The Contemplative Lutheran

  Introduction The historical argument for Infant Baptism is not merely: “Everyone did it, therefore it must be right.” For the historical argument is, in reality, an historical-ecclesiological argument rooted in Christ's Promise that the Church will never fail. This we will unpack in contrast to the Credobaptist argument that, in overall effect, the Church did fail and therefore Christ's Promise failed. Now, the historical-ecclesiological argument observes that infant baptism has been practiced from the most ancient times of the Church both inside and outside of the territories of the Roman Empire. This issue of territory is actually significant because it shows that it was not a Roman imperial conspiracy, much less a Constantinian one. In other words, whether as far west as Spain, as remote as the British Isles, as far east as India and China, as far south as Ethiopia, and as far north as the kingdoms of Scandinavia, infant baptism was an undisputed practice. Christians in th...

The relationship between Original Sin and Original Guilt is a self-evident and necessary one. It is also frequently misunderstood. For if someone is able to understand Original Sin aright, then they still may stumble over Original Guilt. Upon examination, the reason for this stumbling is perhaps most frequently found to be, not in the concept itself, but in the English word guilt . For this word is both highly charged and polyvalent, and as a result ends up carrying connotations in the English language that, if left unchecked, create a formidable, yet unnecessary, impasse to understanding this orthodox doctrine. A little investigation will therefore be necessary in order to clarify just how the word guilt is being used in the term Original Guilt. It is also worth noting, since the English word “guilt” is prone to misunderstanding when translated from a colloquial, legal, or psychological context into a theological one, the danger is that a person can study the theological concept of Or...

  As counterintuitive as it may seem, to deny the doctrine of Original Sin is to deny God's grace in saving sinners.  Since death is caused by sin, the fact that children can die prior to any willful action demonstrates an inherited condition of sinfulness. Otherwise they would not die. Sin precedes death, therefore, where death is, there sin has preceded. As the Apostle Paul writes: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" (Romans 5:12).  All men sinned in Adam, even though they did not perform the selfsame action of eating that specific forbidden fruit. This is the Biblical view of death, especially given that Paul roots our death in the Garden Fall of Adam wherein physical and spiritual death are implicate in each other. He roots our sin in our very nature ( physis ). We are born with this nature, for born Fallen, "We all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying ...

  As the element of air conveys the Word to the ear in preaching, and as the element of light conveys the Word to the eye in reading, so the element of water conveys the Word to the body in baptism. Whether via the ear, the eye, or the body, which is to say through preaching, reading, and baptism, the Word of God is efficacious unto regeneration and new life. BUT THE QUESTION might be raised: I can see how air and light in this example each convey linguistic information, but how does baptism do this, too? I don't know how it would, unless one includes the baptismal formula. But even if that is the case, how can it be effective in the same way as the other two? That’s a good and important question. Martin Luther puts it well in his Small Catechism when he writes, "Baptism is not just plain water, but it is the water included in God’s command and combined with God’s word." So here we see the water is tied together with linguistic content, i.e. Trinitarian signification, and...