Luther and Baptism
Read the article this discussion is about
- Bill_Samuel
- H2O
- JCSC
- H2O
- H2O
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» Bill_Samuel - The Baptism Rite
Luther referred to ...and whatever else has been added by man to embellish baptism.I would ask what in the rite has not been added by man?
Where does scripture call for child baptism?
How can a sponsor answer for a child, and it be meaningful?
-- posted by Bill_Samuel
» H2O - Added by man
Certainly many things in baptism have been "added by man"--sponsors, fonts/baptistries, the features Luther retained in his service.The Lutheran chucrh has historically agreed with Rome and the early Christian church in baptizing infants. While adult confirmands had a rudimentary knowledge before baptism, several times (the jailor in Philippi to name one) Paul baptism "...and their household." This would include children, infants, servants that were part of that household. Also 1 Peter 3:21 speaks: "Those waters were like baptism that now saves you." Peter is saying that baptism is a means of grace that effects salvation!
In the Lutheran rite, the sponsors don't speak for the faith for the child but rather that they pledge they will raise or assist the raising of the child in a Christian atmosphere.
-- posted by H2O
» JCSC - Article on Martin Luther's Baptism
I found the article very informative from a historical point of view. However in the first paragraph (not written by Luther) it says, and I quote: "My guess is that the desire is to go back to some of the more ornate, liturgical forms." This is a very bad guess and misleading, as Luther was not going backwards but seemingly just translating the Latin rite into German so it could be understood. And his Luther's comments at the end make it clear that he had differences with it.You may be interested in the following quotes I found on a SDwebsitete, as quoted from his "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" written in 1520 as found in Martin Luther Selections From His Writings, edited by JohDillenbergerer. Anchor Books, Copyright 1962.
The second point in regard to baptism is that it is a sign or sacrament: an immersion in water, whence the name. For the Greek wbaptizotizo means "immerse", or "plunge", and the wbaptismaisma means "immersion". (p. 298)
It is permissible to regard baptism as a washing away of sin, but this meaning is too slight and to express the full meaning of baptism, which is rather, symbolic of death and resurrection. For this reason I should that those who are to be baptized were wholly submerged in the water, as the term implies and the mystery signifies; not that I consider it necessary to do so, but I consider it to be a beautiful act to give the sign of baptism as fully and completely as possible. It represents something complete and full, and without doubt it was so instituted by Christ in the form of total immersion. (p. 302)
When you were baptized, your whole body was submerged and then came fourth (sic) again out of the water. (p. 303)
-- posted by JCSC
» H2O - Re: Article on Martin Luther's Baptism
In response to Article on Martin Luther's Baptism posted by JCSC:"My guess is that the desire is to go back to some of the more ornate, liturgical forms."
This is my comment, yes. I probably wasn't clear as to what I referred to. I was referring to the current trend to "return to ancient rituals" without looking into how and why certain rituals came into being. It is *not* my interpretation of why Luther retained them in the service.
John
-- posted by H2O
» H2O - An interesting piece
Thought I'd share this link in which the author refers to having an exorcism done, which he says was part of his baptism.http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=...
John
-- posted by H2O
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.