"We further believe that in this Christian Church we have
forgiveness of sin, which is wrought through the holy Sacramentsand Absolution, moreover, through all manner of consolatory
promises of the entire Gospel. Therefore, whatever
is to be preached concerning the Sacraments belongs here,
and, in short, the whole Gospel and all the offices of Christianity,
which also must be preached and taught without ceasing.
For although the grace of God is secured through Christ,
and sanctification is wrought by the Holy Ghost through the
Word of God in the unity of the Christian Church, yet on
account of our flesh which we bear about with us we are never
without sin.
Everything, therefore, in the Christian Church is ordered
to the end that we shall daily obtain there nothing but the
forgiveness of sin through the Word and signs, to comfort
and encourage our consciences as long as we live here. Thus,
although we have sins, the [grace of the] Holy Ghost does
not allow them to injure us, because we are in the Christian
Church, where there is nothing but [continuous, uninterrupted]
forgiveness of sin, both in that God forgives us, and
in that we forgive, bear with, and help each other.
But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is
not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness
[sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit
holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness
of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves
[from this Church].
Meanwhile, however, while sanctification has begun and is
growing daily, we expect that our flesh will be destroyed and
buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously,
and arise to entire and perfect holiness in a new eternal
life. For now we are only half pure and holy, so that the Holy
Ghost has ever [some reason why] to continue His work in
us through the Word, and daily to dispense forgiveness, until
we attain to that life where there will be no more forgiveness,
but only perfectly pure and holy people, full of godliness and
righteousness, removed and free from sin, death, and all evil,
in a new, immortal, and glorified body."
Here is Martin Luther again teaching, in his catechism, that the sacraments and absolution are necessary for the forgiveness of sins. And that we are NOT made completely holy, but that the Holy Spirit has to continue his work IN us.
Now, John Calvin had some similar views, but, as most of you who have studied the reformers know, Calvin and Luther did disagree on some points. It seems to me that, had I known them both, I would have enjoyed Luther's company as a person to share a drink with a LOT more than Calvin. Luther seems to have been driven by his passions and his true desire toward God, where Calvin seems...I don't know how to put it...controlling and in need of supreme authority?? Where Luther wanted to teach and spread the word, Calvin wanted to establish states and rule over them with an iron fist of religious weight. Again, just speaking of them from what I have read of and about their lives.
Anyway...Calvin also supported infant baptism and the necessity of baptism.
"In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed, - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men. "
Now, I think where things get confusing with Calvin is where he speaks of it as a symbol, and people sort of latch onto that and run with it...but notice what he says is that it is "also a symbol" not only a symbol. Calvin also argued for the baptism of infants, because they are part of the covenant, and he understood the relationship between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the new covenant Baptism.
Here is more from Calvin on infant baptism...
"I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Gen. 17: 15,) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace."
6 comments:
So I couldn’t help but notice the link to this blog post on FB and so I read it. I have to say that upon reading this that it was obvious that this post was def saying a lot about Protestantism which I kind of felt like is a somewhat one sided.
“ I often hear people say, and I've said it before after reading some of the original works of the reformers, that what the evangelical churches and many protestant denominations are teaching is not the teachings of the reformers.”
I have to strongly disagree with that statement April. First I’m not really sure what your actually trying to argue here. Your statement is not very clear as to what teachings Protestants are not holding to it leaves the reader with a biased opinion without any evidence, which is misleading. Also the statement seems one sided, it implies that only in Protestantism the doctrines of it’s founders the reformers are not being held to, well the same can be said of Roman Catholicism. Not trying to throw stones here or step on anyone’s toes but just trying to make a point that it’s really hard to make these type of arguments when you don’t give any specifics or say things in a way that leaves the reader with a one-sided opinion. As far as the teachings of the reformers I’m sure you know what they are. If not the five major teachings of the reformers by which they distinguished their beliefs from those of the Roman Catholic church of their day, these same teachings are held and taught by protestant churches....cont
1. Sola Scriptura – “The Bible alone.” Scripture alone speaks authoritatively, and it speaks to all believers, independently of church leaders and councils, human interpreters and so-called spokesmen for God.
2. Sola Gratia – “Grace alone.” It is only by the unmerited favor of God that Christ went to the cross and paid the price for man’s salvation. Man is by nature depraved—he has no virtue that commends him to God. Therefore God’s grace to him is truly undeserved and amazing, and God’s grace alone has the power to draw people to himself.
3. Sola Fide – “Faith alone.” Only total righteousness is acceptable to God, and that is found in Christ, not us. Man can only accept Christ’s work by placing his trust in him. Man is justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ, not by any works of his own.
4. Sola Christus – “Christ alone.” Salvation is accomplished by Christ alone, and mediated by Christ alone—not by angels, saints, relics, sacraments, priests, teachers, churches, or anyone or anything else. Christ alone was the perfect Savior, and he alone is the perfect prophet, priest and king.
5. Soli Deo Gloria – “To God alone be glory.” God should be thanked, praised and given full credit for his sovereign grace and spiritual and physical provision. Theology should be God-centered, not man-centered. God should be put in his place and humans in theirs. Our efforts should not elevate and celebrate men but God. We should bring him glory in our work, in our homes and at play. He, not we, should be the center of all things....cont
These are held by protestant denominations. I think there needs to be some clarity on what you mean when you say “protestant denominations are teaching is not the teachings of the reformers.” Now correct me if I’m wrong but it seems to me that what your trying to argue about Protestants not holding to reformed teaching has to do with what Luther taught about “Baptism”. If that’s what your arguing well then there is serious problems with that. For one none of the other reformers during or before Luther’s time believed or taught anything close to Luther’s view on Baptism only Luther himself held to the view he had on baptism which has many problems that many historians and theologians have pointed out. Two, many folks in both Protestant/Roman Catholic camps seem to forget that all of the reformers were former Roman Catholics and still had many of the traditions and doctrines of the church which had no scripture or historical backing to support it, for example Infant Baptism, Hyperdulia of Mary the Mother of Jesus etc... Third, Protestantism was never founded on Luther alone or even Calvin. As a matter of fact just looking at any Christian History Book, I’d recommend “History of Christianity” by Johnathan Hill, Zondervan(good history book for the average reader) you can see the roots of Protestantism in that of John Wycliff, John Huss, The Waldesians and The Anababtist’s
“ I would like to begin with Luther's stance on the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism. Notice that, in his own words, he does refer to it as a sacrament and as something that Christians must adhere to as necessary for salvation.”
So , because Luther believed this about baptism that automatically made it biblical? Let me just say I’m am very grateful for Martin Luther and his stance against the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church in his day but that does not logically lead to the conclusion that everything he believed and taught was true, as long as again that there have been many papers written on this subject by those who have studied Luther. Luther was the only one to hold to this view. Not only was this view refuted by Calvin, Zuingly and John Knox but even before Luther by John Wycliff. Also this doctrine was not taught by Christ the Apostles or the Apostolic Church Patriarcs it’s not even mentioned by any of them. It wasn’t until the the middle of the second century that this doctrine creeps into the church...cont
“Anyway...Calvin also supported infant baptism and the necessity of baptism.”
Again this statement sounds a little misleading April. From what I have already read in this post this statement implies that Calvin and Luther’s view about infant baptism and the necessity of baptism are the same, that can’t be further from the truth. First John Calvin understood baptism as the sign of the New Covenant just as circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, not as a means of regeneration or a sinner being justified. Calvin understood infant baptism based upon the model of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 17), which there are problems with this view as well. Abraham came to faith as an adult and he was circumcised as an adult which circumcision never saved anyone. Isaac was the child of believing parents and he was circumcised as an infant. So adults who come to faith are baptized after a profession of faith and the children of at least one believing parent are to be baptized.
"But baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people; by which we testify that we agree in worshiping the same God...by which finally we openly affirm our faith...For this analogy or similitude is the surest rule of the sacraments: that we should see spiritual things in physical, as if set before our very eyes. For the Lord was pleased to represent them by such figures - not because such graces are bound and enclosed in the sacrament so as to be conferred upon us by its power, but only because the Lord by this token attests his will toward us, namely, that he is pleased to lavish all these things upon us." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter XV, 13-14).
There also seems to be in this blog post April a conception that because Luther believed in a form of Baptismal Regeneration that all Protestants and those in the reformed camp must believe the same thing since we hold to some of Luthers teachings. And that because he believed this and taught it that somehow logically Now if this not what you are implying then I apologize. But If you do a little more research you’ll find that it’s the opposite, we don’t agree April. Also I think your forgetting that protestant doctrine is not based solely off the teaching of Luther and Calvin esp. his teachings on Baptism. The only groups that actually hold to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration held by Luther or views like his are Lutheran’s the Church of Christ and non-protestant groups like Mormon’s, Jahovah’s Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostal Also Luther’s view on Baptism begs many many questions like for example if Luthers doctrine dealing with baptism was true why couldn’t he deal with these verses that refute it:
1). 1 Peter 3: 21 Baptism is symbolic for an answer of a good conscience toward God.
2)Acts 8:36-37, Acts 16:31-33, Acts 18:8, Acts 2:41, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 6, Acts 8:12, Acts 8:13 In those verses, it shows baptism coming after salvation after one believes on Christ (repentance). Baptism cant affect a mans heart since baptism is a water action or work and only Christ alone can do that apart from works. Paul, Cornelius, and the Philippian Jailer are all examples in the book of Acts of using or being presented with baptism after ones salvation first.
If Luther was alive I’d love to sit down and ask him many questions on this subject esp. about the fact that no one from Adam to Christ who was a believers was saved by baptism or circumcision and that baptism regeneration was never doctrine in the early church until Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria ca. 120 AD. In fact, you can find Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, and others mentioning salvation by grace through faith without works in their literature before 120 AD. It’s been my observation and I say this with kindness and love I don’t want this to come off in a mean way but it’s clear that some of the posts on this blog are have been directed at painting this picture of Martin Luther and Protestantism and Calvin in a misleading way that’s very one sided. Also in on of your comment’s about Calvin you fail to remember that Luther had just as many disturbing thing’s about himself that he said and was just as cold hearted and brutal as Calvin. Again I’m not trying to be rude or offensive I would say the same thing if this was anyone else making a different argument. It’s just that again your trying to make an argument as if it’s an open and shut case when there is SOOOOOO MUCH to say about this issue. Everything is not so black and white esp. Rome and Luther’s view of Baptism.(which is another subject within itself if you ever want to discuss that) Anyways I apologize if any of this is sporadic, but it’s past my bedtime!
I find your comments to be very interesting, Torrie, thank you.
I would like to say #1-I'm not "arguing" anything! I'm learning, researching, and sharing. If you don't like my findings or my conclusions, I apologize.
#2-This is not a complete post yet. As you can see, I'm posting in parts. Again, not as an argument, but as information that I have found.
Again, thank you for reading and for your comments.
Post a Comment