The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptismal Regeneration

[JonNC]

Jon,

I am open to correction here. I have definitely run into Lutheran statements denying that “baptismal regeneration” is a good description of the Lutheran position. I thought it was rather like “consubstantiation” (i.e., something that looks to outsiders like a good description of the Lutheran position but which at least some Lutherans find objectionable).

Edwin

Hi Edwin,
I’m adding a link to an article by Jordan Cooper. As a cradle Lutheran, I’ve never heard Baptism spoken of as not regenerative. It seems to me the confessions are consistent in it.

scribd.com/doc/103013578/Defending-the-Lutheran-View-of-Baptism

Thanks for all your contributions, Edwin. And may I offer my prayers that you be blest in word and sacrament in, from what I have read recently, your pending move to the CC.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I know you didn’t write that article Jon, but the article has already straw-manned the Catholic belief from the second page. He writes contrasting what he describes as the Lutheran view with the Roman view on the efficacy of the sacraments,

Though some equate the Lutheran view of baptism to the Roman ex opera operato approach, there are significant differences. In the Roman system, one who is baptized is placed in a state of grace regardless of one’s personal faith. This grace is lost through committing a mortal sin, at which point one must perform penance which is the second plank of salvation. Commensurate with Luther’s contention of the primacy of faith in salvation, baptismal regeneration is dependent upon faith. Since faith is a gift, God gives the gift of faith to the recipient, even as an infant. For Luther, the benefits of the sacrament are given indiscriminately but faith must be present to receive these benefits. Unbelief does not negate the sacrament but rejects its blessings.

But Catholics do not teach that at all. Baptism does not impart sanctifying grace apart from faith. According to St. Thomas,

Without [faith,] grace, which is the ultimate effect of the sacrament, cannot be had. And thus right faith is necessary for Baptism, because, as it appears from Romans 3:22, the justice of God is by faith of Jesus Christ. (ST III, 68, 8)

Unless St. Thomas Aquinas’ teaching on the sacraments cannot be trusted, then he has totally falsified Catholic doctrine in order to shoehorn his pet teachings (like sola fide) into this work where they are totally irrelevant. I would not be surprised if he begins talking about how the pope has withheld the blood of Christ from the laity and about how daily church services are an abomination.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the correction. The offering of the article was intended to show that Lutherans do believe baptism to be regenerative. Perhaps I could have picked an article without the us vs them angle.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for the correction. The offering of the article was intended to show that Lutherans do believe baptism to be regenerative. Perhaps I could have picked an article without the us vs them angle.

Jon

Lutherans are often concerned to distinguish their position from that of Catholics, and I agree that the ex opere operato issue is often misinterpreted, particularly by Lutherans (the Reformed do, I think, have genuine differences with the Catholic position on this point, as I’ve argued earlier in this thread). I’m pretty sure that at some point I got dressed down by a Lutheran for saying that Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, precisely for these reasons, but I apologize for generalizing from that incident.

The point of my original remark was that even Lutherans, whose view of baptism is extremely close to that of the Catholic Church, sometimes are eager to distinguish between the two. Hence, it’s no surprise that the Reformed are even more so, even though some interpretations of the Reformed position are really not that far from Catholicism themselves. I should have expressed myself more precisely.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans are often concerned to distinguish their position from that of Catholics, and I agree that the ex opere operato issue is often misinterpreted, particularly by Lutherans (the Reformed do, I think, have genuine differences with the Catholic position on this point, as I’ve argued earlier in this thread). I’m pretty sure that at some point I got dressed down by a Lutheran for saying that Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, precisely for these reasons, but I apologize for generalizing from that incident.

The point of my original remark was that even Lutherans, whose view of baptism is extremely close to that of the Catholic Church, sometimes are eager to distinguish between the two. Hence, it’s no surprise that the Reformed are even more so, even though some interpretations of the Reformed position are really not that far from Catholicism themselves. I should have expressed myself more precisely.

Edwin

No apology needed. I think sometimes the variances in definitions of terms get in the way.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks for the correction. The offering of the article was intended to show that Lutherans do believe baptism to be regenerative. Perhaps I could have picked an article without the us vs them angle.

Thanks. I know you are not the author so I don’t take it as anything against you.

 

[Tomyris]

This,

I say, respectfully, “No.”

So, given STA’s standing in the Catholic church, by what measure do you determine whether he is authentically Catholic in any particular statement? What about those statements where official teaching is silent? Do you reserve a right of personal determination as to whether a point he makes is Catholic? And if the Church comes along and says your “No” should be a “Yes”, how do you respond?

And do you accept his teaching on predestination that I cited as authentic Catholic teaching? I do not know of any official teaching that contradicts it.

 

[Contarini]

So, given STA’s standing in the Catholic church, by what measure do you determine whether he is authentically Catholic in any particular statement? What about those statements where official teaching is silent? Do you reserve a right of personal determination as to whether a point he makes is Catholic? And if the Church comes along and says your “No” should be a “Yes”, how do you respond?

And do you accept his teaching on predestination that I cited as authentic Catholic teaching? I do not know of any official teaching that contradicts it.

Predestination was debated by the Dominicans and Jesuits at the turn of the 17th century, and the Pope told them to stop calling each other heretics (“Calvinists” and “Pelagians” respectively). So both Thomist and non-Thomist approaches are orthodox within Catholicism.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

So, given STA’s standing in the Catholic church, by what measure do you determine whether he is authentically Catholic in any particular statement?

We have Catholic teaching available and visible to all these days. (“All” here to be understood with some nuance, of course, and a discussion as to who is excluded from the “all” would be really, really lame here.)

Thus, to the degree that the Angelic Doctor’s teachings are consonant with the faith, given once for all to the saints, is the degree to which we measure his orthodoxy.

What about those statements where official teaching is silent?

Such as?

Do you reserve a right of personal determination as to whether a point he makes is Catholic?

No. That right is not mine. If he is professing something that is part of the de fide teaching of the Church, it is quite clear that he has not divorced himself from that. If he is were to profess something that is heterodox, that is quite clear as well. That is not my “personal determination.”

And if the Church comes along and says your “No” should be a “Yes”, how do you respond?

I don’t understand this question.

And do you accept his teaching on predestination that I cited as authentic Catholic teaching? I do not know of any official teaching that contradicts it.

Where he declares that God is the first mover, and that we cannot do anything good apart from God’s grace which predestines us to move, then yes!

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Lutherans are often concerned to distinguish their position from that of Catholics, and I agree that the ex opere operato issue is often misinterpreted, particularly by Lutherans (the Reformed do, I think, have genuine differences with the Catholic position on this point, as I’ve argued earlier in this thread). I’m pretty sure that at some point I got dressed down by a Lutheran for saying that Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration, precisely for these reasons, but I apologize for generalizing from that incident.

The point of my original remark was that even Lutherans, whose view of baptism is extremely close to that of the Catholic Church, sometimes are eager to distinguish between the two. Hence, it’s no surprise that the Reformed are even more so, even though some interpretations of the Reformed position are really not that far from Catholicism themselves. I should have expressed myself more precisely.

Edwin

An emphasis on remote theological differences is contrary to Lutheran-Catholic unity representing most north American/ European Lutherans [apostolic secession/ liberal] eagerly seeking reunion with Rome. If “moral” issues are all that separate us, then it is imperative that confessional/ conservative Lutherans begin serious efforts to be the first significant wave of Protestants into the Roman Catholic church.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

An emphasis on remote theological differences is contrary to Lutheran-Catholic unity representing most north American/ European Lutherans [apostolic secession/ liberal] eagerly seeking reunion with Rome. If “moral” issues are all that separate us, then it is imperative that confessional/ conservative Lutherans begin serious efforts to be the first significant wave of Protestants into the Roman Catholic church.

I would say that moral issues are the least of issues dividing Catholics from conservative Lutherans. The Lutheran view of most of the Sacraments is incompatible with Catholicism. Before Lutherans and Catholics could enter into communion, it would necessary to go through the Book of Concord with a red pen and plenty of refills of ink.

We have Catholic teaching available and visible to all these days. (“All” here to be understood with some nuance, of course, and a discussion as to who is excluded from the “all” would be really, really lame here.)

Thus, to the degree that the Angelic Doctor’s teachings are consonant with the faith, given once for all to the saints, is the degree to which we measure his orthodoxy.

What Tomyris was asking and what I would also like to ask is (1) where do St. Thomas’ teachings depart from orthodoxy, and (2) what magisterial sources do you have to support your claims?

Where he declares that God is the first mover, and that we cannot do anything good apart from God’s grace which predestines us to move, then yes!

St. Paul writes, For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7). This should be a this should be obvious at least minimally because we could not even exist apart from God’s grace. That is not to say that man can do nothing good by his own nature, but not apart from God. Think long and hard about this. What hast thou that thou didst not receive?

 

[PRmerger]

What Tomyris was asking and what I would also like to ask is (1) where do St. Thomas’ teachings depart from orthodoxy, and (2) what magisterial sources do you have to support your claims?

One example was already provided regarding the IC.

The magisterial source is here: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491.htm

 

[JonNC]

I would say that moral issues are the least of issues dividing Catholics from conservative Lutherans. The Lutheran view of most of the Sacraments is incompatible with Catholicism. Before Lutherans and Catholics could enter into communion, it would necessary to go through the Book of Concord with a red pen and plenty of refills of ink.

And from our perspective, lots of red ink in the Catholic Catechism and the Council of Trent, too.

But I don’t think that’s the way dialogue has been done these last 50 years. I think it has been more of looking at each other’s teachings and find where we agree, and discuss where we can converge (notice I didn’t say compromise).

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

I think the fact that God’s CHOSEN people,* the* elect, the ones predestined from eternity, were given the freedom change their eternally predestined status is testimony to the error in the above statment.

This seems to be in direct conflict with newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article6 where STA states the number of the predestined is certain and that predestination is certain.

Your statement seems to me to be a novelty - I have never heard this before.

Since you stated I was in error, it seems you believe STA is in error here as well. Please explain why you represent the Catholic position better than he did here. Please provide a magisterial authority showing that you are right AND denying that STA is wrong, eliminating any potential synthesis. You stated you are a Thomist, so I would assume you agree with the referenced material over against your quoted statement. Or am I wrong?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I would say that moral issues are the least of issues dividing Catholics from conservative Lutherans. The Lutheran view of most of the Sacraments is incompatible with Catholicism. Before Lutherans and Catholics could enter into communion, it would necessary to go through the Book of Concord with a red pen and plenty of refills of ink.

Actually it is the opposite of what you assert:

Lutheran–Roman Catholic Dialogue on the Eucharist
153. The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s
Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.
lutheranworld.org/sites/default/files/From%20Conflict%20to%20Communion.pdf

The Sacraments is what unites Lutheran and Catholic. The actual number of sacraments is of less importance to Lutherans than the sacramental benefits of forgiveness and eternal life.

 

[PRmerger]

This seems to be in direct conflict with newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article6 where STA states the number of the predestined is certain and that predestination is certain.

That the Chosen People were destined to be God’s beloved, but chose not to…

cannot be denied.

I do not see any tension or conflict between the above fact and what STA has professed.

Your statement seems to me to be a novelty - I have never heard this before.

I think it’s just common sense. The Jews were God’s Chosen. But they rejected Him.

What’s so novel about that?

 

[Tomyris]

That the Chosen People were destined to be God’s beloved, but chose not to…

cannot be denied.

And not all Israel is Israel (see Romans) yet all Israel will be saved. Physical Israel is not equal to true Israel.

I do not see any tension or conflict between the above fact and what STA has professed.

I think it’s just common sense. The Jews were God’s Chosen. But they rejected Him.

What’s so novel about that?

Israel and the elect are two separate concepts.

Those in (physical) Israel who were predestined (Israel) were saved. The rest were not. That number is exactly set by God before the foundation of the world, without an opt-out: this is what I read STA as saying. He is not saying Israel jumped ship.

 

[PRmerger]

And not all Israel is Israel (see Romans) yet all Israel will be saved. Physical Israel is not equal to true Israel. Israel and the elect are two separate concepts.

Those in (physical) Israel who were predestined (Israel) were saved.

Sure. When they cooperated with the plan God had for them.

The rest were not. That number is exactly set by God before the foundation of the world, without an opt-out: this is what I read STA as saying. He is not saying Israel jumped ship.

Ok.

 

[Tomyris]

Sure. When they cooperated with the plan God had for them.

And how do you cooperate with His plan? By His grace, right? Can you cooperate without His grace?

 

[PRmerger]

And how do you cooperate with His plan? By His grace, right? Can you cooperate without His grace?

Let’s take the issue of prevenient grace out and just talk about subsequent grace (from the sacraments).

We can indeed do acts that are morally good without His grace, Tomy. These morally good acts, however, are not deserving of eternal reward, except through the intervention of God in His Grace.

From the Council of Trent: (bold mine) “The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost,** neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration**, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: ‘Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,’ we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; ‘Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,’ we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.”