either Paul nor Apollos. What he said in verse 6 was he planted the seed, and Apollos “watered.” Whether watering here referred to baptism or not, the point stands. His ministry had people with different roles by which God used them to reach others. Just because Paul did not baptize does not mean it did not happened. Nor does it mean no one else in his ministry baptized. It is a fallacious claim to try to explain away many passages in Scriptures that say: 1) baptism that saves you now; 2) those who believe and are baptized will be saved; 3) repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the Holy Spirit; 4) buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life; 5) get up, be baptized and washed away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord, 6) buried with Christ in baptism and raised with Him to newness of life; 7) washed with water through the Word; 8) born of water and Spirit; 8) those who are baptized into Christ, through faith, are clothed with Him; and so on.

All this comes from the mindset baptism is our work, and works don’t save us. But none of the passages that say baptism saves say baptism is our work. If anything, we are told baptism is God’s work of grace to us. He is the main actor. We are the passive recipients. Faith alone receives the promises God presents in baptism: Christ Himself who comes to us to bring us forgiveness won for us at the Cross to us, newness of life the Spirit gives us, and salvation God gives us. It is pure grace. Here we stand.

Dispy Free Gracers Implicitly Deny Grace Alone

I came across an article published online by the Grace Evangelical Society titled How Lutherans Implicitly Deny Faith Alone in Christ Alone.

I found this article to extremely misrepresent Lutheran theology. I also think that much of this is due to the presuppositions of the author's own theology. In short, if you are going to critique Lutheranism using Dispensational Free Grace Baptist definitions of theological terms, you're going to end up saying that Lutheranism is outright heresy. Using the author's stances on these things, Lutheranism teaches salvation by works and not only implicitly denies faith alone, but outright rejects it entirely.

Of course we know that this is not the case. We (Lutherans) like faith alone. After all, it was Martin Luther who brought this doctrine back to the forefront in Christendom.

The problem with the author's critique in this article is that he brings his own definitions of things to the keyboard, without bothering to interact with how Lutheranism (and Scripture) sees these theological topics.

First and foremost, the author's definition of what "faith alone" means and the Lutheran definition of what "faith alone" means are not the same thing. As I am familiar with Dispensational Free Grace theology, I can say that faith alone in this theology is essentially what boils down to a positive choice to believe that Christ is your Savior. Ultimately, justification in this theology is a mental assent to the truth. To be sure, this is not completely untrue. Christ is a real person who really died for our sins and rose from the dead for us. There certainly is propositional content here. The right things regarding Christ should be believed.

In Lutheranism, this is not how we formulate faith alone. Rather, we see faith alone as trust. Not so much to proper mental attainment, but rather trust in Christ alone that He has got us and we are His. The first of the author's critiques points out that he is not representing Lutheran theology or soteriology in a fair light.

The author states, "Unfortunately, unlike Free Grace Theology, the Lutheran tradition has not kept to faith alone in Christ alone, despite their stated intention. Indeed, I believe the Lutheran tradition has adopted a number of doctrines in direct opposition to justification/eternal life by faith in Christ apart from works. Let me give three examples:"

He then proceeds to give three examples where he thinks that Lutheranism has abandoned sola fide.

"Infant Baptism. The fact that Lutherans baptize infants denies justification by faith alone. Infants cannot believe and yet Lutherans claim that they are justified in the act of water baptism."

The first thing I will point out here is that this short statement betrays what I have already stated above: The author's theology is in rejection of the biblical doctrine of sola fide. Even more so, implied in the statement is that baptism is a work.

Let us phrase this as clearly as possible. It is no more possible for an infant to believe than it is for an adult with a fully developed cognitive reasoning. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that it's more unlikely for an adult to believe, since even our reasoning is sinful. To be even more clear: We are all dead in sin (Eph 2). No one seeks God (Rom 3). And nobody can choose to have faith. Such is Arminian free will doctrine, and it is false. The author implies that adults can believe. One must wonder on what basis this is true? Is it because adults have a more fully developed sense of reasoning? If this is the case, why not deny original sin? I mean, seriously, our reason, intellect, and thoughts are sinful. They are even more so the more developed our reasoning gets. Yet the author would have us believe that it is these more developed sinners who can believe, and the infants cannot.

So in what light can we say that Baptism justifies? Well, in the same light as Romans 3:22b-25: For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

St. Paul says here that we are justified by His grace as a gift, which is received by faith. Baptism is a means of grace. Simple enough.

The point? It is impossible for anyone to believe apart from God's powerful working of grace.

"By baptizing people who do not have faith, the Lutheran churches effectively teach that justification is apart from faith, not by it."

This is simply false, but it takes a couple Scriptures to show this. First of all, I would think that the author would agree that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, as Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches. Here is where it gets sketchy for the author's theology. Where is grace given to fallen sinful people? Does his theology have any means of said grace? As I am familiar with Free Grace theology, I am confident the author here would answer that the means of grace are the Word of God and prayer. In the first case I answer a hearty Amen! in the second case I ask two things: First, where does Scripture ever equate prayer with receiving grace? Second, isn't prayer a work? So, if the unsaved person prays to be saved, didn't they do something to be saved? The author may answer then that God perhaps prepared their heart by grace to say a prayer to Him to be saved. But where is this in Scripture? Also, where is this grace coming from? Yes I know: God. But more specifically, by what means? God does not function in a vacuum. He does not regenerate people apart from means. He does not separate the natural world from the spiritual world. We are not Gnostics, after all.

The point is this: God extends grace to people through certain specific means. In this way we can know God is coming to us in grace and mercy on behalf of Christ to save us and not in wrath to condemn us. If there are no natural, tangible, and objective means of grace, our assurance of salvation will be destroyed. How can we know it was God? Are we sure it was the Holy Spirit leading us? Such is the glaring error of the Pentecostal movement.

The means of grace are simple: Word and Sacrament. Natural means that actually carry with them spiritual promises. Baptism is a means of grace, not a work done by us for God. And on we go to the author's second critique.

"Baptismal Regeneration. Paul chastised the Galatians for thinking that circumcision was necessary for salvation. And yet Lutherans insist that we must be baptized in order to be saved. Water baptism was as much a work of the law as circumcision (Lev 16:23-24). How can Lutherans teach that making circumcision a condition of salvation is legalism but making baptism a condition of salvation is not?"

There are a few things to say here. I would like to begin with Leviticus. The author is stripping a ceremonial washing under the Law out of its context and applying it to New Testament Christian Baptism in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I highly doubt that Aaron bathing himself for ceremonial cleanliness was Christian Baptism into the Name of the Triune God. Jewish ceremonial washings are not Christian Baptism. Case closed on that one.

This of course destroys the rest of his argument here regarding circumcision. Of all people, a dispensationalist should recognize the movement from promise to fulfillment. This is why the New Testament repeatedly uses salvific language when talking about baptism. Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27-29, 1 Peter 3:21, and Colossians 2:11-12, which actually states that Baptism buries us with Christ and raises us in faith. How can the New Testament use this language? Because grace saves, and Baptism is a means of grace.

Hence, the attempt to parallel circumcision to Baptism on a one-to-one basis is an error. Scripture never says that circumcision saves us, or buries us with Christ, or raises us in faith. But it does say all those things about Baptism.

"If Lutherans held consistently to faith alone in Christ alone, they would not make Baptism a condition of eternal salvation."

If we are to believe Scripture as it is written; particularly the passages that speak of what Baptism does, then this argument severely misses the point. To argue that Baptism is not a condition of eternal salvation is pretty much saying that grace is not a condition of eternal salvation. Moreover, if we are to believe Scripture, grace precedes faith. Grace first, faith results as a gift.

Of course, to be sure, it is precisely the powerful working of God that gives Baptism it's power. It's not the water per se. It's the Word of God working in and through the water.

"Loss of Salvation. Lutherans do not believe in eternal security...If Lutherans held consistently to faith alone in Christ alone, they would know that losing our salvation is impossible."

Except, Scripture is very clear that we can fall from grace, abandon the faith, be lost, and so on.

"If a believer commits a grave sin, or persists in sin, or has a lapse of faith, then they can lose their salvation, according to Lutheran theology."

The key word here is "believer." We know for certain that there are many people who are believers that later in life completely abandon the Christian faith and reject Christ altogether. The Free Grace proponent will say one of two things here. First, they may say that the person, despite abandoning Christ and becoming an atheist or some other nefarious thing, is still saved. Second, they may say that the person never really believed in the first place. The problem is, the Scriptures never once speak in either of these manners. On the contrary, Scripture speaks very sternly to believers that abandoning the faith is like, pretty bad. And stuff. Consider Hebrews 10:26-27, "For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries."

Those are very strong words. I am sure our dispensational friends have some interpretation that says this only applies to Jews, or people in the tribulation, or other such nonsense. But the fact of the matter is that they are simply wrong here.

To be plain, the security of the believer if for believers. If someone is no longer a believer, they are no longer in Christ and thus not secure. All they can expect is a fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire.

"To see why, consider the explanation that Lutherans can give as to how a person can lose their salvation. The answer always involves something that the believer does...This is another way of saying that justification by faith depends on our behavior. But if our salvation depends upon our behavior, then justification depends in part on our works, and is not by faith alone."

This is just not true of Lutheran theology. Certainly we do affirm that it is us who decide to throw Christ away. I won't argue with that. However, the author here implies, without actually consulting Lutheran thoughts on the topic, that this means that we teach that we must have to do something in order to keep our salvation too. This is not Lutheran teaching. The only thing we can contribute to our salvation is sin. We are responsible for falling away, throwing Christ out, and so on. But GOD, not us, is who keeps us in the faith, saves us, and extends to us the grace needed for the journey. We are passive recipients in all of this. It is God who works in us. It is all grace (through faith).

To summarize, I believe the author has inadvertently mixed up the biblical order. I don't think there is any room in his theology for that other great sola; sola gratia, or grace alone. He seems to be working with a definition of sola fide that necessitates that grace is a reward for faith. The theological problems with this are legion. The most glaring one however is something that the author seeks to avoid: justification by works. If grace is a reward for faith, then faith itself is turned into a good work. The problem is identical when one considers the normal means of salvation in dispensational churches: Saying a prayer to receive Christ. Funny enough, by the author's insistence on sola fide (which is a different formulation of it than classical Christianity), he undermines sola gratia.

Most dangerously, he calls grace works. The Scriptures are abundantly clear about the salvific nature of Baptism (as well as the Lord's Supper, for that matter). By that standard, Baptism must by necessity be gracious. We are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and only grace can work faith in an individual. Yet our author here separates faith from the means of grace and ends up regarding means of grace (specifically Baptism) as works.

Ultimately it is the author's theology that ends up being justification by works, since faith is in essence a work. It's something you do to be saved in Free Grace theology. Make a decision, say a prayer, and so on.

But thanks be to God, he has given us tangible, objective, and natural means of grace by which He saves us. He does not separate out the natural world from the spiritual as the Gnostics did, but He sanctifies the natural and uses it for spiritual things. If God can work through the preaching of the Gospel in sound waves from the voice of a preacher that is heard by the recipient in numerous languages worldwide (this is a natural means...it's Physics), then He certainly can work through other natural means like water, bread, and grape juice...err, I mean wine. ;)

Free Grace theology is aberrant and heterodox at best. It simply cannot deal with the massive amount of texts on grace, faith, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Word of God in a manner that is consistent with Scripture itself or the history of the Christian Church for 2000 years.

Restorationists need not apply here.

Pax

Ordinary and Mundane yet Sacred and Sanctified

How often is it heard in Christian circles how 'God spoke to me,' or 'the Lord led me,' or how you could 'feel the Spirit moving?'

It's quite common, to be sure. People want to have those experiences. They want to feel God. But God has not promised to intervene directly in our lives in a personal way. What I mean by that is that nowhere in Holy Scripture does Christ promise to speak directly to us as a form of revelation. The ironic thing is, despite the non-existence of a sure word from Christ promising this, it is very popular for well-meaning Christian folks to make these claims. God spoke to me and the Spirit led me. Hence the language, verbiage, and dare I say it, leaven, of the barely 100 year-old Pentecostal movement that has invaded Christianity and called itself orthodox, when it is not.

But none of that is the main thrust of this post. The last days are here and Christ is taking the mundane and making it Sacred. Mundane simply means natural and ordinary. And this is precisely what Christ does. The God who owns the universe and created it, shows us His power over it repeatedly. Not by giving us a private revelation or sending the Spirit to "move" (whatever that means) during the chorus of some great contemporary worship tune as the guitar player and the lead vocalist are half in tears pouring their heart out.

But by usual, normal, ordinary, mundane things. Like water, for instance. Christ does not change the water by substance or make it something other than it is. It's still water. But He shows His power over it and through it by saving us through water, by His powerful Word. I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Just as Noah and his family were brought safely through the water, we are saved through it in our Baptism.

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. ~1 Peter 3:18-22

Normal. Ordinary. Mundane. Now Sacred. God speaks and we are saved through the water. Imagine that.

What about bread and wine? Does Christ not do the same thing there? He takes the ordinary and makes them Sacred. Christ gives us bread and wine and tells us to take and eat, this is My body, and take and drink, this is My blood.

What about normal human speech? That's pretty mundane. We may have hundreds of different languages, but God's Word is spoken in them all. He takes normal human speech and proclaims Christ crucified to you, and the Spirit works through this normal human speech.

I always have a chuckle when our Reformed friends, especially the Reformed Baptists, somehow think that the Holy Spirit is not "sovereign" unless He works completely independently of means. This is usually based on ripping John 3:8 out of context. I get that they want to let God be God. And that is good. Yet, separating the Holy Spirit out from the means of grace and concocting extra terminology to support this system, such as "inward call," well, it's silly.

Everyone wants to be orthodox in their beliefs, it is true. But this separating out of the Spirit from the means is not orthodox. In fact, it stinks of Gnosticism. It's dualist to the core.

And dang it, all of this "inward call" speak sounds a lot like "God told me so," at least on a functional level. Either way, it is the Spirit directly intervening to you apart from means of grace. Even if one argues that the means of grace are means of grace for the elect alone, they're still left with the same problem of the inward call apart from means.

But then, that is all you're left with when you separate the means of grace out from the work of the Spirit. You're left with a dualistic theology of separation of natural and spiritual. And you are left with a God who is not sovereign, as the Calvinists would have us believe, but rather is Gnostic according to historical Christian beliefs and heresies. That is what happens when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and makes them Sacred by working through them.

The hijacking by the Reformed of the term monergism is a shame. Certainly, they are monergists, but it's an unbiblical version of it.

Yet, when you deny that God takes the ordinary and mundane and uses them for Sacred purposes, I suppose that is all one is left with. When you deny that God takes the ordinary and the mundane and uses them for saving purposes, you're still stuck in the same spot. No, this is not a misunderstanding of Calvinism (as Calvinists will try to tell you). This is exactly what they teach. The means of grace are only for the elect. Hence, it's not really the means of grace that are means, but the "sovereign" Holy Spirit showing up when He wants to for the elect and them alone. No wonder the Crypto-Calvinist controversy was such a big deal. Well, that and the Calvinists were lying their way into Lutheran churches and universities.

That is not biblical monergism because there is no objectivity. There is no "for you" and "for certain" in the Sacraments.

Put this faulty version of monergism to bed. Yuck.

Grace and Peace