Are you an Old Lutheran?
Do you have something to say?
Send it: oldluth at protonmail dot com
Submitted by Sean Russell
A recent discussion online with a Baptist gentleman reminded me of two pivotal moments—both related to the sacraments—which finally tipped me over the edge to the point where I officially thought of myself as being more Lutheran than Reformed Baptist. The relevant part of the online discussion was this:
Baptist: Not true at all. Salvation (however you want to describe it) is brought by the baptism with/by the Spirit – same as circumcision made without hands. Water baptism comes after, as a testimony of that salvation.
Me: Well this is how the Apostle Peter explains it. Which Apostle explains it the way you say? “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV )
Baptist: Review that with other Scripture that describes how a man is saved and make sure you don’t put stock in that one passage, which may not say what you think it does.
Me: I’ll wait.
Unfortunately, I’m still waiting at the time of this writing, and I’m confident that I’ll be waiting for eternity. The truth is that nowhere in the Bible is baptism explained the way this gentleman explains it.
This point of contention—how the sacraments are to be spoken of—is the foundation of the two tipping points I alluded to earlier. Here are those stories:
Baptism for the remission of sins?
It was Easter Sunday at the Reformed Baptist Church. A handful of new members were being received into the fold through baptism, and everyone was excited. Our worship leader—a great man of God who I still love—was giving a speech in between songs. (I hate worship leader speeches, but that is a topic for another day.) During the speech, he said excitedly, “These people are about to be baptized for the remission of sins!”
After the song, he came back to the microphone to give another speech, but this time more somber. He said, “I have to apologize. I said something before the song that wasn’t exactly right. These people are not being baptized for the remission of sins.”
I was floored by this apology, but I took it as a simple worship leader mistake. Why would he apologize for directly quoting a phrase used multiple times in Scripture—a phrase so important to the early church that they enshrined its verbage into the Nicene Creed? He knew his Bible so well that in the heat of an impromptu speech, he quoted straight from it. Why did that scare him?
I spoke with him after the service, as I always did. I joked that he didn’t have to apologize for quoting the Apostle Peter in Acts 2. He laughed and said, “I know, but people take that so far out of context.”
I did not debate the point, since I was new to the study of Lutheranism and still considered myself a Reformed Baptist at the time. I did not know exactly where I stood, and yet I still knew that I had to be comfortable explaining baptism the way the Bible does.
This is my Body?
The second of the two pivotal moments happened during an evening service. It was the one time a month that the church gave the Lord’s Supper. I was excited because it was the first time in a year I had been able to get to the evening service, let alone a communion service.
As the pastor broke the bread, he said, “This represents my body.”
I was appalled. These were not the Words of Institution. What was stopping him from saying the correct words? I had one idea why. This time I did not follow up and address the situation, but I was now two sacraments deep into Lutheranism, because the alternative could not so much as stomach the direct words of Scripture.
Why Change the Verbiage?
Many jokes have been cracked at the expense of Lutherans for saying that is means is. It’s been said that “is means is” is a silly argument. But consider this: If “is” does not really mean “is” when it’s spoken by Jesus during the words of institution, why are some afraid of having the actual words of Christ in their mouth?
I contend that people who do not feel comfortable quoting Christ directly do so because they know what “this is my body” actually means, and there is no way to twist it while saying it verbatim. They know what they are communicating when they say the word “is.” They know that their congregants know enough of the English language to understand the definition of “is.”
This is the same with baptism. We know what “baptism for the remission of sins” means. We know what “wash away your sins” means. (Acts 22:16) We know what we are communicating when we cite this either in the Nicene Creed or directly quoting Scripture. So why be scared and apologetic about directly quoting the Scriptures? The reason is because some do not truly believe it, even when they accidentally quote it from memory.
Ok, so is means is. That’s one verse.
When Paul says that we are communing with the body and blood of Christ when we eat the bread and drink the wine, (1 Cor. 10:16) does that mean we actually partake of the body and blood of Christ? Are you comfortable saying that you eat His flesh and drink His blood? (John 6)
When Peter says baptism now saves you, (1 Peter 3:21) does that mean baptism is actually the means by which God saves us? Are you comfortable saying baptism saves? Are you comfortable saying that baptism is the appeal to God for a clean conscience, as in a conscience which has had its sins washed away?
When Peter says that you will receive the Holy Spirit when you are baptized, (Acts 2:38) do you believe it, or do you teach to the contrary? (See further: Acts 19:1-7) Can you tell someone to be baptized for the remission of sins, and they will receive the Holy Spirit?
The Verbiage Matters
My point is that as a Lutheran, I can use the exact verbiage of Scripture with plain definitions and without changing a word or qualifying a statement, to describe what I believe about the sacraments. Test yourself to make sure you are comfortable doing the same thing.
These words passed down through Scripture are the Christian’s heritage. These words have power. Words are how God created the world. Jesus calls Himself the Word. The word applied to the elements are what gives the sacraments their power. Words are not meaningless, and if we cannot use the exact words Christ and the Apostles handed down to us in order to speak about the work of the church, then we are not holding to right doctrine.
So are the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ? I guess that depends on what the definition of “is” is.
Do you enjoy this site? Help us cover our hosting costs and fund Old Lutheran Book Concern. Thank you!
