| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | Quote: "Historically, Lutheranism has affirmed the necessity of faith in order to receive the blessings and benefits associated with baptism" (He then quotes Luther who says, "For baptism is useless without faith. It is like a letter to which seals are attached but in which nothing has been written. Therefore he who has the signs and not the faith has seals only, seals attached to a letter without any writing") Question: If this is a true statement, from a Lutheran perspective, how does it fit with our Lutheran belief that, in baptism, the infant receives the gift of justifying faith? How can a baby receive the "blessings and benefits" associated with baptism if it is in baptism that he receives that which is necessary to receive these blessings and benefits? I can understand how, as an adult, I require faith to appropriate the grace unto the forgiveness of sins given me in my baptism. In this way, without faith my baptism is useless to me in the here and now. Was Luther speaking of baptism from this perspective or from the perspective of the infant's reception of the divine gift for the first time? Quote: "In addition, Lutheranism has taught that the operation of the Holy Spirit working through the Word and sacraments is resistible." (He then quotes from Francis Pieper, who says, "Men, then, do possess the power to thwart the operation of divine grace whereby God intended to produce faith in them.") He further adds his own statement, "therefore, according to Confessional Lutheranism, simply because an infant is baptized by no means indicates that he/she has definitely received the gift of faith. Since grace is resistible, it is entirely possible that the infant has resisted God's work in the sacrament." Question: I know that Lutherans confess that grace is resistible, but is it Lutheran teaching that infants can resist the grace that produces faith in baptism? If this is the case, how can we say with certainty (as I have been taught to confess concerning my baptized children), that the child "has been sealed with the Holy Spirit and marked with the cross of Christ forever"? It would seem that such a statement is presumptuous if the child may have resisted the grace of the baptism. My understanding has long been that, since God has promised to work through His sacraments as "God's Word made visible," we have no greater assurance than the fact that an infant is a "child of God" upon being baptized, since it is God's work, not man's. Quote: "In short, since Lutheranism affirms the necessity of faith, the resistibility of grace, and the possibility of apostasy, a reception of baptism is not sufficient grounds for ultimate assurance of salvation. To be sure, Lutherans point to the objective promises of Word and sacrament as assurance for salvation, but the benefits procured by Christ and offered through Word and sacrament must be received through faith." Question: I don't know what it is, but these two sentences trouble me. Is it really proper from a Lutheran perspective to use the word "but" after the statement "Lutherans point to the objective promises of Word and sacrament as assurance of salvation"? Doesn't using the word "but" invalidate or unnecessarily qualify the former statement? I sense that we should leave the first part of the sentence to stand by itself. If Lutherans "point to the objective promises of Word and sacrament," that would seem to necessitate faith. As far as the "ultimate assurance of salvation," I know that Lutherans do not believe that Scripture teaches the Perseverance of the Saints. | ||||||
| A: | Luther is not teaching that faith is a prerequisite to baptism, but that baptism does not benefit a person without faith. The faith necessary to receive the blessings of baptism may precede baptism or result from baptism. We can never know with absolute certainty if any individual has faith. Even in the case of an adult who confesses faith clearly and gives evidence of a Christian life, we could be fooled by a false confession. Putting the best construction on things, we receive every confession at face value. At the funeral of a Christian we do not add qualifiers like "Well, he seemed like a Christian, but maybe he really was not." In the same way, we know baptism is a real means of grace that works faith. We know that a child can depart from that faith and fall away from the grace given to them in baptism. Unless we have evidence that the child has rejected the faith worked by baptism, we assume it remains. It is true that we cannot know the faith of any person with absolute certainty. Only God can do that. We can only go by the evidence we have. Where we have the evidence of baptism or a clear confession, we assume the presence of faith. Where a person confesses unbelief, we also accept that testimony at face value. In the confession and absolution in the service we simply announce to grace of God to all who have confessed. To judge the hearts of the hypocrites is God's responsibility not ours. | ||||||
| |||||||