So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[PaulDupre1]

Not what scripture says. Not what the confessions say. Not what the history/tradition of the Lutheran Church says. A pastor who is unwilling to hear confession and grant absolution should be forced out of his vocation.

They were able to give it, but chose not to. That’s even worse. An outrage!

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

How dare they refuse to hear confession and grant absolution!
I encourage you to invite this pastor here, so he can (try to) refute what I’ve said. Denying a sacrament! What a monstrous thing to do! :banghead::banghead:

Jon

I am reminded of Mel Gibson’s character in “Signs” where he plays a married priest with children. I assumed he was a Lutheran pastor.

There is a beautiful scene where a young parishioner pressures him to hear her confession, though he has declared that he is no longer a priest. He hears her confession and you can see in his eyes the anguish that the loss of his ministry has caused him.

Not only a great film but a great Christian film.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

God himself knows far better than any person whether an individual who is intellectually disabled is capable of faith or not. A God who condemns the mentally disabled to hell solely because he created them with the inability to have faith and their parents did not have the foresight to baptize them to give them the divine insurance policy is not a God I want to serve in any case.

I have seen a girl with downs syndrome kneel at an altar and accept Christ when the Gospel was explained to her in terms she could comprehend. She was about 18, but she had enough childlike faith. In the end, don’t we all have to become as children to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

If there are people in this world who live with intellectual abilities truly too low to comprehend any concept of the Gospel, then I trust in the justice and mercy of God that he will work out all things for his glory until he is finally all in all.

Since baptism has no effect apart from faith, it would make no difference if it were an infant, the intellectually disabled, or a mature adult.

No. They had him circumcised because he was a male born to Jewish parents, and the sign of the God’s covenant with Israel was circumcision. This physical circumcision was given to all male children of Israelites and male slaves of Israelites. This was done irregardless of a person’s inward spiritual condition, even though we know that:

“But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God” (Romans 2:29).

If it makes you feel better to baptize the children of believing parents, I suppose you could treat it like circumcision. It would not, however, erase the distinction between the inward and the outward cutting away of the flesh. One deals only with externals; the other is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit.

It is a fallacy to say that because faith is necessary to receive the grace of baptism, that baptism does not confer the grace of regeneration in conjunction with faith. It is also fallacious to say that because one does not receive the grace of baptism without faith, therefore it is faith alone that saves apart from baptism. In fact, as I’m sure you know, Catholic teaching distinguishes between the grace and character of baptism. Whereas the reception of grace is dependent upon the condition of the recipient, the character of baptism is conferred always as long as a valid baptism is administered.

The problem with your denomination’s teaching is that you create a very difficult fork. Since you say that infants, lacking faith, cannot be baptized, you create two possibilities. The first is that all infants are damned as the Gospel expressly teaches, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. If we are being consistent and intellectually honest, we should acknowledge that depriving infants of baptism on account of lack of faith must also necessarily deprive them of salvation. The second possibility on the other hand is that Pelagius was right all along. Infants do not have original sin and are not in need of salvation, which is contrary to Scripture: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I think rather than teaching that babies are automatically saved (which is never taught in Scripture, but rather taught against) and teaching that infants are not to be baptized, you ought to interpret thr commands to believe in order to be saved as not asking anything more of a person than the person is able of doing (note that the Apostles were not preaching to babies). You already seem to believe this, so why reject the active role of baptism in salvation taught according to the plain sense of Scripture?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I can not find anywhere in the Bible where it states that if you “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour you will be saved”. Anyone can quote book/chapter/verse?

The closest thing off the top of my head is Romans 10:9.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This is perhaps the favorite prooftext of the OSAS Evangelical, who says, “See! The Bible says is false. All we need to do is accept Jesus as our personal Savior.” My response is that Catholics do indeed confess the Lord Jesus (just as we recite in the Creed) and believe in that God raised Him from the dead (also in the Creed), so all Catholics (who believe Catholic dogma) will be saved. Some will buy it, some won’t. Of course, Catholics (and probably most Protestants for that matter) do not believe that this is all that is necessary for our salvation.

 

[SyroMalankara]

How dare they refuse to hear confession and grant absolution!
I encourage you to invite this pastor here, so he can (try to) refute what I’ve said. Denying a sacrament! What a monstrous thing to do! :banghead::banghead:

Jon

I came across a similar situation many moons ago in military basic training - we were introduced to one of the base chaplains, the drill instruction says “talk to this guy if you are having issues or need inform someone about something personal, it’s confidential because its like confession” (he must have been Catholic or Orthodox)… the chaplain replies, “don’t tell me anything you don’t want your drill sergeant to know. Anything you tell me I can tell your drill, I ain’t no Catholic priest, I’m a Christian pastor.”

Ruined my impression of the non-Catholic chaplains for me right then and there.

 

[Nicea325]

It is a fallacy to say that because faith is necessary to receive the grace of baptism, that baptism does not confer the grace of regeneration in conjunction with faith. It is also fallacious to say that because one does not receive the grace of baptism without faith, therefore it is faith alone that saves apart from baptism. In fact, as I’m sure you know, Catholic teaching distinguishes between the grace and character of baptism. Whereas the reception of grace is dependent upon the condition of the recipient, the character of baptism is conferred always as long as a valid baptism is administered.

The problem with your denomination’s teaching is that you create a very difficult fork. Since you say that infants, lacking faith, cannot be baptized, you create two possibilities. The first is that all infants are damned as the Gospel expressly teaches, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. If we are being consistent and intellectually honest, we should acknowledge that depriving infants of baptism on account of lack of faith must also necessarily deprive them of salvation. The second possibility on the other hand is that Pelagius was right all along. Infants do not have original sin and are not in need of salvation, which is contrary to Scripture: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I think rather than teaching that babies are automatically saved (which is never taught in Scripture, but rather taught against) and teaching that infants are not to be baptized, you ought to interpret thr commands to believe in order to be saved as not asking anything more of a person than the person is able of doing (note that the Apostles were not preaching to babies). You already seem to believe this, so why reject the active role of baptism in salvation taught according to the plain sense of Scripture?

Exactly! The whole notion that babies cannot bet be baptized due to a lack of faith creates a difficult fork as you stated.

 

[pablope]

Not what scripture says. Not what the confessions say. Not what the history/tradition of the Lutheran Church says. A pastor who is unwilling to hear confession and grant absolution should be forced out of his vocation.

They were able to give it, but chose not to. That’s even worse. An outrage!

 

[JonNC]

I came across a similar situation many moons ago in military basic training - we were introduced to one of the base chaplains, the drill instruction says “talk to this guy if you are having issues or need inform someone about something personal, it’s confidential because its like confession” (he must have been Catholic or Orthodox)… the chaplain replies, “don’t tell me anything you don’t want your drill sergeant to know. Anything you tell me I can tell your drill, I ain’t no Catholic priest, I’m a Christian pastor.”

Ruined my impression of the non-Catholic chaplains for me right then and there.

Lutheran pastors are bound by the seal of the confessional. I’ hoping this chaplain was not Lutheran, as my head still hurts from the banging it took in my last post.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12019935]
Jon…where does the Lutheran confessions actually define the sacrament of Confession as a sacrament?

Hi Pablope,

Apology of the Augsburg Confession

If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross]. 4] Therefore Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God’s command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament.

But more importantly than the name sacrament, is what it is and does:
From the Smalcald Articles:

Part III, Article VII. Of the Keys.

1] The keys are an office and power given by Christ to the Church for binding and loosing sin, not only the gross and well-known sins, but also the subtle, hidden, which are known only to God, as it is written in Ps. 19:13: Who can understand his errors? And in Rom. 7:25 St. Paul himself complains that with the flesh he serves the law of sin. 2] For it is not in our power, but belongs to God alone, to judge which, how great, and how many the sins are, as it is written in Ps. 143:2: Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. 3] And Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified.

Part III, Article VIII. Of Confession.

1] **Since Absolution or the Power of the Keys is also an aid and consolation against sin and a bad conscience, ordained by Christ [Himself] in the Gospel, **Confession or Absolution ought by no means to be abolished in the Church, especially on account of [tender and] timid consciences and on account of the untrained [and capricious] young people, in order that they may be examined, and instructed in the Christian doctrine.

2] But the enumeration of sins ought to be free to every one, as to what he wishes to enumerate or not to enumerate. For as long as we are in the flesh, we shall not lie when we say: "I am a poor man , full of sin." Rom. 7:23: I see another law in my members, etc. For since private absolution originates in the Office of the Keys, it should not be despised [neglected], but greatly and highly esteemed [of the greatest worth], as [also] all other offices of the Christian Church.

Well…indeed you should be outraged…isn’t it that Lutherans have redefined some of the sacraments, or minimized them, contradicting what has been taught and administered by both east and west for 2000 yrs and look at the fruits of this…

If it were such that the Lutheran confessions had minimized them, then you might have a point. As one can see, they do not minimize them.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

The problem with your denomination’s teaching is that you create a very difficult fork. Since you say that infants, lacking faith, cannot be baptized, you create two possibilities. The first is that all infants are damned as the Gospel expressly teaches, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. If we are being consistent and intellectually honest, we should acknowledge that depriving infants of baptism on account of lack of faith must also necessarily deprive them of salvation.

You use Mark 16:16 to support the notion that baptism is salvific, and this notion then supports the position of infant baptism. You present this as being faithful to the text, but in reality, you advocate the necessity of baptism and advocate that infants do not need to believe in order to be baptized and saved. However, Mark 16:16, taken at face value, requires both baptism and belief (faith). Infants aren’t believers when they are baptized, and therefore even if they were baptized they would still not be saved.

You could say that the belief comes later in life. But what about those infants who die as infants?

The second possibility on the other hand is that Pelagius was right all along. Infants do not have original sin and are not in need of salvation, which is contrary to Scripture: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I do believe babies have original sin. I also believe that God is clearly able to bring regeneration to an infant even before he or she is born (for example, John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit even in his mother’s womb).

I think rather than teaching that babies are automatically saved (which is never taught in Scripture, but rather taught against) and teaching that infants are not to be baptized, you ought to interpret thr commands to believe in order to be saved as not asking anything more of a person than the person is able of doing (note that the Apostles were not preaching to babies).

I agree that Scripture never teaches that infants are automatically saved, whether baptism is involved or not.

I disagree with the latter part of your comment. Perhaps this is a fundamental intellectual divide between Catholics and Protestants. My understanding of the commands to believe (and even the commands to both believe and be baptized) is that our abilities (whether as infants or older) do not figure into the equation at all. Adults, children and infants are saved and regenerated on the basis of Christ’s work on the cross and God’s grace. Therefore, when it comes to the issue of infant salvation, the question of whether or not the parents had the infant baptized is, from the viewpoint of this particular Protestant Christian, irrelevant.

You already seem to believe this, so why reject the active role of baptism in salvation taught according to the plain sense of Scripture?

Because the plain meaning of Scripture is that baptism is for those who have believed. I believe strongly that God is able to save infants. Take for example the word’s of David after the death of his infant son, “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). Scripture has examples of figures such as John the Baptist and the prophet Jeremiah who were definitely sanctified and set apart even before they were born. I see no reason why God could not do the same for infants whom he knew would die before they could have any chance of living life. I cannot, on the basis of Scripture, say that all infants will be saved. I cannot say conclusively that all infants of believing parents will be saved (though given the strong pattern in Scripture of God saving the children of those who believe in him), but that is something that believers can hope for.

Beyond that, we simply cannot say anymore given the information disclosed in Holy Scripture.

 

[Nicea325]

You use Mark 16:16 to support the notion that baptism is salvific, and this notion then supports the position of infant baptism. You present this as being faithful to the text, but in reality, you advocate the necessity of baptism and advocate that infants do not need to believe in order to be baptized and saved. However, Mark 16:16, taken at face value, requires both baptism and belief (faith). Infants aren’t believers when they are baptized, and therefore even if they were baptized they would still not be saved.

You could say that the belief comes later in life. But what about those infants who die as infants?

I do believe babies have original sin. I also believe that God is clearly able to bring regeneration to an infant even before he or she is born (for example, John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit even in his mother’s womb).

I agree that Scripture never teaches that infants are automatically saved, whether baptism is involved or not.

I disagree with the latter part of your comment. Perhaps this is a fundamental intellectual divide between Catholics and Protestants. My understanding of the commands to believe (and even the commands to both believe and be baptized) is that our abilities (whether as infants or older) do not figure into the equation at all. Adults, children and infants are saved and regenerated on the basis of Christ’s work on the cross and God’s grace. Therefore, when it comes to the issue of infant salvation, the question of whether or not the parents had the infant baptized is, from the viewpoint of this particular Protestant Christian, irrelevant.

Because the plain meaning of Scripture is that baptism is for those who have believed. I believe strongly that God is able to save infants. Take for example the word’s of David after the death of his infant son, “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). Scripture has examples of figures such as John the Baptist and the prophet Jeremiah who were definitely sanctified and set apart even before they were born. I see no reason why God could not do the same for infants whom he knew would die before they could have any chance of living life. I cannot, on the basis of Scripture, say that all infants will be saved. I cannot say conclusively that all infants of believing parents will be saved (though given the strong pattern in Scripture of God saving the children of those who believe in him), but that is something that believers can hope for.

Beyond that, we simply cannot say anymore given the information disclosed in Holy Scripture.

But unfortunately for your position, history begs to differ. Infants and young children being baptized is stated as oppose your position being the only standard. So the texts which state entire familes/households were baptized (Acts of the Aostles), your position would automatically eliminate infants and young children. Remember, the text never gives specific ages nor states ONLY those capabable of believing were baptized. Did the Jews and early Christians NOT consider infants and young children part of a household? If your position were accurate, I find it odd Luke does not state it in Acts.

 

[ltwin]

But unfortunately for your position, history begs to differ. Infants and young children being baptized is stated as oppose your position being the only standard. So the texts which state entire familes/households were baptized (Acts of the Aostles), your position would automatically eliminate infants and young children. Remember, the text never gives specific ages nor states ONLY those capabable of believing were baptized. Did the Jews and early Christians NOT consider infants and young children part of a household? If your position were accurate, I find it odd Luke does not state it in Acts.

The household argument is an argument. Unfortunately, it’s no slam dunk. It’s perfectly logical to conclude that the phrase “household” refers to all who were old enough to believe. For example, the family of the jailer in Acts 16 was baptized (verse 33). But it’s also true that Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house” (verse 32). Obviously, there is an assumption that the “all” were old enough to understand the word and believe it. Afterward, we’re told that the jailer “rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God” (verse 34). Not only was the “household” baptized, but the “household” also received the Word of God and the “household” rejoiced in their faith in God. So, logically, that means that the infants in the house also received the Word gladly and with rejoicing.

In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul wrote that he “baptized the household of Stephanas.” In the same book, Paul mentioned the Stephanas household again:“You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people” (1 Corinthians 16:15). So, that obviously means that the infants in Stephanas’ house devoted themselves to Christian service as well.

And then there are instances where entire households believed but where baptism was never mentioned at all (John 4:53; Acts 18:8).

 

[Nicea325]

The household argument is an argument. Unfortunately, it’s no slam dunk. It’s perfectly logical to conclude that the phrase “household” refers to all who were old enough to believe. For example, the family of the jailer in Acts 16 was baptized (verse 33). But it’s also true that Paul and Silas “spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house” (verse 32). Obviously, there is an assumption that the “all” were old enough to understand the word and believe it. Afterward, we’re told that the jailer “rejoiced with all his household that he had believed in God” (verse 34). Not only was the “household” baptized, but the “household” also received the Word of God and the “household” rejoiced in their faith in God. So, logically, that means that the infants in the house also received the Word gladly and with rejoicing.

In 1 Corinthians 1:16, Paul wrote that he “baptized the household of Stephanas.” In the same book, Paul mentioned the Stephanas household again:“You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people” (1 Corinthians 16:15). So, that obviously means that the infants in Stephanas’ house devoted themselves to Christian service as well.

And then there are instances where entire households believed but where baptism was never mentioned at all (John 4:53; Acts 18:8).

The household argument is an argument, which supports the CC much more.

Sorry,but that seems like pure conjecture. Old enough to believe? And at what age? 7? 13? 20? No where in the NT does it ever give an example of a young child being baptized after only he or she was “old-enough” to believe. The Catholic position holds a lot more credence because as stated, you would need to demonstrate were Jews did not consider infants and young children part of the household.

Actually it is a slam dunk,because as stated,early Christian writings support it. It is a slam dunk much more for the Catholic position than your position.

 

[ltwin]

Sorry,but that seems like pure conjecture.

No more than assuming that every time a specific activity and “household” are mentioned together that the biblical writers mean to imply that even infants participated in such activities.

The Catholic position holds a lot more credence because as stated, you would need to demonstrate were Jews did not consider infants and young children part of the household.

So, when it says that entire households “believed” does that mean that 2 day old infants heard the gospel and at that very moment “believed” what they heard? If you say “of course not the biblical writers don’t mean it that literally” then on what basis do you argue that infants had to have been baptized because they were household members?

 

[PRmerger]

The household argument is an argument. Unfortunately, it’s no slam dunk.

And that’s why we Catholics don’t distill and extract the One Faith from the pages of Scripture.

Rather, the Scriptures reflect the One Faith given to the saints, once and for all. The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to papyrus. And the Church was baptizing infants before the inspired writers observed and recorded these events in the pages of holy writ.

So when we take “an argument” supported by Scripture, we rarely use it as a “slam dunk”.

That would be like presenting one argument for God’s existence (i.e. Pascal’s Wager) to an atheist and the atheist responding, “Well, it’s no slam dunk.”

Well, no. But it’s not to be taken individually. One must look at the entirety of the arguments presented for God’s existence (or, as it were, infant baptism) and then when one is wavering on whether the position is true, perhaps Pascal’s Wager (or Acts 16:33, 1 Cor 1:16) will be the straw that tips the scale towards belief.

 

[PRmerger]

So, when it says that entire households “believed” does that mean that 2 day old infants heard the gospel and at that very moment “believed” what they heard?

So how does your pastor interpret this? Does he/she profess that the members of the household that “believed” and then were baptized were only adults?

 

[ltwin]

So how does your pastor interpret this? Does he/she profess that the members of the household that “believed” and then were baptized were only adults?

My church practices believer’s baptism. You don’t have to be an adult to baptized, but you do need to be a believer.

 

[Nicea325]

No more than assuming that every time a specific activity and “household” are mentioned together that the biblical writers mean to imply that even infants participated in such activities.

So, when it says that entire households “believed” does that mean that 2 day old infants heard the gospel and at that very moment “believed” what they heard? If you say “of course not the biblical writers don’t mean it that literally” then on what basis do you argue that infants had to have been baptized because they were household members?

Nope! Because in order for your position to hold more validity, as stated, once again, early church writings outside the NT would mention it as the “norm” for baptism. Do you possess writings outside the NT supporting your position as the ONLY standard? And again, it is not assuming every time a NT writer mentions households infants were NOT included. Your position is basically affirming it as a fact that infants were excluded. And I’ll say it again:

Do you have sources outside the NT stating infants and young children were NOT part of the household?

Do you have sources showing a young child being baptized ONLY after he believed?

 

[Nicea325]

My church practices believer’s baptism. You don’t have to be an adult to baptized, but you do need to be a believer.

And like I said, you got an example anywhere where a young child was baptized ONLY after he or she believed?

You are making your position appear as the only standard acceptable in the NT church. And nowhere is your position declared by the early church as the **only acceptable method **of receiving baptism.

 

[JonNC]

=ltwin;12020128]You use Mark 16:16 to support the notion that baptism is salvific, and this notion then supports the position of infant baptism. You present this as being faithful to the text, but in reality, you advocate the necessity of baptism and advocate that infants do not need to believe in order to be baptized and saved. However, Mark 16:16, taken at face value, requires both baptism and belief (faith).** Infants aren’t believers when they are baptized, and therefore even if they were baptized they would still not be saved.**

Itwin,
First,I wish to compliment you on your style of dialogue. I always appreciate your posts.

As for the bolded, I would disagree that baptized infants are not believers. From the Lutheran POV, Baptism is the washing of regeneration, which provides forgiveness of sins, and brings the baptized into lovingcare of the Father. From the LCMS website:

The Bible tells us that such “faith comes by hearing” (Rom 10:17). Jesus Himself
commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God (Matt 28:19-
20). Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s
Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a
person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal 3:26-27; Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:11-12; 1 Cor.
12:13). Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include “conversion” and
“regeneration.” Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim 3:15). The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt 28:18-20), or it will die.

Infant baptism and faith are, therefore, directly connected.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

My church practices believer’s baptism. You don’t have to be an adult to baptized, but you do need to be a believer.

I understood that. But what is your pastor’s interpretation of Acts 16:33, as it applies to “households”.

Is it his/her belief that these household baptisms were only for those who professed belief (which means that infants were excluded)?