Who Said That?
Sunday, September 20, 2009 at 09:32PM 
"The Scriptural reason given . . . for the Christian not being able to sin is that God's seed remains or abides in him; that is, the one born again willfully refuses to transgress the commandments of God and cannot sin. As long as this consecration remains, he will be unable to sin simply because he refuses the advances of Satan that would cause him to commit sin."
Please leave your guess in the comments section below. No cheating or google searches. Although some of you can't help yourselves, don't ruin it for everyone else. The whole point is the guess! Answer to follow next week.
Kim Riddlebarger
This is just wrong on so many levels, especially when this Pelagian swill comes from Jimmy Swaggart, who had real problems with his own perishable seed and who apparently quit refusing the advances of Satan.
This comes from his book, Straight Answers to Tough Questions (1987), 76. One of the questions missing from this book is "why are T.V. preachers so attracted to prostitutes?"
Reader Comments (40)
I understand you’re Lutheran wrt baptism. I just found it funny that you think human sin begins at birth. All this seems to do is push the Anabaptist notion (“age of accountability”) back a few years, which is to say, not nearly far enough.
For so high a view of baptism and what it does, one would think the notion of human depravity would follow suit, as in “in sin did my mother conceive me.”
I never said or thought that sin began at birth. That is ludicrous, and flat out heresy. I always cite Psalm 51 with David saying that he was conceived in sin. Romans 5 says that sin came in Adam, as our federal head. Ephesians says that we are by nature children of wrath.
Obviously, we have to wait until a child is born, in order to baptize it. It would be incomprehensible to cut the mother open and pull the baby out a month after conception and to baptize it. Yes, yes, yes, the baby is a sinner at the time of conceiption, or earlier -- in Adam! Again, I have never thought or claimed any thing else.
Hopefully, this clears up this misunderstanding.
That helps.
But, now that you suggest it, I wonder why Lutherans don't cut open wombs. I understand it doesn't line up with common sense, but how does it harmonize with the fact that baptism "creates faith and (actually) washes away sins"? If that's true, how can you keep from cutting open wombs? Doesn't sign and seal do a better job of keeping the peace of wombs?
Well I guess the historical Lutheran response to that would be that you are using your reason to supplant the revelation of God. And then the argument continues without a clear answer. Come on Lloyd I am waiting for your response.
Nice reductio ad absurdum counter to Lloyd's position on the salvific effect of baptism.
Reg: Baptism does, indeed save. 1 Peter 3:20 & 21: "God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism." (Please read these words in their natural sense.)
Jesus says in Mark 16:16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned."
Further arguments on baptism: Adults were first instructed, so we do likewise. Adults are not converted or made disciples by baptism; they are such by faith in Christ, which they confess before their baptism, Acts 8:37. In this case, baptism strengthens them in their faith, even as the Lord's Supper does.
In the case of children or infants, Matt.28:19 does not say that we must first teach and then baptize, but that we should make all nations disciples of Christ by baptizing and by teaching them. Little children are made disciples through baptism and are then taught to observe all that Christ has commanded.
To infants Jesus promises the kingdom of God in Luke 18:15-17. How are these infants saved? To enter the kingdom of God, they must be born again of water and of the Spirit, John 3:5 & 6. Please note here, "Born "OF" water and of the Spirit." Water is WATER. Spirit is SPIRIT. Leave it just as stated.
The early church understood baptism to include children -- Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, are among them.
Regarding little children, the Holy Spirit works faith in them through this "washing of regeneration" (Tit. 3:5).
Forgivness of our sins is offered and imparted through baptism. For we are baptized "for the forgivness of sins" (Acts 2:38). Also in baptism, sins are washed away, Acts 22:16. In baptism, we "put on Christ" and we are clothed with His merits, Gal. 3:27. Again, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Please, don't change the meaning. There is no age indicated in this passage. IF YOU HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHIRST YOU HAVE PUT ON CHIRST. A baby that has been baptized into Christ, has, indeed, put on Christ.
Water is water. Spirit is Spirit. Word is Word. These three elements, 1. create faith, 2. sustain faith, and 3. wash away our sins.
In the early church the term regeneration was used to designate baptism. Justin Martyr (100-166 A.D.) said this, "Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same regeneration by which we were regenerated; for they are washed with water in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says; ' Unless you are regenerated, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"
The Word, connected with the water, and the Holy Spirit does this. With the Word of God the water of baptism is a "washing of regeneration and a renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Tit 3:5) And, in 1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism now saves you."
The issue here, is not what Lutherans teach, but what does the Bible teach us. To say that the Holy Spirit doesn't save in baptism, is going against what the Scriptures so clearly teach us, and against the natural reading of these texts.
Hermeneutically, there is no other way to interpret the above referenced baptism passages. I truly respect my Reformed brothers in Christ, but, they are limiting the work of the Holy Spirit in working in His means of Grace -- in this case baptism.
The Holy Spirit works through His means, which is the Gospel in Word and Sacraments. The Scriptures do not limit His working in them, neither should we.
For added research on this topic, folks can go to WELS.net, to the Q & A, and type in baptism, and they will give you much better arguments than I do.
The great program, Issues, Etc. covers this topic. Go to Issues, Etc., click on "On demand", for various topics, and find and download the arguments for baptism.
Again, I understand you're Lutheran. But you're the one who brought up opening wombs, not me. And since you did, I'm still wondering why Lutherans don't baptize embryo's.
Yeazel suggests the answer is that I'm thinking too much. But if I believed 1) my child is one of wrath from conception, 2) baptism effects faith and actually washes away sins, 3) I love my child, 4) there's a possibility s/he could die in the womb, 5) that death before being made right with God by faith and remission of sins means everlasting torment, then I'm not sure, beyond the law and common sense, what keeps me from slicing my wife up.
Sign and seal sure looks good from where I sit still.
As I have stated at the confessional outhouse I am a Lutheran who still struggles with who was right in the debate over the sacraments -Luther or Calvin? Consubstantiation has its problems and so does the Reformed view. Greater minds then mine have debated this since the reformation and none has come to a consensus. The Lutherans have argued that their view is more biblical and the reformed have argued from reason that their view is more reasonable (which is the approach you are using). Come on Zrim, quit being so brash with your rhetoric. At least you are not wimpy though. Since I adhere to the Lutheran confessions- in faith I believe Luther was right although I still struggle with it. I am still simul justus et peccator
Now that we've sufficiently strayed off topic (which is where all the fun is sometimes, right?),
What I'm trying to do, perhaps badly, is just go by Lloyd's own words and see how it all fits together. So far, it's still fuzzy to me.
The Reformed have have never been afraid of common sense. We're not the rationalists, that's the Anabaptists. That said, the baptismal regeneration Lloyd is suggesting makes no more sense than saying two people who unceremoniously exchange a pair of rings are actually married. Wedding rings sign and seal what is already previously true, grounded in a legit ceremony. Likewise, baptism signs and seals what is previously true of children of believers: they are holy and external members of the covenant, grounded in the profession of faith by their folks.
I hope that wasn't too brash.
So...who said it after all?<grin>
Your my favorite internet sparring partner- you always have interesting and thoughtful remarks. Now I had this argument about the differences between the Calvinists and Lutherans with Scott Clark once on a Lutheran site (the brothers of John the Steadfast) and brought a Lutheran Phd history prof (whose specialy was reformational history) into the discussion. They battled it out and I could not tell who was more right then the other. Calvinist's accuse Lutherans of being Nestorians and the Lutherans accuse Calvinists of being some other Christilogical heretics. I cannot remember which one it was. They both bring certain philosophical assumptions into the discussion (I believe the Lutheran philosphical assumption was Ockism and the Calvinist philosophical assumption is Platonism or neo-platonism. It got to be a bit high brow and I had to bow out. It was interesting though. Both also accuse the other of not staying faithful to scriptures in certain doctrinal matters. It probably is in the brothers of John the Steadfast archives somewhere if anyone is interested.
You are having as much fun with my comment about cutting the mother, and pulling the baby out and baptizing it a month after conception, as I did in making the comment. Actually, I was just using hyperbole in making the statement, and it got the reaction from my friends that I was looking for -- to have fun with it!
On a more serious side, you bring up the question about what would happen to the baby that died in the womb before it was baptized.
You bring up common sense, in regards to the possibility of the child going to hell before it was baptized, while still in the womb. It is not advisable to use common sense or logic in speculating the eternal destiny of such a child. Why? Using common sense and logic in such a situation is un-Biblical and going way beyond what the Scriptures teach us in this situation.
The child in the womb is dead in trespasses and sins, and is as worthy of death as Adolf Hitler, you and me. The Bible doesn't say what would happen to such a child. The Bible is silent on this issue, and since it is the secret, unrevealed will of God to not disclose it to us, we should not speculate.
I do know this, based on the Word of God, that baptism is a means that God uses to save babies, so, after birth, I certainly wouldn't delay in getting my child baptized and thus being assured that the sins of the infant are washed away during God's gracious Sacrament. (Although, not every child that gets baptized is saved. That is going beyond what the Scriptures say. I can be sure, that God is a fair and righteous judge, and He will do what He has determined to do, and it will be the right thing.)
John: Lutherans do not have a doctrine of "consubstantiation." This is a term that the Reformed us to describe the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper.
Regarding the views on the Lord's Supper; Jesus settles this issue on how we are to view the Body, Blood, bread and the wine, hence the Lutheran and the Biblical view of the Sacrament of the Altar!
As a Calvinist, it should go without saying I agree that such speculation is ill-advised, to say the least. But I fail to see what stops me from being tempted to it when you over-realize baptism they way you do. I mean, when you say, "Baptism effects faith and actually washes away sins," how can one NOT ask these questions?
You state, "I mean, when you say, '"Baptism effects faith and actually washes away sins,'" how can one NOT ask these questions?"
It is not I that affirms that baptism affects faith and washes away sins, but the Word of God.
What happens to a child that dies in the womb, is none of our business. God chooses to not reveal it to us. God permits, (decrees) that his elect infants shall be saved in baptism. Others, (adults) He determines to save with just the Word, without baptism.
John the Baptist and the children (infants) in Luke were simply saved by God, in His grace, apart from baptism. In this historical narrative, (which means that it is descriptive, not prescriptive) God is demonstrating that He creates faith in infants, just like He does in us (Phil. 1:29).
Thus, baptism is the only absolute "prescribed" means that God has ordained to effectuate the salvation of His elect infants. There is no other way for us as parents, that He has given us in His blessed Word, to impart His saving grace on our children.
Again, it is poor hermeneutics to build entire doctrines on historical narratives, rather than on the prescribed means that God has instituted for the salvation of His elect.
In the Book of Concord, regarding the Calvanists views on infant baptism, I want to make note of two quick points:
The Reformed teach: V.: Salvation does not depend on Baptism, so emergency baptism should not be permitted in the Church. If the service of the Church cannot be obtained, the child should be allowed to die without baptism.
VI: Children of Christians are holy before baptism, and from their mothers' wombs. Indeed, while still in their mothers' wombs, they are in the covenant of eternal life. Otherwise, holy Baptism could not be administered to them.
Where, may I ask, does the Bible teach that children are Holy while in their mothers wombs, based on the fact that the parents are Christians? Its not in there. Please don't bring 1 Corinthians 7:14, into it, as this passage has absolutely nothing to do with a child dying while in the womb.
Why use logic and speculation in trying to figure out what happens to a child that dies in the womb? It is not God's will to reveal this to us. Where the Bible is silent, so shall we be silent. God chooses to reveal Himself to us in His Son, as proclaimed in His Word and Sacraments.
What happens to a child that dies in the womb of the mother? Let Luther tell us why we should not inquire about such things:
"We are not curiously to inquire into his will; but we are to adore it with reverence as the most awe-inspiring secret of the divine Magesty which He has reserved for Himself and has kept from us ... We must speak in one way about the God or the will of God which is preached, revealed, and offered to us and worshiped by us and in another way about the God who is not preached, not revealed, not offered to us, and not our concern. Insofar, then, as God hides Himself (abcondit) and does not want to be known by us, He is no concern of ours. But we have to do with Him insofar as He is clothed in His Word and offer Himself to us with it."