Some lies which surrounds baptism.

Baptism as something man does for God

Who is at work in baptism? Who gets credit for our salvation? The answer to the two questions is one and the same-the Lord. Many, however, see baptism not as an activity of a gracious God but as something that a believer does for God. Baptism is viewed as a sign, a commitment, an outward testimony that one has been filled inwardly by the Holy Spirit. Such a baptism is often called a believer’s baptism.

To understand how such a theology could develop, it’s imperative that we see where false teaching regarding baptism stems from. How can a Lutheran, a Reformed[1] person, an Evangelical, and a Mennonite pick up the same Scriptures and go to the same passages and come up with a completely different theology of baptism? False teaching regarding baptism does not materialize out of thin air. Those who believe baptism is something we do for God come at Scripture with a presupposition that baptism cannot be the work of God, completely and totally.[2]

There are different presuppositions that drive this teaching. And it must be kept in mind that not all who teach that baptism is a work of man hold to all of the following presuppositions. The first is a misunderstanding of original sin.[3] We are conceived in sin. We are born in sin. Not only do we inherit our pug noses and floppy ears from our parents, but we have inherited their sin, the sin which we can trace all the way back to Adam. If you deny original sin, or if you deny that those cute, cuddly babies have the capacity to sin, then all of a sudden baptism does not apply to them. Follow their logic: if baptism is for remission of sins, and babies cannot sin, then they are not to be baptized. Their faulty doctrine of baptism stems from their faulty doctrine of original sin.

A second misunderstanding concerns the will of man.[4] After the fall into sin, mankind is born with an enslaved will. “Not able not to sin” is how the dogmaticians describe man. To put it more simply, the baby coming out of the womb has no interest in God and no use for God. We are born alive by doctor’s standards but dead in matters pertaining to God (cf. Ephesians 2:1). And being dead spiritually we were hostile to God. We were born enemies of God. As we hear after the flood, “every inclination of his [mankind’s] heart is evil from childhood” (Genesis 8:21 b). St. Paul reminds us “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so” (Romans 8:7). Again, if you are wrong on the will of man, if you do not see man as “dead to God” before conversion, if you see mankind as being able to do his part, then you will get baptism wrong as well. Among those who were wrong on the will of man and as a result were wrong on baptism are a group known as the Anabaptists.[5]

The third misunderstanding is that of the ability of children, infants included, to believe. Many times when you get to the bottom of one’s opposition to infant baptism, you stumble across the false presupposition that adults indeed can believe, but not children. Again, follow their logic. If faith is necessary to receive the blessings of baptism, and infants are incapable of believing, then it follows that infants are not to be baptized. Those who are unable to give evidence of faith are considered as unworthy candidates for baptism.[6] Our response is that faith is neither a moral decision nor a commitment on the part of the believer. Rather, faith is a gift from God. Recalling the ground we have covered already, “My faith does not make Baptism, but receives it.”[7]

The fourth and final misunderstanding is regarding the means of grace. Those who teach that baptism is something that man does for God refuse to believe that God’s Word has the power to do what it says. Hermann Sasse explains:

The Reformed opposition to this Lutheran understanding of Baptism is therefore nothing else than opposition to the Lutheran doctrine of the means of grace as a whole. They are opposing the fact that God does not give His Spirit, and therewith the forgiveness of sin, life and salvation, to anyone apart from the external means of His grace, apart from the external Ward, apart from Baptism, or apart from the Lord’s Supper.[8]

We have addressed how water can do such great things. For those who hold to a believer’s baptism, they do not need to answer this question. The question for them becomes a “who cares?” For them baptism is not about God working through his powerful Word and water but about making a commitment to God, a statement of their belief, a declaration of their intent to follow in the way.

 When baptism is turned into a pitiful work of obedience by mankind, or when baptism is thrown out completely and babies are simply dedicated or blessed (like a house or a dog), how does that adversely affect the true teaching of baptism?

“Is there forgiveness for my daughter or son or not?” If the answer is no, then what is lost is the comfort of all the blessings we covered before. If you deny that baptism works forgiveness of sins, then your attention gets turned away from God’s gracious doing into something man does. How many people are wrongly directed to their “conversion experience” or to their feelings rather than to the objective reality that is their baptism?

Baptism as something God does for man

In the face of lies, confessional Lutheranism continues to sound the clear and scriptural teaching of Holy Baptism. Hermann Sasse said regarding baptism in Luther’s day: “As was often the case, Luther’s way was the lonely way between Rome and the enthusiasts.”[22] Our position is no less lonely today. Keeping in mind what is at stake here, it is worth it to travel the lonely road. We need to be no less clear today than our namesake at the time of the Reformation. In the sacraments, God is actually giving us the very things he has promised to give us. God works in baptism. God does it all in baptism. God does it all in baptism-for you.

So, am I a baptized?[23]

I realize that some who have gathered here today may have been baptized by Father Kurt at Kearney Catholic Church or by Pastor Joe at Broken Bow Baptist Church. After exposing where various denominations and churches go wrong with their theologies of baptism, we at the same time rejoice that baptism does not depend on the preacher or on the name of the church. “Lutheranism, exactly like the Roman Church and the Eastern Church, makes the validity of Baptism independent of the personal qualify of the person who baptizes and recognizes not only baptism performed by the laity but also infant baptism.”[1] The goal in exposing errors is not to plant seeds of doubt whether or not you were really baptized. Lutherans accept more baptisms than anyone because we understand what baptism is.

What makes a valid baptism is not the denomination but whether or not they have the essence of baptism. Churches may err when they deny the various blessings of baptism, but if they do not deny the essence of baptism, they still have a valid baptism. “One deals with what the sacrament is [essence], the other with what the sacrament does [blessings].”[2] The essence of baptism again is water, Word, and action with that water and the Word. More simply, those who confess the Triune God and baptize with water and his name have a valid baptism. And so we joyously confess, “We believe in the Holy Christian Church.”

Excerpt from a essay by Pastor John Bortulin,Truth and Lies about Baptism:An Examination of the First Three Questions

in Dr. Luther’s Small Catechism (With a Cursory Look at Modern Day False Teachings)

[The Pastor-Teacher-Delegate Conference of the Southern Conference of the Nebraska District, St. Paul Evangelical Lutheran Church-Broken Bow, NE, January 28-29, 2008]