Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!ucsd!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Infant Baptism, and a Few Oddments Message-ID: Date: 23 Nov 90 07:12:38 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics Lines: 86 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > >I read the articles and think >"It's water. You get it out of the faucet and dunk people in it. It's no >different than the water you get in the church kitchen to make tea." I >cannot make myself think of the water as magical, or special, or anything >else. It just makes no sense to me. Luther addressed this very point. He said in his Large Catechism, "Baptism is not simply common water, but water comprehended in God's Word and commandment and sanctified by them." The water is nothing; God's word and commandment is everything. "To be baptized in God's name is to be baptized not by men but by God himself. Although it is performed by men's hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own act. From this fact everyone can easily conclude that it is of much greater value than the work of any man or saint. For what work can man do that is greater than God's work?...But mad reason rushes forth and, because Baptism is not dazzling like the works we do, regards it as worthless." That Baptism has real spiritual benefits is made amply clear in 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and Ephesians 5: 25,26. I have quoted these in a separate article submitted yesterday. >First, David Wagner said something like "Luther and the RCs were agreed in >condemning the errors of those opposed to infant baptism." While I suppose >I ought to be flattered that His Holiness Mr Luther felt I was worth a word >or two, I'd like to point out that I think Mr Wagner is the one who errs on >this issue; but I do not speak as if it were a foregone conclusion. I >respectfully request similar courtesy from those who feel I am in error. To be precise, this is what Melancthon wrote in the Augsburg confession, which enjoyed very widespread support from many opposed to the papacy, on the subject of Baptism. "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into grace. "Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children and declare that children are saved without Baptism." I do not think that Melancthon intended to say that those who believe but die without the opportunity of Baptism, are not saved. That would contradict the words of Christ, who told the believing thief on the cross next to him: "Today, you will be with me in paradise". The Anabaptists were generally regarded as fanatics; in addition to rejecting infant Baptism, they taught that a Christian should not hold public office, serve as princes and judges, render decisions and pass sentence, be married, and a host of other things. They also taught that the devil and condemned men will not suffer eternal pain and torment. I sincerely hope that Mr. Provine is not an Anabaptist. The classical confessional tradition has always been one which affirmed certain theses and rejected and condemned certain antitheses. This tradition stretches back at least to the Council of Nicea. The Lutheran Confessions stand firmly on this tradition, from the Augsburg Confession to the Formula of Concord. I agree that I have a responsibility to be evangelical towards those who hold to error out of ignorance and weakness, and to be humble and aware that I, too, may be misinformed and in error. I am sorry if I occasionally fall short of this standard. However I also feel a responsibility to stand up for what I believe, namely the clear teachings of Scripture. Occasionally this requires that the Word be wielded as a 'sharp, double edged sword'. Perhaps I should use the Word more, and Luther less? But I think it is unfair of Mr. Provine to paint Luther as an antichrist. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, "How long?" And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song." --a verse from 'The Church's One Foundation' --Samuel J. Stone, 1866 My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.