Evangelism question

[Edial]

I became a Lutheran few months ago.
I came from a Baptist church and know my way around the Scriptures.

I realize that there are certain differences between the Baptists and the Lutherans that many find irreconsileable.

I personally do not think so. I believe that both do compliment each other to a fuller and more vibrant faith.

My question is:
The Pastor at the Lutheran Church where I am a member, wants me to be involved in evangelism.
I realize that there are many ways of evangelizing.
And the "Baptist" way is not the only way. :)
There will be home visits of people that attended. Bringing them into the church.
I also realize that I should be sensitive to a Lutheran approach towards the gospel as compared to the Baptist approach.

What advice would you give me and what should I be aware of (considering my background) while engaging in evangelism?



I would appreciate any Lutheran's advice, especially the ones from Pastors. (I understand that at least one of the participants, filo, is a Pastor).

But any long-time Lutheran is more than welcome in participating here.


Thanks,

Ed

[SPALATIN]

I became a Lutheran few months ago.
I came from a Baptist church and know my way around the Scriptures.

I realize that there are certain differences between the Baptists and the Lutherans that many find irreconsileable.

I personally do not think so. I believe that both do compliment each other to a fuller and more vibrant faith.

My question is:
The Pastor at the Lutheran Church where I am a member, wants me to be involved in evangelism.
I realize that there are many ways of evangelizing.
And the "Baptist" way is not the only way. :)
There will be home visits of people that attended. Bringing them into the church.
I also realize that I should be sensitive to a Lutheran approach towards the gospel as compared to the Baptist approach.

What advice would you give me and what should I be aware of (considering my background) while engaging in evangelism?



I would appreciate any Lutheran's advice, especially the ones from Pastors. (I understand that at least one of the participants, filo, is a Pastor).

But any long-time Lutheran is more than welcome in participating here.


Thanks,

Ed

Ed,

Most tried and true Lutherans will tell you that we evangelize through our vocations. We all have different vocations or relationships. As a father, we are to catechize our children in the ways of the Lord. As a husband we are to follow what both Paul and Peter instruct us to do as husbands. Love your wife as Christ loved the church. In your job you can share the Gospel accordingly though you may have to keep the verbiage to a minimum you can share God's love through your actions. Finally as a member of a church your vocation is to share your gifts with the others in helping others to know Christ. Paul said that we are Christ's ambassadors and an ambassador is one who promotes good will to another to gain their favor.

If your pastor sees in you the gift of sharing God's love to other's I say go. The only differences then between a Lutheran and Baptist are in the doctrines and confessions we adhere to in faith.

[BigNorsk]

The biggest thing you will find is that decision theology is all over most Baptists when they talk even the one's that claim to be Calvinists.

Lutherans would say God chose me.
Baptist, I chose God.

See Lutheranism stresses grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. If you chose God, then people are capable of saving themselves and salvation isn't a free gift given without merit or payment but something which we take for ourselves by deciding to believe.

So many of the "sinners prayers" and such that many groups use in evangelism cause Lutherans to jerk like they are having seizures because it takes salvation from something given by God to something taken by man.

If man has the free will to chose God, then fundamentally man is capable of changing himself, but man can't change himself he is dead in sin, not just ill, dead. Dead people can't help themselves.

That's the big difference in evangelism.

As a Lutheran, you need to present the law and it's result, that people are condemned and need to be saved. And then to present the gospel that Jesus is that Savior. A lot of groups want to just skip the law and the need for a savior. If someone else has planted the seed and the person is convicted of their sins and seeking a savior, it can appear to work pretty well, but it neglects those who have not already been convicted.

Many are those who just want to step in at the final step and take the new believer to be a member in their congregation. A lot of people want to help eat the bread, but it takes people to plant the seed and water the plant and grind the flower and bake the bread. We are just tools that God uses we don't bring people to God we share the Word of God with people and God uses it to bring them to himself.

Marv

[Edial]

Ed,

Most tried and true Lutherans will tell you that we evangelize through our vocations. We all have different vocations or relationships. As a father, we are to catechize our children in the ways of the Lord. As a husband we are to follow what both Paul and Peter instruct us to do as husbands. Love your wife as Christ loved the church. In your job you can share the Gospel accordingly though you may have to keep the verbiage to a minimum you can share God's love through your actions. Finally as a member of a church your vocation is to share your gifts with the others in helping others to know Christ. Paul said that we are Christ's ambassadors and an ambassador is one who promotes good will to another to gain their favor.
Agree.
And I do realize that Baptists often do not practice that as evangelism. They see it, but do not do it.
Example is stressed among the Lutherans - OK.


If your pastor sees in you the gift of sharing God's love to other's I say go.
Let's hope so. After some conversations and contacts he directly told me that he wants me to consider this.

The only differences then between a Lutheran and Baptist are in the doctrines and confessions we adhere to in faith.
This indeed is a sensitive point.
I can accept both without conflict once the words "salvation and justification" are defined.
BUT, in no way I am to preach that "definition".
Theology can "kill" quicker than a bullet due to its complexities and a fair share of presuppositions.

Understood. OK.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

The biggest thing you will find is that decision theology is all over most Baptists when they talk even the one's that claim to be Calvinists.

Lutherans would say God chose me.
Baptist, I chose God.

See Lutheranism stresses grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone. If you chose God, then people are capable of saving themselves and salvation isn't a free gift given without merit or payment but something which we take for ourselves by deciding to believe.
Baptists believe the same thing.

They can come back with a statement that the Lutherans are also capable of saving themselves and/or their children by a scheduled Baptism.
And technically, they will be correct, since a man's schedule becomes God's schedule.

I think there is a major misunderstanding on both sides concerning this.
We can discuss it at the sidebar, if you want to.

So many of the "sinners prayers" and such that many groups use in evangelism cause Lutherans to jerk like they are having seizures because it takes salvation from something given by God to something taken by man.
Many Baptists will counter with a statement that the Lutherans confession is also a "sinner's prayer" of a sort.
However, I do understand a stereotype that is associated with "sinner's prayer" and/or confession.

That must be carefully threaded. Very carefully and not suddenly. :)


If man has the free will to chose God, then fundamentally man is capable of changing himself, but man can't change himself he is dead in sin, not just ill, dead. Dead people can't help themselves.

That's the big difference in evangelism.
I am very, very fluent in Calvinism. And what you say appears to be what they say in many ways.
I debate them, but it is not the point at the moment.

As a Lutheran, you need to present the law and it's result, that people are condemned and need to be saved. And then to present the gospel that Jesus is that Savior. A lot of groups want to just skip the law and the need for a savior. If someone else has planted the seed and the person is convicted of their sins and seeking a savior, it can appear to work pretty well, but it neglects those who have not already been convicted..
Agreed. :)
One needs to KNOW that he is a sinner. Not feel it, but to KNOW it.

Many are those who just want to step in at the final step and take the new believer to be a member in their congregation. A lot of people want to help eat the bread, but it takes people to plant the seed and water the plant and grind the flower and bake the bread. We are just tools that God uses we don't bring people to God we share the Word of God with people and God uses it to bring them to himself.

Marv
Completely agree. :)
People that jump on a "sinner's prayer" bandwagon are either sincere yet immature or "spiritual ambulance-chasers". :)

They can do much harm. Much. Despite of their sincerity.

Thanks, Marv. :)

Ed

[BigNorsk]

In the TULIP, Luther and Calvin seem to me to be very close in the TU and the LIP they very because basically Luther saw God's grace as resistable and Calvin as irresistable. That seems to me to be the foundation of the differences on the LIP part.

If you go for irresistable grace, than limited atonement falls into place because either you have a limited atonement or you have universal salvation.

Perserverance again is the same because if you have irresistable grace how can the person not persevere?

So if I am explaining Luther to a Calvinist, I might call Luther a two point Calvinist though that is a bit loose with history.

I have never really figured out how Calvin resolved the sources of grace with irresistable grace. On how two different people can listen to God's Word or be baptised or such and yet one is converted and the other is not. The closest I have come is that he didn't actually believe in irresistable grace but an irresistable calling and that later Calvinists kind of warped that to irresistable grace. So it isn't that all of God's grace is irresistable just that God puts his foot down for the elect and says something like "You will quit resisting." And even then it must be looking towards the ultimate end because the elect keep sinning thereby resisting even after salvation.

In the end, I am sorry that Calvin and Luther didn't get locked in a room until they could come out in agreement, I don't think they were far off. Not as far as those who study their teachings often end up.

Marv

[SPALATIN]

Baptists believe the same thing.

They can come back with a statement that the Lutherans are also capable of saving themselves and/or their children by a scheduled Baptism.
And technically, they will be correct, since a man's schedule becomes God's schedule.

I think there is a major misunderstanding on both sides concerning this.
We can discuss it at the sidebar, if you want to.


Many Baptists will counter with a statement that the Lutherans confession is also a "sinner's prayer" of a sort.
However, I do understand a stereotype that is associated with "sinner's prayer" and/or confession.

That must be carefully threaded. Very carefully and not suddenly. :)

You say technically correct, but technicality is not what we are worried about. Instead we are more concerned with being "theo-logically" correct and we would be.

The difference is that even though the parents make the appointment and bring him to the Baptismal font their not baptizing the child, God is. Baptism is not a matter of man's will which the Baptists say it is. Most Baptists will say that God did his part by sending his son to die for you and now you need to "accept" him as your personal savior. This is synergism and Luther rejected this hands down. Our salvation is all God's doing. We do not act in our salvation.

The Baptists will use the excuse of prayer 'ex-corde" (from the heart) but if you listen to them ramble on they will constantly come back and invariably repeat a petition all over again.

Lutherans at least put their thoughts in more cohesive sentencing and there is very little repetition. Our liturgy is completely Christocentric? What I have seen during my days in the Baptist church is not.





I am very, very fluent in Calvinism. And what you say appears to be what they say in many ways.
I debate them, but it is not the point at the moment.


Agreed. :)
One needs to KNOW that he is a sinner. Not feel it, but to KNOW it.


Completely agree. :)
People that jump on a "sinner's prayer" bandwagon are either sincere yet immature or "spiritual ambulance-chasers". :)

They can do much harm. Much. Despite of their sincerity.

Thanks, Marv. :)

Ed[/QUOTE]

[Edial]

In the TULIP, Luther and Calvin seem to me to be very close in the TU and the LIP they very because basically Luther saw God's grace as resistable and Calvin as irresistable. That seems to me to be the foundation of the differences on the LIP part.

If you go for irresistable grace, than limited atonement falls into place because either you have a limited atonement or you have universal salvation.

Perserverance again is the same because if you have irresistable grace how can the person not persevere?

So if I am explaining Luther to a Calvinist, I might call Luther a two point Calvinist though that is a bit loose with history.

I have never really figured out how Calvin resolved the sources of grace with irresistable grace. On how two different people can listen to God's Word or be baptised or such and yet one is converted and the other is not. The closest I have come is that he didn't actually believe in irresistable grace but an irresistable calling and that later Calvinists kind of warped that to irresistable grace. So it isn't that all of God's grace is irresistable just that God puts his foot down for the elect and says something like "You will quit resisting." And even then it must be looking towards the ultimate end because the elect keep sinning thereby resisting even after salvation.
I think Calvin was hijacked, molded and packaged by today's "5-Point-Calvinists".
Some Calvinists at these forums believe that Calvin did not really believe in the Limited Atonement. So, they distance themselves from him.

Someone sent me these quotes of Calvin concerning the Limited Atonement, actually Unlimited Atonement.
One of these is his Last Will and Testament where he presents that Christ died for the entire human race ... but some say that he did not mean what he said. :)

The three below commentaries are offered as encouragement that ALL are called to salvation by God.1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--Commentary as follows: "CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD. and in the goodness of God is OFFERED UNTO ALL MEN WITHOUT DISTINCTION, HIS BLOOD BEING SHED NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24 -- "And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY." Commentary as follows: "The word many DOES GOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Comment as follows: "Paul makes grace COMMON TO ALL MEN, not because it in fact EXTENDS TO ALL, but because IT IS OFFERED TO ALL. Although CHRIST SUFFERED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD. AND IS OFFERED BY THE GOODNESS OF GOD WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO ALL MEN, yet not all receive him."

John Calvin


Also


Quote: Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states: "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "








In the end, I am sorry that Calvin and Luther didn't get locked in a room until they could come out in agreement, I don't think they were far off. Not as far as those who study their teachings often end up.

Marv

:D . Good way of putting it.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

You say technically correct, but technicality is not what we are worried about. Instead we are more concerned with being "theo-logically" correct and we would be.

The difference is that even though the parents make the appointment and bring him to the Baptismal font their not baptizing the child, God is. Baptism is not a matter of man's will which the Baptists say it is. Most Baptists will say that God did his part by sending his son to die for you and now you need to "accept" him as your personal savior. This is synergism and Luther rejected this hands down. Our salvation is all God's doing. We do not act in our salvation.

The Baptists will use the excuse of prayer 'ex-corde" (from the heart) but if you listen to them ramble on they will constantly come back and invariably repeat a petition all over again.

Lutherans at least put their thoughts in more cohesive sentencing and there is very little repetition. Our liturgy is completely Christocentric? What I have seen during my days in the Baptist church is not.


The spectrum of applying the methodology of salvation for the Lutherans and Baptists can be wide or narrow.
The "sinner's prayer", Lutheran's confession, baptism of a child can take a form of works or grace at a drop of a pin.

The differences that you show are valid, yet they are not valid in all the cases.
And in cases where Baptists present their claims against the Lutherans they also have a point, yet not in every case.

What I am saying is that both sides have some really good and unique Christian points that carry spiritual weight.

Personally, I do not wish to ignore these points. These are spiritual tools for building.
I personally like building, building up people, that is. :)
So, when God gets a hold of me, it can be an interesting process to participate in.

Thanks for your thoughts,
appreciate them,

Ed

[SPALATIN]

The spectrum of applying the methodology of salvation for the Lutherans and Baptists can be wide or narrow.
The "sinner's prayer", Lutheran's confession, baptism of a child can take a form of works or grace at a drop of a pin.

The differences that you show are valid, yet they are not valid in all the cases.
And in cases where Baptists present their claims against the Lutherans they also have a point, yet not in every case.

What I am saying is that both sides have some really good and unique Christian points that carry spiritual weight.

Personally, I do not wish to ignore these points. These are spiritual tools for building.
I personally like building, building up people, that is. :)
So, when God gets a hold of me, it can be an interesting process to participate in.

Thanks for your thoughts,
appreciate them,

Ed

How often does a Baptist say the sinner's prayer (by the way, there is no scriptural foundation for the sinner's prayer, but there is for confession.)?

There are two kinds of confession. Confession of sins asking God for absolution and Confession of faith. I assume you are speaking of the former.

Lutherans confess their sins every week in church and they receive absolution from God through his servant the pastor.

I believe the "sinner's prayer" is only meant to be a one-time event.

Baptists will say that "Baptism doesn't save" however, in 1 Peter 3:20-22 we read that



20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:20-22&version=31#fen-NIV-30430a)] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.



Now please note that where it says ". . .and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you. He is not saying that water symbolizes baptism that now saves you, but rather that the water that flooded the earth and saved eight people was also a "baptism" and just like that Baptism during Noah's time we have been given Baptism as a means of grace to save us and forgive us. God baptizes us and is patient while the parents prepare and schedule the time for the infant to be brought to the font.

I can't say that the Baptists are correct and really trying to draw them as being similar is incorrect as well. We are worlds apart on many doctrinal issues. The only thing we have is common is that we profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. After that the differences become more sharp.

[Edial]

I can't say that the Baptists are correct and really trying to draw them as being similar is incorrect as well. We are worlds apart on many doctrinal issues. The only thing we have is common is that we profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. After that the differences become more sharp.
OK, Scott. You believe that the Baptists and the Lutherans are very much apart in their theology outside of professing Jesus Christ as their Savior.
I do not agree at all.
Let's discuss what you presented.

How often does a Baptist say the sinner's prayer.
Most of Baptists (including myself) said the "sinner's prayer" once.
I said it twice :) when my faith was really shook up by Harold Camping radio program when I was a believer about 5 years.
Each person is encouraged to confess it only once.

(by the way, there is no scriptural foundation for the sinner's prayer, but there is for confession.)
Yes, there is.
References for it are Romans 10



RO 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." .....13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

My Lord Jesus Christ,
Please come into my life, and give me the gift of eternal life.
In your Holy name I pray, John Doe.

Line 1: v.9. Confession that Jesus is Lord by mouth. Also by addressing this to him aloud one believes that he can hear him - hence, he believes that God rose him from the dead.

Line 2: v.11,13

Line 3: "Asking in his name..." as is defined elsewhere.



There are two kinds of confession. Confession of sins asking God for absolution and Confession of faith. I assume you are speaking of the former.
Yes.

Lutherans confess their sins every week in church and they receive absolution from God through his servant the pastor. .
Good for them. :)

I believe the "sinner's prayer" is only meant to be a one-time event.
It is.

Baptists will say that "Baptism doesn't save" .....
Baptists have one understanding of "save" and Lutherans another.

When Baptists states "save" they mean "justify" as in the case of Abraham, when he was justified in the eyes of God by having his faith active.

And all the Lutherans and the Baptists that I know of will not disagree that whatever God justified, no one can un-justify. A done deal.

But when a Lutheran states that a child is saved during the baptism it is implied that he receives grace. Receiving grace is not a justification, but it certainly is a "beginning" of one.
They further state that if a child dies prior to developing an active faith then he goes to heaven, since he dies "in grace".
No problem. I cannot disprove it Scripturally. It could very well be true. :)

Thenm they state that if a child grows up and decides that he want to reject Christ - ho "looses" salvation.
They are correct once again. He looses that grace that he had when he was baptized.

Justification is different. Salvation has many "stages".

Baptists, on the other hand claim to reject the infant Baptism, yet dedicate their children to God and their children also receive God's grace, because God honors the requests of the parents for their children.

Practically the same idea. :)




..... however, in 1 Peter 3:20-22 we read that

20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


Now please note that where it says ". . .and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you. He is not saying that water symbolizes baptism that now saves you, but rather that the water that flooded the earth and saved eight people was also a "baptism" and just like that Baptism during Noah's time we have been given Baptism as a means of grace to save us and forgive us. God baptizes us and is patient while the parents prepare and schedule the time for the infant to be brought to the font.
And some (including myself) might respond that when a word "symbolize" is used it means that something that is visible is represented by something that is invisible.
Like in Dictionary.com -
v 1: express indirectly by an image, form, or model; be a symbol; "What does the Statue of Liberty symbolize?" [syn: typify (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=typify), symbolise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symbolise), stand for (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stand%20for), represent (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=represent)] 2: represent or identify by using a symbol; use symbols; "The poet symbolizes love in this poem"; "These painters believed that artists should symbolize" [syn: symbolise (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=symbolise)]

So, the visible water baptism of Noah symbolizes the invisible baptism of the Holy Spirit that Christ baptizes with.

I mean, Christ was freely comparing his invisible baptism with John's visible baptism.

What I am saying is that a Lutheran states that a child is saved then can loose salvation when aware.

Baptist is saying that a child cannot be justified, since a justification cannot be lost.

Both are correct, once definitions are gotten straight. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

What I am saying is that a Lutheran states that a child is saved then can loose salvation when aware.

Baptist is saying that a child cannot be justified, since a justification cannot be lost.

Both are correct, once definitions are gotten straight. :)

Thanks,
Ed

No not really,

Your Baptist definition is a "once saved always saved" proposition. Lutherans would not agree with OSAS. It is contrary to scripture.

We are saved by Grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Sola Gracia
Sole Fide
Sola Christus

In Luther's Small Catechism we look at the Apostle Creed and the third article which reads:
I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

This refutes Once Saved Always saved that the Baptists declare. You try to make the same arguments that my wife makes and I refute her all the time as well.

If it is a matter of the Baptists definitions being different then I think they need to start finding out from the Lutherans what those definitions are so that we can all be on the same page. Until that happens I can not and will not agree that the Baptists are correct in their theology.

[LilLamb219]

And technically, they will be correct, since a man's schedule becomes God's schedule.

Parents are led by the Holy Spirit to have the baptisms done. I don't think a "scheduled" baptism is any surprise to our triune God ;)

But when a Lutheran states that a child is saved during the baptism it is implied that he receives grace. Receiving grace is not a justification, but it certainly is a "beginning" of one.


Baptism is a direct connection to the cross. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say it is not a justification? We are justified by Christ's death on the cross and that is given to us in baptism as we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.


They further state that if a child dies prior to developing an active faith then he goes to heaven, since he dies "in grace".

Baptism is being clothed in Christ's righteousness and through it we become adopted into God's family. In baptism, God puts his name on that child. The Word is present in baptism and is "effective" in giving faith and the promises that are found in scripture such as in the second book of Acts. If God cannot save that child through baptism, then scriptures have lied to us ...but that is not true as scriptures tell us that baptism saves (1 Peter 3 as listed above in this thread).

[BigNorsk]

What I am saying is that a Lutheran states that a child is saved then can loose salvation when aware.

Baptist is saying that a child cannot be justified, since a justification cannot be lost.

Both are correct, once definitions are gotten straight. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Respectfully Ed, I don't think the Lutherans think the child looses his salvation when aware. That's to draw a line in the life of a person that doesn't exist.

Here's just some examples

Hos 12:2-3 NET The Lord also has a covenant lawsuit against Judah; he will punish Jacob according to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. (3) In the womb he attacked his brother; in his manly vigor he struggled with God.

Psa 58:3 NET The wicked turn aside from birth; liars go astray as soon as they are born.

Psa 51:5 NET Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

Some, though I don't know if all, Baptists have taken their idea of the age of accountability from a concept that the sins of the child will not be held against him to one where the child is incapable of sin. The flip side of that is that they also think the child is incapable of faith. I showed that people sin even before birth. We can see faith then too.

Luk 1:41 NET When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I don't know if the believer's baptism came first or if it went the other way, but they seem related to me. Maybe because I always seem to hear the explanation that infants can't believe, even though that is contrary to scripture.

Jesus not only tells us that little children can believe, he tells us to become like them, not wait for them to become like us.

Mat 18:1-6 NET At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (2) He called a child, had him stand among them, (3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! (4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me. (6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

The child here is old enough to stand but it is the same word used in Luke 1:59 to talk of an eight day old child so we aren't talking the age where some Baptists start to baptise children, it is much younger.

In addition to seeing entire households baptised in the New Testament, and in seeing the entire household of Noah be saved in the ark from the flood which prefigured baptism. We also increase our understanding of baptism by studying the baptism unto Moses.

1Co 10:1-5 NET For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, (2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, (3) and all ate the same spiritual food, (4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (5) But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness.

Now infants were definitely included, their parents were certain their infants would perish in the wilderness.
Deu 1:38-39 NET However, Joshua son of Nun, your attendant, will go. Encourage him, because he will enable Israel to inherit the land. (39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.

Look, right in one of the verses used as a source of the age of accountability, we also see that those who were not yet old enough to know good from bad had already been baptised.

The significance of the baptism unto Moses is that those who received it were to receive the promised land. The thing was the infants received the promise even while their parents who carried them died in the wilderness. Baptism doesn't automatically mean that a person will receive the promise in the end.

Lutherans believe we are saved by faith. Baptism isn't some magical work that saves people, they need faith. If they don't have faith, they won't be saved. What we don't do is to set up an artificial barrier between infants and God claiming just because they can't explain it to us that they are incapable of faith. We know that God wants none of our children to be lost, he tells us so, we know children are capable of faith, he tells us so.

The old covenant with Israel clearly included their children, why should their children be excluded from the new covenant? If you were a Jew would that sound like the new covenant was superior? I know arguing from absence can be weak, but the inclusion of children would have been so automatic in the Middle Eastern cultures that clear strong teaching to the contrary would have been necessary in order to exclude the children. We don't see any such exclusion, what we see is Jesus saying let the children come unto me.

Marv

[Jim47]

Respectfully Ed, I don't think the Lutherans think the child looses his salvation when aware. That's to draw a line in the life of a person that doesn't exist.

Here's just some examples

Hos 12:2-3 NET The Lord also has a covenant lawsuit against Judah; he will punish Jacob according to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. (3) In the womb he attacked his brother; in his manly vigor he struggled with God.

Psa 58:3 NET The wicked turn aside from birth; liars go astray as soon as they are born.

Psa 51:5 NET Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.

Some, though I don't know if all, Baptists have taken their idea of the age of accountability from a concept that the sins of the child will not be held against him to one where the child is incapable of sin. The flip side of that is that they also think the child is incapable of faith. I showed that people sin even before birth. We can see faith then too.

Luk 1:41 NET When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I don't know if the believer's baptism came first or if it went the other way, but they seem related to me. Maybe because I always seem to hear the explanation that infants can't believe, even though that is contrary to scripture.

Jesus not only tells us that little children can believe, he tells us to become like them, not wait for them to become like us.

Mat 18:1-6 NET At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (2) He called a child, had him stand among them, (3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! (4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me. (6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

The child here is old enough to stand but it is the same word used in Luke 1:59 to talk of an eight day old child so we aren't talking the age where some Baptists start to baptise children, it is much younger.

In addition to seeing entire households baptised in the New Testament, and in seeing the entire household of Noah be saved in the ark from the flood which prefigured baptism. We also increase our understanding of baptism by studying the baptism unto Moses.

1Co 10:1-5 NET For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, (2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, (3) and all ate the same spiritual food, (4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (5) But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness.

Now infants were definitely included, their parents were certain their infants would perish in the wilderness.
Deu 1:38-39 NET However, Joshua son of Nun, your attendant, will go. Encourage him, because he will enable Israel to inherit the land. (39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.

Look, right in one of the verses used as a source of the age of accountability, we also see that those who were not yet old enough to know good from bad had already been baptised.

The significance of the baptism unto Moses is that those who received it were to receive the promised land. The thing was the infants received the promise even while their parents who carried them died in the wilderness. Baptism doesn't automatically mean that a person will receive the promise in the end.

Lutherans believe we are saved by faith. Baptism isn't some magical work that saves people, they need faith. If they don't have faith, they won't be saved. What we don't do is to set up an artificial barrier between infants and God claiming just because they can't explain it to us that they are incapable of faith. We know that God wants none of our children to be lost, he tells us so, we know children are capable of faith, he tells us so.

The old covenant with Israel clearly included their children, why should their children be excluded from the new covenant? If you were a Jew would that sound like the new covenant was superior? I know arguing from absence can be weak, but the inclusion of children would have been so automatic in the Middle Eastern cultures that clear strong teaching to the contrary would have been necessary in order to exclude the children. We don't see any such exclusion, what we see is Jesus saying let the children come unto me.

Marv














Ah! I love your scriptures Marv. :preach:
like balm to my sore eyes.

[If Not For Grace]

If I am in the wrong thread, please advise where I can post these ?'s, but this has been very interesting reading to me.



I have been a Southern Baptist most of my life and recently have done some reading on Martin Luther and would be interested in learning more. However I have a question regarding what I read in this thread:



If man has the free will to chose God, then fundamentally man is capable of changing himself, but man can't change himself he is dead in sin, not just ill, dead. Dead people can't help themselves.




If grace is a gift, does man not get to accept or reject it? IF there is no free will why evangelise at all?

[Jim47]

If I am in the wrong thread, please advise where I can post these ?'s, but this has been very interesting reading to me.



I have been a Southern Baptist most of my life and recently have done some reading on Martin Luther and would be interested in learning more. However I have a question regarding what I read in this thread:



If grace is a gift, does man not get to accept or reject it? IF there is no free will why evangelise at all?

Hello :wave: This thread is as good as any.


Indeed grace is a gift, but as natural born sinners our only inclination would be to reject God. We don't have the ability to accept Jesus before He has called us to faith by The Holy Spirit. We can reject Him, but we can only accept Him after He has called us to faith, so in essence in we can not of our own free will or power accept Him.

Please follow this link and read at minimum Articles 2 & 4

http://users.frii.com/gosplow/augsburg.html

Other good reading> http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/martin-luther.html


http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-home.html

There is plent more good reading besides these.

[LilLamb219]

IF there is no free will why evangelise at all?

Because God has chosen to use man to carry out His will. Man uses God's Word to bring the message of the cross to others because God's word "effects" what it says it will do.

[BigNorsk]

If I am in the wrong thread, please advise where I can post these ?'s, but this has been very interesting reading to me.



I have been a Southern Baptist most of my life and recently have done some reading on Martin Luther and would be interested in learning more. However I have a question regarding what I read in this thread:



If grace is a gift, does man not get to accept or reject it? IF there is no free will why evangelise at all?

Martin Luther's classic work on the issue of free will is called The Bondage of the Will (http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html). I think you would be best served to read that.

Accepting a gift implies that man cooperates or contributes to his salvation. While not the error of Pelagianism, it is an error of Synergism. While trying to directly to subtlely avoid being called a works based salvation it still requires a work. It would be typified by a statement like "I chose to follow Jesus." If there is free will in spiritual matters then a person could just wake up one day and decide to change his sinful nature to one of righteousness. Man has no such ability. All he can do is reject or quit rejecting. To quit rejecting is not a work it is the ceasing of effort, it might not seem like much different than accepting at first, but it will if you think about it for awhile.

I think the belief that people have a free will comes from a misunderstanding of what happened to them when they were saved. The Holy Spirit convicts them and eventually they quit resisting, their nature is changed by God, instead of being opposed to God, suddenly they are his slave. At about that time they say something like "Jesus I ask you to be my Lord and Savior, I ask you to come into my heart." Thing is those things have already happened or they would not have the desire to say those things. They misinterpret their experience as they chose God, but actually, He chose them.

In any case, read the Bondage of the Will and see if you can disagree with Luther, I did at one time. I've spent a lot of time trying to prove that little monk wrong but he keeps winning.

Marv

[Edial]

No not really,

Your Baptist definition is a "once saved always saved" proposition. Lutherans would not agree with OSAS. It is contrary to scripture.
Actually, it should be OJAS :) "once justified always saved".
But OSAS is not contrary to the Scriptures. That is the point.
I can respond to probably any verse that you can present and show that OSNAS does not exist in the Bible.
Strong statement? Agree.

But once we define what the Baptists mean by "justification" and what some Lutherans mean by "saved" - much, much would be resolved. :)

We are saved by Grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

Sola Gracia
Sole Fide
Sola Christus
:amen:

In Luther's Small Catechism we look at the Apostle Creed and the third article which reads:
I believe in the Holy Ghost; one holy Christian Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.
OK. No disagreement here.


This refutes Once Saved Always saved that the Baptists declare. .
I do not understand why.
Please explain.

You try to make the same arguments that my wife makes and I refute her all the time as well.
I do not think I can do better than your wife. :)
(Only good humor intended).

Are you married to a Baptist, Scott?



If it is a matter of the Baptists definitions being different then I think they need to start finding out from the Lutherans what those definitions are so that we can all be on the same page. .
And visa versa.

Until that happens I can not and will not agree that the Baptists are correct in their theology.
They are correct in some of their theology, as we are.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Respectfully Ed, I don't think the Lutherans think the child looses his salvation when aware. That's to draw a line in the life of a person that doesn't exist.

That is what I was definitely told by Lutherans.
A child is saved during the Baptism.
A child can lose that salvation once he chooses to reject God later on.


Here's just some examples

Hos 12:2-3 NET The Lord also has a covenant lawsuit against Judah; he will punish Jacob according to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. (3) In the womb he attacked his brother; in his manly vigor he struggled with God.

Psa 58:3 NET The wicked turn aside from birth; liars go astray as soon as they are born.

Psa 51:5 NET Look, I was prone to do wrong from birth; I was a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.
I agree with these verses.
Children sin from birth.
Ps.58:3's NIV translation is even stronger -
PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

Some, though I don't know if all, Baptists have taken their idea of the age of accountability from a concept that the sins of the child will not be held against him to one where the child is incapable of sin.

Again. Baptists like to have "views", just like any other denomination.
But any Baptist that I know of will confess that a child is capable of sin.

The flip side of that is that they also think the child is incapable of faith. I showed that people sin even before birth. We can see faith then too.

Luk 1:41 NET When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Interesting statement.
But can you prove it outside of the Luke text?
Maybe because I do not see it here how is it that John has faith? Please explain.

I don't know if the believer's baptism came first or if it went the other way, but they seem related to me. Maybe because I always seem to hear the explanation that infants can't believe, even though that is contrary to scripture.

Jesus not only tells us that little children can believe, he tells us to become like them, not wait for them to become like us.

Mat 18:1-6 NET At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (2) He called a child, had him stand among them, (3) and said, "I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! (4) Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (5) And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me. (6) "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.

The child here is old enough to stand but it is the same word used in Luke 1:59 to talk of an eight day old child so we aren't talking the age where some Baptists start to baptise children, it is much younger.

This is very good Marv.
I knew that in Mt.18:1-6 they are saying "a child" (paidion; Strong's 3813), which is not an infant.
But I did not know that John the Baptist was called a "child" when 8 days old.

So based on that I would agree with you that there is a possibility of an infant coming to Christ.
Christ can reveal himself in various ways.


In addition to seeing entire households baptised in the New Testament, and in seeing the entire household of Noah be saved in the ark from the flood which prefigured baptism. We also increase our understanding of baptism by studying the baptism unto Moses.

1Co 10:1-5 NET For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, (2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, (3) and all ate the same spiritual food, (4) and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. (5) But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness.

Now infants were definitely included, their parents were certain their infants would perish in the wilderness.
Deu 1:38-39 NET However, Joshua son of Nun, your attendant, will go. Encourage him, because he will enable Israel to inherit the land. (39) Also, your infants, who you thought would die on the way, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad, will go there; I will give them the land and they will possess it.

Look, right in one of the verses used as a source of the age of accountability, we also see that those who were not yet old enough to know good from bad had already been baptised.

The significance of the baptism unto Moses is that those who received it were to receive the promised land. The thing was the infants received the promise even while their parents who carried them died in the wilderness. Baptism doesn't automatically mean that a person will receive the promise in the end.
Agreed.

Lutherans believe we are saved by faith. Baptism isn't some magical work that saves people, they need faith. If they don't have faith, they won't be saved. What we don't do is to set up an artificial barrier between infants and God claiming just because they can't explain it to us that they are incapable of faith. We know that God wants none of our children to be lost, he tells us so, we know children are capable of faith, he tells us so. .
So, you would say then that during the infant baptism there is a possibility that the infant will reject Christ, since he has faith?

The old covenant with Israel clearly included their children, why should their children be excluded from the new covenant? If you were a Jew would that sound like the new covenant was superior? I know arguing from absence can be weak, but the inclusion of children would have been so automatic in the Middle Eastern cultures that clear strong teaching to the contrary would have been necessary in order to exclude the children. We don't see any such exclusion, what we see is Jesus saying let the children come unto me.

Marv
One of the reasons I became a Lutheran is because I think that it is impossible to Scripturally disprove Infant Baptism.
Also, I believe that if a Bible cannot disprove a tradition - that particular tradition should continue.
When early born-again Christians were overwhelmingly baptising their children and felt that it was a right thing to do - this cannot be and should not be ignored.

(I do not have children, so it is not a personal issue with me).

Currently however, we put various conditions and spins on the Baptism itself that contradict Scriptures in some ways.
These need be addressed and corrected.
But since it is often a personal issue to many - conflicts might arise.

But infant baptism? If one cannot disprove its practice from Scriptures - why lobby against it?

Thanks,
Ed












[/QUOTE]

[Edial]

If I am in the wrong thread, please advise where I can post these ?'s, but this has been very interesting reading to me.
Welcome. :)



I have been a Southern Baptist most of my life and recently have done some reading on Martin Luther and would be interested in learning more. However I have a question regarding what I read in this thread:



If grace is a gift, does man not get to accept or reject it? IF there is no free will why evangelise at all?
The purpose of a gift is to offer.
And anything that is offered can be rejected.
(And there is no such thing as "an offer that cannot be refused", except in the Godfather :) ).

Besides,

JN 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Martin Luther's classic work on the issue of free will is called The Bondage of the Will (http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html). I think you would be best served to read that.

Accepting a gift implies that man cooperates or contributes to his salvation. While not the error of Pelagianism, it is an error of Synergism. While trying to directly to subtlely avoid being called a works based salvation it still requires a work. It would be typified by a statement like "I chose to follow Jesus." If there is free will in spiritual matters then a person could just wake up one day and decide to change his sinful nature to one of righteousness. Man has no such ability. All he can do is reject or quit rejecting. To quit rejecting is not a work it is the ceasing of effort, it might not seem like much different than accepting at first, but it will if you think about it for awhile.

I think the belief that people have a free will comes from a misunderstanding of what happened to them when they were saved. The Holy Spirit convicts them and eventually they quit resisting, their nature is changed by God, instead of being opposed to God, suddenly they are his slave. At about that time they say something like "Jesus I ask you to be my Lord and Savior, I ask you to come into my heart." Thing is those things have already happened or they would not have the desire to say those things. They misinterpret their experience as they chose God, but actually, He chose them.

In any case, read the Bondage of the Will and see if you can disagree with Luther, I did at one time. I've spent a lot of time trying to prove that little monk wrong but he keeps winning.

Marv
Accepting a gift will indeed co-operate a man in his own salvation, but not if all men are "touched" by God first, so as to enable them.

Christ did just that.

JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

And when he calls, technically speaking, even a dead man can hear when Christ calls.

JN 5:28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

So, Christ draws (enables) all men towards himself. He initiates salvation.
Yet many will refuse once drawn.

Just check out all the atheists at these forum that cannot wait to tell us that God does not exist. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

Accepting a gift will indeed co-operate a man in his own salvation, but not if all men are "touched" by God first, so as to enable them.

Christ did just that.

JN 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

And when he calls, technically speaking, even a dead man can hear when Christ calls.

JN 5:28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

So, Christ draws (enables) all men towards himself. He initiates salvation.
Yet many will refuse once drawn.

Just check out all the atheists at these forum that cannot wait to tell us that God does not exist. :)

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

It is good that you recognize that it is CHRIST who enables us through the Holy Spirit. I tell you that my experience with BAPTISTS and even BAPTIST PASTORS has been the opposite. I realize that you are not BAPTIST but the argument has been that there are similarities and I have been adamant that there are not very many.

Scott

[Edial]

Parents are led by the Holy Spirit to have the baptisms done. I don't think a "scheduled" baptism is any surprise to our triune God ;))
It is not a matter of "surprise", but of control.
We can also say that when we cancel a specific date for a baptism because some relatives cannot attend, God also cancelled it.

We cannot be in control.

Salvation is indeed a surprise, but not to God, but us.:)



Baptism is a direct connection to the cross. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say it is not a justification? We are justified by Christ's death on the cross and that is given to us in baptism as we are clothed in Christ's righteousness.
Justification is impossible outside of faith.
Abharam, for example, was justified in the eyes of God.
He believed and that was credited to him as righteousness.

Salvation however, takes several steps, or stages in the Bible. The climax of which is justification that cannot be lost or reversed.

Salvation "begins" when God's grace is given upon a baby. And it definitely takes place during a baptism, since the parents are asking God to bless the baby.
And God's grace is given freely at a request of a parent.
It is not because God is "obliged" to do so, but because it is within his very character to do so.

Lutherans teach that if a child dies after a Baptism he goes to heaven.
I do not have a problem with that statement, since he indeed died "under God's grace".



Baptism is being clothed in Christ's righteousness and through it we become adopted into God's family. In baptism, God puts his name on that child. The Word is present in baptism and is "effective" in giving faith and the promises that are found in scripture such as in the second book of Acts. If God cannot save that child through baptism, then scriptures have lied to us ...but that is not true as scriptures tell us that baptism saves (1 Peter 3 as listed above in this thread).
This is a very strong statement concerning lying.
If you'll study the Acts and/or 1Peter you'll see a different pricture.

If you wish to, we can look through it together.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

Because God has chosen to use man to carry out His will. Man uses God's Word to bring the message of the cross to others because God's word "effects" what it says it will do.
But once we realize that such word saves (or has a potential to save) we do indeed participate in salvation of others.
So the free will does exist, since we can choose not to evangelize.

Thanks,
Ed

[SPALATIN]

But once we realize that such word saves (or has a potential to save) we do indeed participate in salvation of others.
So the free will does exist, since we can choose not to evangelize.

Thanks,
Ed

Ed,

You might want to read Luthers treatise on the will. You can find it by clicking on the word link. (http://www.covenanter.org/Luther/Bondage/bow_toc.htm) This will give you a more precise idea of what Luther was speaking of in regards to our will.

[BigNorsk]

We need to be careful not to confuse the issue by thinking of free will in too broad of terms. When we say man does not have free will, it does not mean that he can't make choices. Chosing whether or not to go out and evangelise isn't what it meant.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2]
things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God,
that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1
Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the
Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant
that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is therebycapable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but
only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good
in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to
build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6] pertains
to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and
through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to
commit murder, etc.
8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of
nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching
“the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is
able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear
of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Hope that makes it clearer.
Marv

[Edial]

Ed,

It is good that you recognize that it is CHRIST who enables us through the Holy Spirit. I tell you that my experience with BAPTISTS and even BAPTIST PASTORS has been the opposite. I realize that you are not BAPTIST but the argument has been that there are similarities and I have been adamant that there are not very many.

Scott
Baptists have opinions. :)
They are also pushy about their opinions.

I can assure you, that I do not know of ONE Baptist who thinks that he works outside of God's initiative in all things.

So, putting aside individual opinions of Baptists, I still insist that the differences between them and us are not as tremendous as we made them out to be. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[BigNorsk]

The reason we evangelise is also clearly spelled out in the Book of Concord. It is due to how God chooses to work. Here's the thing, if man had free will, then evangelism would be unnecessary because man could choose to follow God on his own; however, it doesn't work that way. Man must hear God's Word. Then the Holy Spirit uses God's Word to draw man to God. If they do not hear God's Word, they will not be drawn. You will notice when you evangelise that not everyone who hears God's Word accepts it. Some don't accept it that day, they resist the Holy Spirit for awhile. Others manage to resist for a lifetime. We cannot conclude that because people resist that God's Word is ineffective or not intended to save. Rather we conclude that people have the ability to resist God.

In any case here's why we evangelise.

4] 3. God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose
the preaching and hearing of God’s Word, as it is written Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God 5]
unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of
God. And it is God’s will that His Word should be heard, and that man’s ears should not be closed. Ps.
95, 8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16, 14,
are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose 6]
work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our
willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15, 5:
Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes
everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1, 29; 2 Cor. 12, 5; Jer. 9,

Marv

[Edial]

We need to be careful not to confuse the issue by thinking of free will in too broad of terms. When we say man does not have free will, it does not mean that he can't make choices. Chosing whether or not to go out and evangelise isn't what it meant.

From the Augsburg Confession:

Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
1] Of Free Will they teach that man’s will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2]
things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God,
that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1
Cor. 2, 14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the
Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant
that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is therebycapable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but
only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. “Good” I call those works which spring from the good
in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to
build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6] pertains
to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and
through Him they are and have their being. “Evil” 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to
commit murder, etc.
8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of
nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching
“the substance of the act.” For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is
able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear
of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.

Hope that makes it clearer.
Marv

It clears it out very much so.
Here is my take on that.

One cannot have a free will in "spiritual matters" outside of God's initiative.

God "initiates" all when Christ said he will draw all men to him after the resurrection.

Once "initiated" by God, they refuse the gospel or receive the gospel.

Man cannot initiate anything spiritual without God first "tapping" him on the shoulder.

Thanks,
Ed

[LilLamb219]

Justification is impossible outside of faith.


Have you been taught Objective Justification and Subjective Justification yet?

[Edial]

Have you been taught Objective Justification and Subjective Justification yet?
What is it? And why is it separated?

Justification in the Bible is always in the eyes of God.

OK, what is it?

Thanks,
Ed

[BigNorsk]

Baptists have opinions. :)
They are also pushy about their opinions.

I can assure you, that I do not know of ONE Baptist who thinks that he works outside of God's initiative in all things.

So, putting aside individual opinions of Baptists, I still insist that the differences between them and us are not as tremendous as we made them out to be. :)

Thanks,
Ed

To say we don't work outside God's initiative is to say that he starts it and we finish it. We don't finish anything, its totally God. This error in the idea of Free Will is relatively subtle and so people are thinking that they are giving God the glory, but they are actually taking it for themselves if they say God initiates. That is to say that God gives a little spark and that we are thereby enabled to do his will.

It's really the fundamental difference between Baptists and Lutherans. Baptists see baptism as something they do and so they doubt the validity of baptisms based on the people. Lutherans see baptism as something God does, and so they get confused by the idea of invalid baptisms because how can God perform an invalid baptism?

The Lord's Supper baptists just see as a memorial they do, Lutherans see a Sacrament performed by Jesus through the power of His Word.

Baptists choose God, Lutherans are chosen by God.

It's one thing, but it weaves throughout the theology. Baptist's fundamentally rely on themselves, their choices, for salvation. It's the difference of relying on your faithfulness or the faithfulness of Jesus.

Marv

[Edial]

The reason we evangelise is also clearly spelled out in the Book of Concord. It is due to how God chooses to work. Here's the thing, if man had free will, then evangelism would be unnecessary because man could choose to follow God on his own; however, it doesn't work that way. Man must hear God's Word. Then the Holy Spirit uses God's Word to draw man to God. If they do not hear God's Word, they will not be drawn. You will notice when you evangelise that not everyone who hears God's Word accepts it. Some don't accept it that day, they resist the Holy Spirit for awhile. Others manage to resist for a lifetime. We cannot conclude that because people resist that God's Word is ineffective or not intended to save. Rather we conclude that people have the ability to resist God.

In any case here's why we evangelise.

4] 3. God the Holy Ghost, however, does not effect conversion without means, but uses for this purpose
the preaching and hearing of God’s Word, as it is written Rom. 1, 16: The Gospel is the power of God 5]
unto salvation to every one that believeth. Also Rom. 10, 17: Faith cometh by hearing of the Word of
God. And it is God’s will that His Word should be heard, and that man’s ears should not be closed. Ps.
95, 8. With this Word the Holy Ghost is present, and opens hearts, so that they, as Lydia in Acts 16, 14,
are attentive to it, and are thus converted alone through the grace and power of the Holy Ghost, whose 6]
work alone the conversion of man is. For without His grace, and if He do not grant the increase, our
willing and running, our planting, sowing, and watering, all are nothing, as Christ says John 15, 5:
Without Me ye can do nothing. With these brief words He denies to the free will its powers, and ascribes
everything to God’s grace, in order that no one may boast before God. 1 Cor. 1, 29; 2 Cor. 12, 5; Jer. 9,

Marv

Thanks Marv.
I completely agree. :)

The point of contention for some arises when they presuppose that God ignores some people in giving them the ability to react to the gospel.

However, when Christ stated that he will draw all men to himself, that presents that all are "tapped" by God to made that "turn", whether it is the "narrow road" or the "wide".

Thanks,
Ed

[Jim47]

To say we don't work outside God's initiative is to say that he starts it and we finish it. We don't finish anything, its totally God. This error in the idea of Free Will is relatively subtle and so people are thinking that they are giving God the glory, but they are actually taking it for themselves if they say God initiates. That is to say that God gives a little spark and that we are thereby enabled to do his will.

It's really the fundamental difference between Baptists and Lutherans. Baptists see baptism as something they do and so they doubt the validity of baptisms based on the people. Lutherans see baptism as something God does, and so they get confused by the idea of invalid baptisms because how can God perform an invalid baptism?

The Lord's Supper baptists just see as a memorial they do, Lutherans see a Sacrament performed by Jesus through the power of His Word.

Baptists choose God, Lutherans are chosen by God.

It's one thing, but it weaves throughout the theology. Baptist's fundamentally rely on themselves, their choices, for salvation. It's the difference of relying on your faithfulness or the faithfulness of Jesus.

Marv


Great explaination Marv :thumbsup:

The evil "and" sinful man have always sought to steal the glory from God.

Ge 6:5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them

[LilLamb219]

Objective Justification is outside of ourselves. It is that justification is because of Christ's death on the cross...God accepted the atonement and mankind is justified. But, it's God's Word that brings the justification TO US (and that is subjective) so that we are given faith to believe it. Objective Justification is true, but it doesn't benefit us without faith to believe it.

So, when you say that justification is impossible without faith, there is a yes and no comment to that. No, in that objectively, we are justified by Christ's death on the cross but yes, we are justified when given faith to believe (subjectively) in that death for the forgiveness of our sins.

[LilLamb219]

Salvation "begins" when God's grace is given upon a baby. And it definitely takes place during a baptism, since the parents are asking God to bless the baby.
And God's grace is given freely at a request of a parent.

Take it back one step further...salvation begins at the cross :)

Baptism isn't just a request for God to save the baby. It's the water and the Word, without the Word, you just have plain water. God attached promises in baptism and that is what is "effective" in a baptism, not God honoring the request of the parents. Jesus told how disciples were to be made, baptism and teaching. Both of those are God's work but He uses man to accomplish that work. It's at God's request that a baptism is performed, not really a parent's ;)

[ContraMundum]

I became a Lutheran few months ago.

I'm glad to hear that! I hope those long pm's didn't drive you nuts though!

I came from a Baptist church and know my way around the Scriptures.

Yes, you do!

I personally do not think so. I believe that both do compliment each other to a fuller and more vibrant faith....

......My question is:
The Pastor at the Lutheran Church where I am a member, wants me to be involved in evangelism.

.....What advice would you give me and what should I be aware of (considering my background) while engaging in evangelism?

Bring your treasures from the Baptist tradition regarding evangelism to your Lutheran brethren. Let them show you their treasures too!

It's all good, and it's all based on where you are in the world and your post in life. For example, I know of Lutherans that even have a Friday night street tract ministry for evangelism- very unique for Lutherans, culturally speaking, but very effective. Likewise, I know Lutherans that plant Bible study groups in various places and advertise them in the local papers.

Go for it- try it all!

[Edial]

To say we don't work outside God's initiative is to say that he starts it and we finish it. We don't finish anything, its totally God. This error in the idea of Free Will is relatively subtle and so people are thinking that they are giving God the glory, but they are actually taking it for themselves if they say God initiates. That is to say that God gives a little spark and that we are thereby enabled to do his will.
I agree.
God starts and finishes.
I was talking about salvation.
But you are addressing another topic below.

It's really the fundamental difference between Baptists and Lutherans. Baptists see baptism as something they do and so they doubt the validity of baptisms based on the people. Lutherans see baptism as something God does, and so they get confused by the idea of invalid baptisms because how can God perform an invalid baptism?

The Lord's Supper baptists just see as a memorial they do, Lutherans see a Sacrament performed by Jesus through the power of His Word..
Agree.
These are the differences that I discussed elsewhere.
Their understanding of baptism is different.
Their understanding of Communion is different.
Agreed.

Yet all would agree that the Scriptures are not necessarily clear about these topics. These are our interpretations of these. Our views.

We can state that we believe that this is so, but we cannot or I should say "should not" state that IT IS so.

If a child is baptised and a grace of God is upon a Lutheran baby and if a child is dedicated and a grace of God is upon a Baptist baby - does it really matter? :)

Baptists choose God, Lutherans are chosen by God.
Disagree.
If you mean this in the context of Batism and Communion then I also disagree, since they do not claim salvation nor forgiveness via these.
So they cannot "choose" God.

It's one thing, but it weaves throughout the theology. Baptist's fundamentally rely on themselves, their choices, for salvation. It's the difference of relying on your faithfulness or the faithfulness of Jesus.

Marv
Disagree.
I should know.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I'm glad to hear that! I hope those long pm's didn't drive you nuts though!



Yes, you do!



Bring your treasures from the Baptist tradition regarding evangelism to your Lutheran brethren. Let them show you their treasures too!

It's all good, and it's all based on where you are in the world and your post in life. For example, I know of Lutherans that even have a Friday night street tract ministry for evangelism- very unique for Lutherans, culturally speaking, but very effective. Likewise, I know Lutherans that plant Bible study groups in various places and advertise them in the local papers.

Go for it- try it all!
Thank you very much. :)

Ed

[SPALATIN]

Baptists have opinions. :)
They are also pushy about their opinions.

I can assure you, that I do not know of ONE Baptist who thinks that he works outside of God's initiative in all things.

So, putting aside individual opinions of Baptists, I still insist that the differences between them and us are not as tremendous as we made them out to be. :)

Thanks,
Ed

I would say that as long as we don't discuss issues of doctrine like sacraments and Free will that we can agree that Christ Jesus is Lord of All.

[Edial]

Great explaination Marv :thumbsup:

The evil "and" sinful man have always sought to steal the glory from God.

Ge 6:5 The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them
True.
Yet I hope you do not mean Baptists are such men.
I do not think you meant it.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

I would say that as long as we don't discuss issues of doctrine like sacraments and Free will that we can agree that Christ Jesus is Lord of All.
A perfect beginning that can develop in some unexpected (for us) ways. :)

Thanks,
Ed

[If Not For Grace]

:angel: I have not read every link given yet and as I am reading what has been suggested (and I thank all those who made suggestions) I have "wandered" and read other writings--One of which is the "95", I am admittedly uninformed on many, but my lack of Catholicism is perhaps showing when I say this one baffles me to no end What did Luther mean by:



93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!



(I got to start somewhere--please forgive my ignorance while I attempt to learn). D

[Jim47]

True.
Yet I hope you do not mean Baptists are such men.
I do not think you meant it.

Thanks,
Ed

No, I was not implicating anyone other than "everyone". "Sinful man" covers you, me and everyone. That is our sinful nature to want to take credit for God's work. I too am guilty. :cry: :cry: