It has been claimed by the unlearned that Lutherans, and those Anglicans with similar theological thought, teach the same things that Romans do in regards to the sacraments. This idea is largely based in both a fear of anything that looks Roman (romaphobia) and ignorance of what the protestant reformers actually believed and taught.
The Lutheran/high church Anglican understanding of baptism and regeneration is not Roman. It is Biblical. Jesus says in John 3 that if you want to enter the Kingdom of God you must be born of WATER and the Spirit. The plain meaning of the text is that water means baptism.
There are other interpretations of that passage but they make little sense. Consider, for example, the view taught by Evangelicals, that Jesus was referring to the embryonic fluid in the womb and not the waters of baptism. Nothing in the text itself or the rest of scripture indicates that that is the correct interpretation of that passage.
Then we come to Romans 6. "Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life." New life? Regeneration? Baptism? It's all there.
Through baptism we have died with Christ and been raised to what? New life! There it is! Right in the text of scriscripture.
Want more? How about Colossians 2:12, "having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead." 1 Peter 3:21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." All regenerative sounding texts.
Of course they'll answer them away. "Those are references to Holy Spirit Baptism" they proclaim. But Baptism is Baptism and water is water. The problem is that instead of allowing the text to speak for itself they need to fit their own revivalist beliefs into the text regardless of it fitting there or not.
So then what is the correct view of these passages? How should we understand them in light of the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone? The answer is straightforward. Baptism is a means of grace.
What is a means of grace? They are any instruments through which God delivers the grace required for the quickening of faith. The preaching of the word, by way of an example, is a means of grace. The word is preached, the heart is enlightened, faith is given and salvation recieved.
Baptism, according to Lutherans and high church Anglicans, is "the word mixed with water." When the water is applied and the words "I baptized you..." are spoken the gospel is proclaimed. I call it the gospel in liquid form.
And this is consistent with the prayer book as well. Article XXV. Says, "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him." The article makes clear that the sacraments are not just empty symbols, but that they actually do what they promise. They quicken (create), strengthen and confirm faith.
But what about justification by faith alone? What about it indeed? There is no conflict here between what has been written thus far and the protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Baptism, according to the articles, creates that faith which justifies in much the same way that preaching does.
But that's not how the modern American Evangelical understands it. In fact... that sounds like romanism. But it's not. It is, as I've demonstrated by Article XXV, very much the classically Anglican position. The problem here has much to do with the fact that most modern America Evangelicals have departed from the teachings of the reformers in some pretty significant ways. The biggest is in regards to sound sacramental theology in their denial that God works through means.
Of course when you really drill into it no one really has a problem with the concept of God working through the means of preaching, or the means of tracts, or the means of gospel crusades. They just have an issue with God working through the means of sacraments. Because Romaphobia! And there in is the disconnect between modern American evangelicals and their forefathers in the reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment