We are in fact in this discussion speaking to the very ROOT of the Gospel. Now that does divide men, but that hardly will anymore or any less “prevent people from getting saved”. In fact it might be the first time many people actually hear the Gospel, the real Gospel other than some version of “follow Jesus” which is no different than “follow Buddha”. Jesus did not say, “I show you the way”, He said, “I AM the way…”. That is He is the WAY itself. Now I know you agree with that at least concerning the preached Word. But there’s always a backdoor to works. That gets to what faith actually is and do people hear in Word and Sacrament inside or outside of the church a truly alien message or basically a pagan religion with biblical terms and Jesus name attached to it.

If only semantics were the real issue, but its not. The fact that my children are baptized and not by a particular mode and a Baptist’s children are not means it is not a matter of semantics upon which we agree in the end. The same applies to the Lord’s supper.

Semantics: Take for example, “I love chicken”. That’s one statement and I think in modern American you and I could agree to what it ACTUALLY means. But let’s just examine the possibilities. As an indicative statement it could mean 1. “I am in love with chickens as a species” (weird but possible). 2. “I love chickens more relative to something else”. 3. “I love to EAT chicken.” 4. “I love the TASTE of chicken.”, and etc. In all these we see a different meaning derived from the one statement. YET, none of them are equal in essence and each mean something ENTIRELY different. So, a word or idea has a very definite finite narrow set of terms behind it (that’s why I say ‘get behind the words’). If “I love chicken” truly means “I love to EAT chicken”, then we have a semantics issue between the two statements & they do mean the same thing.

So, take the term “faith”. Either faith is utterly devoid of works and is absolutely a passive receptive suffering trust and confidence in another REGARDLESS of what is observed by the eye, ear, hand or clean up of life (Theology of Cross). Or faith is something that ‘pulls in works’ somewhere, even under the disguise of fruit and obedience (Theology of Glory or fallen religion under any name even “Christian”). The first faith is the Christian faith, the later is the devil’s faith no matter what name it is given even if it is called “Christian” or “biblical”. When Luther stated that many men will talk much much about faith and good works and yet know absolutely NOTHING about either one, he was making a CRUCIAL theological point and not just some passing statement. He was making a distinction between how a theologian of glory (fallen man’s natural religion under ANY name) functions Vs. how a theologian of the Cross functions and not some doctrine to be affirmed or denied. Yet, both may use the same terms, just like our “I love chicken” example in which two people use the exact same syntax but have two ENTIRELY two different meanings. As the late Dr. Forde points out the theologian of glory cannot even comprehend that “God may suffer a man to do NO good works that he may at last be saved”. Faith does good works without even knowing they are good works. In fact as soon as you think you are doing a “good work”, you are already in deep sin and in danger of loosing the faith. You must realize as Luther points out, to find one’s self obligated to be obedient is to ALREADY have fallen deeply into sin, even before you act. Why? Because the spontaneity required by the Law is such that if you “realize you are obligated to do something out of obedience or ‘out of love’”, you’ve already violated the Law and LOVE of God or neighbor. Like a stone dropped from the bridge. It doesn’t realize, “I’m obligated to fall or be obedient”, it spontaneously falls. The Law IS Love and Love IS the Law, they are not two different things. This is to be UNDER the Law. It’s NOT a matter of outer ceremony Vs. heartfelt doing.

Thus to say, “We are baptized out of obedience and love for God”, is to really say that one is baptized without faith at all. No, we are baptized out of the extension of the Incarnate Word to come not half way, not two thirds the way, not all the way but a millimeter, but the ENTIRE length of the Incarnation DOWN into the grave of fallen man. Faith is that utterly passive-receptive-suffering ‘means’ that comes INTO being by the Word of Gospel, faith is wrapped up IN the Gospel itself, both the naked Word and the Word in the Sacrament that says, “Forgiven for Christ’s sake”. The Gospel in Word or baptism finds absolutely no faith in, with or under the dead sinner – just like in the beginning out of nothing God calls into being. Faith arises up out of the tomb like Lazarus and comes into being as the reflexive or echo to the Word of Gospel wet or dry. Its first birth cry is, “So THAT is what God is like.” That’s why faith CAN comprehend that “God may suffer a man to do NO good works that he may at last be saved”, because faith fixes on Christ and never looks other wise. This faith NATURALLY does good works because CHRIST SAYS IT DOES not because it (faith) tries to do them (false faith). It is a new tree because God called it into being by saying, “You are IN FACT forgiven for Christ’s sake”, that is “not under the Law”, you are free to LOVE because you don’t have to LOVE – it does not become a new tree because it tries to be obedient (fallen religion) not even by the works of the Law (=Love). Faith generates, naturally and spontaneously, good works and all that it does great or imperceptible is a good work because it is a GLOWING bride that exudes from the love of its Husband given it freely.

This is why the issue of the sacraments are different at an essential level and we do not mean the same thing at all. When Luther identified that the Word is removed from the baptismal waters artificially by the Anabaptist and Rome simultaneously, he was identifying not mere semantics but a deep deep deep theological reality about faith, the Gospel, the Cross and God.

Blessings,

Larry

All of our life in Christ is about obedience to Him. But it isn’t about a slavish obedience to form or regulation. Do you remember what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 9 and 12? He is talking about obeying the intent of God’s Law (mercy) instead of simply complying with the letter of God’s Law (sacrifice). If you look at Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians and their abuse of the Lord’s Supper, you see a picture of a bunch of hungry folks scarfing up the meal and leaving people out. I think it applies to this conversation. It is totally possible to get so caught up in making sure we say and do all the right things about the Lord’s Supper or baptism and miss the real point, which is God Himself.

I am not trying to point fingers or accuse, but it seems as though there is a human tendency to build up a system of honoring and worshipping God that eventually overtakes the simplicity of knowing Him. The Pharisees did it and looked good doing so. I may not be the best or the brightest, but I keep learning. And one thing I am less willing to do now than I ever was is to sit in judgement over the condition of someone’s relationship with Abba. I will explain what the Bible says about the Lord’s Supper to the best of my understanding, but when it comes time to take part I am not willing to exclude a person who says they wish to participate as a believer because I they might not be right about it. God is their Judge.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need an “alien” Gospel. It is my fear that the farther along we go in disputing these things that only serve to divide us; the more we will lose our opportunities to seek and save the lost and dying world at our doorsteps.

Thank you brother for your words and may God continue to richly bless you.
Jeff M

I was listening to some GodJourney archives this weekend. The two with Bob Stamps are about communion, basically, and are really good listening. I thought about you ;]

Sure, no problem, good questions. Is a person who is never baptized saved?

First, yes Abraham will absolutely be in heaven with us. In fact Jesus already confirms this for us.

What Bror said is the answer. Or one might say as I’ve heard it said, “It’s not the LACK of baptism that damns but the DESPISING of it?” It is in fact despising grace. It’s good to bring up Abraham and circumcision because the promise of God is linked intimately with that sacramental act. So much so that in the OT they are often spoken of interchangeably. What is notable about that is when Ishmael laughs at Isaiah for trusting in the promise of God (also captured in circumcision) even though Ishmael himself was circumcised Paul explicitly and directly calls that persecution. That laughter at those holding to the promise of God (His Word) and at that that Word that comes to the person in the Sacrament(s) is a scoffing of the that to which the believer (naked passive truster in Christ alone – passive received righteousness) and the root of all persecution hence Paul’s Ishmael’s laughter, in fact singles it out above all, as persecution. Just like for example in the third Psalm, “…O Lord how are my foes increased, against me many rise, how many say in vain for help he on his God relies…”. The enemies of Christ and Christ’s people primarily attack here, the war of words. This should give some pause when some cause those baptized as infants to think it is “invalid”. What they are really saying is that God’s Word is invalid to you, His promise is false. But you will only see that from the sacramental side of the issue, because I know they don’t mean to communicate that!

The reason you are having difficulty with this is that you are pulling it back to your category. If you realize that Baptism is the wet Word as they say, or God’s Word in the water, then you should realize what the answer already is. But that’s the very thing you don’t believe, trust or have confidence in. I’m not accusing but trying to show WHY you don’t “see it” per se, because you openly reject it. As long as you do that, then, you will of course follow through that way. That goes ALL the way back to WHY some don’t have what others have in the sacraments. Not because Christ is not there objectively, but He’s denied there. Does that make sense?

Look at your questions this way, there are two ways to ask them:

Is a person who is never baptized (because he/she despises it) saved?

Is a person who is never baptized (or just didn’t get to incidentally or similarly, that is non-despising of it) saved?

Now we can look at them from the sacramental direction, I know you don’t believe that but suspend THAT for a moment and just take a pure observer position. Even if you don’t believe it, you can at least objectively see it. So, remove the “water” and look at your question again:

Is a person who is never Gospelized (because he/she despises it) saved? That’s what your asking from the sacramental end. And to THAT, Gospel in naked Word or Gospel in water, then no. But that was not Abraham.

But let me take Abraham a step further. He was in fact baptized, we just don’t see it right away. Christ’s crucifixion was THE circumcision to which all other circumcision was linked, a circumcision from life on the Cross, that’s what the Cross was. And Christ calls His crucifixion explicitly a baptism, the nexus of circumcision and baptism is at the Cross. As we are circumcised so was Abraham baptized both IN CHRIST.

I think THIS might help, it did me: One must realize that the Bible does not disparage of baptism nearly as much as many do today. Why? Luther rightly grasped that the Anabaptist baptism was valid (due to the objective Word in the water). However, because they did not believe (trust), hold or teach that God’s Word was IN the water they were showing open contempt for the Word ITSELF. Then RE-ATTRIBUTING to the water (to baptism) something else that was not the Word but a special thing (a mode, faith, profession/confession of faith, fruit), therefore they re-baptized others and hence the real blaspheme. This is why it was not at all different from Rome’s ex opere operato. Hence, the common link between Rome and the Anabaptist on this sacrament (On the other sacrament, the sacrifice of the Mass not the how is He present issue was also the same thing and hence the commonality of the Roman Mass to the non-presence of Christ, Zwingli). Both of these rebaptism and ex opere operato are a recrucifixion of Christ BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY REMOVE, THE WORD OF GOD, AND WHAT THEY RE-ASSERT INTO THE REAL SACRAMENT. And, PLEASE, I’m speaking as to doctrine here NOT person to person or personal accusations. This is a doctrinal examination not “me” being right and “you” being wrong which would just be more law and me working MY way to heaven. We all have our pet anti-christic doctrines and ideas, our personal idols, hence the reason we so desperately need an alien Gospel. I thought that needed to be said lest that slip in to the discussion.

Blessings and have a good restful night, yours,

Larry

Abraham was not baptized and he never partook of the Lord’s Supper. And Paul also points out that he hadn’t even been circumcised at this point. The God we see in the Bible doesn’t change. He is consistent especially in His plan of Salvation. The question of a choice between Christ alone or Christ + faith for salvation is a non-issue. Without Christ, salvation is impossible, but if we refuse to believe in Him He will not forcibly save us. What do you think John 3:18 means when it says, “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”?

How do you receive a gift? Do you work for it? Would you consider unwrapping the gift work? Is baptism a work at all? Or is it a command from God that we must obey(1 John 2:3-6) because we love Him.

To answer your first question about the devil’s attacks on my security and standing in Christ, I DO nothing. I rest in my Savior who is able to keep me from falling. My faith in Him and His promise quenches the attack before it can gain hold.

Thanks again for your thoughts and questions. I had been pondering them for the last few hours when I had to get out of bed and come post this. May God richly bless you this week,
Jeff M

I’m sorry but this is polemical baloney. Luther had many differences with the Catholic Church, but to suggest that he considered the Catholic understanding of sacrament on par with the anabaptists and Zwinglians) is nonsense. This is proven by his mild criticism of transubstantiation, which he deemed Aristotelian nonsense, as compared to his violent rejection of the views of Zwingli. Luther well knew that on the Real Presence, he and the Catholics stood together over against the sacramentarians. And he would have repudiated the eucharistic views of Calvin for much the same reasons that he repudiated the views of Zwingli, despite the fact that Calvin advanced a much higher understanding of the eucharistic presence (see Phillip Cary).

And as far as Holy Baptism, this sacrament has never been a point of serious confessional conflict between Lutherans and Catholics. Both consider Baptism to be a work of God. What is perhaps “new” with Luther is the way he construes sacrament as embodied word of promise addressed to faith, but even here he is still working within the inherited sacramental tradition, even as he radicalizes it (see David Yeago, “The Catholic Luther.”

One thing you may want to discern, and this one was confusing to me for a long time, not all sacramental views are SACRAMENTAL. I say that because if you are like me, coming from the outside in, you simply assume they are or very close. But very close scrutiny of them will reveal that not all are alike. The Lutherans, Reformed and Roman Catholics for example say they are “sacramental” but not all really are, OR they redefine what “sacramental” means so that they can now say “we” are sacramental. So, the advice I’d give there is to “get pass the term sacramental for now” (just like what does ‘reformed’ mean) and study the essence or principle of each. You will find no matter what the principle is termed, sacramental or otherwise, that each actually speak differently. And at length you will discover that the “sacramentalism’ of Rome is no different than the none sacramentalism or ordinance driven concept behind the baptist (this is why Luther saw the anabaptist as same as Rome and called both rebaptizers even though Rome didn’t actually rebaptize). The hardest hair to split will be the reformed with the lutheran, especially Calvin Vs. Luther, it is very close in the way the two speak. BUT again look at the principle and how it affects faith. You HAVE to ‘get behind the words’ and to the principles otherwise one will never see it. We can fight over the term “who is really sacramental” but what we cannot fight over unless we just admit rank stupidity is the principle and essential difference of the various ones. And I rope in here non-sacramental views as you will see THAT principle actually line up with other so called sacramental views when all the fat and monickers are boiled away.

You don’t have to answer me but just ponder these simple questions:

When the devil comes and tempts you that you ‘may not be saved’ how does he tempt you? Does activate you to do something, especially religious in nature, especially something in the Bible, even prayer itself? Thomas Hooker, a puritan had a great test for this to warn his folks of falling away from the REAL faith. The next time you are tempted due to something, sin or otherwise, when the devil comes in and activates the flesh into motion what do you do? Beware especially of good things otherwise that are religious by their very nature. Do you run to prayer? Do you DO something else religious? Hooker says then next time DON’T DO what you would normally do, he specifically points out some otherwise good things we do as Christians like prayer. THEN note well how your heart reacts to that! Does it itch as it were to do it and cannot rest until it does? Then you may note very well what it is you are really trusting in and it is NOT Christ crucified alone. That’s very different than saying, “No devil I am baptized”, which IS to say “Christ alone” point blank to him, because there is His name.

Are you saved by Christ alone or Christ + faith?

Is baptism a work of God or a work of man? Not secondary things, but baptism itself.

If you remove the Word from the water in baptism what do you have?

Have a great week,

Larry

Not at all, no offense here. Baptism is the Word of God (Gospel). That is what makes it not just ordinary water? The very Word of God IN it. Just as Christ, the incarnate Word of God, was put into the baptismal waters of the Jordan. Doest that help?

Sword/shield: Here was my intended use, sorry for short cutting it too much. Yes, faith is the sheild against the darts, but the Sword of the Spirit is the offensive counter attack. I was using baptism as the Word in dual way. The attack was coming AT faith, baptism gives Christ and the Gospel TO THE MAN, the Promise of eternal life. THAT baptism ON YOU and that is God’s promise TO YOU, gives that shield of faith its being as it were. The Sword of the Spirit is simply the same Word of Gospel counter attacking. All the armor in the Eph 6 passage is based on the Word of God, the Gospel, the Gospel TO you and FOR you, and baptism PUTS it there TO you and ON YOU objectively.

So that when Satan attacks, and he attacks our trusting nakedly and passively in Christ alone, Psalm 3 for example, “…how many say in vain for help he on his God relies…but You are my shield and glory Lord…you lifted up my head…”, he is attacking Christ FOR us, the Gospel, so we will not trust or have confidence in Him…that He some how has abandoned us. The objective Word in the baptismal water, what makes it more than mere water, gives that shield its shieldness and that same Word is an offensive blow back to Satan, “No Satan I am baptized” or the longer version, “No Satan, Jesus said I baptize you in the name of…, Jesus cannot lie (implied the accusing devil’s attack is in fact the lie), ergo I am baptized”. Is the offensive counter attack of God’s Word wielded through us against the devil’s word. What we have is what we’ve had from the beginning and throughout the whole of Scripture, a war of words, the devil’s and God’s, and all God’s Word are summed up in the incarnate Word.

Hope that helps. Thanks for asking brother.

Blessings,

Larry