Martin Luther on Christian Baptism: IT SAVES!!!!!!

[Maple Leaf]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

"for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it. (Titus 3:5.)"

" Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it."

A laver of regeneration? ......HUH?

The name of God (i.e. Jesus)... inherent within the waters of baptism.? SAY WHAT???


Say it ain't so!! Martin Luther is such a hero to so many one steppers.

If a "3-step" conservative Pentecostal had written these words, certain one-steppers would accuse him of sacramentalism, salvation-by-works, etc, etc, etc.

But since their buddy Martin Luther is the one who said it... I'm sure those same folks can come up with some way to explain away the meaning of his words. .

The meaning of his words is very clear. He believed that when a baby was sprinkled at the baptismal font, the font from which the baby was sprinkled became a laver of regeneration.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

The meaning of his words is very clear. He believed that when a baby was sprinkled at the baptismal font, the font from which the baby was sprinkled became a laver of regeneration.

In other words, he believed that water baptism meant born of water.
He did not go very far from his Roman Catholic roots.
Today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, some Protestants (such as Lutheran, Anglican, etc.). plus Campbellites and some Oneness Pentecostals believe that born of water in John 3:5 means water baptism.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Sam

In other words, he believed that water baptism meant born of water.
He did not go very far from his Roman Catholic roots.
Today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, some Protestants (such as Lutheran, Anglican, etc.). plus Campbellites and some Oneness Pentecostals believe that born of water in John 3:5 means water baptism.

Sam, do you doubt it?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

In other words, he believed that water baptism meant born of water.
He did not go very far from his Roman Catholic roots.
Today, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, some Protestants (such as Lutheran, Anglican, etc.). plus Campbellites and some Oneness Pentecostals believe that born of water in John 3:5 means water baptism.

as did many of the Early Church Fathers.


“When we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we will show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God. Thus, they have renounced the whole faith… For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins… As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, just as the Lord has declared: “Unless a man is born again through water and the Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Ch. XXI, 1,2 (1, 346); Fragments, Ch. XXXIV

“ ‘Unless a man has been born again of water and Spirit, he will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.’ These words have tied faith to the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers were baptized. So it was, too, that Paul, when he believed, was baptized.” –Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch. XIII (3, 676)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Maple Leaf

You quoted my post before I deleted it. My intent was to show that Martin Luther is a two edged sword. Many on this forum will read the quoted passage and impute Oneness Pentecostal meaning to his words, but perhaps will understand Martin Luther differently if they read his full works. Here is another quote from the same larger catechism that further explains some of the terms in your quote.


Full Quote

I was hoping you would discuss his reasons for believing baptism is part of a Christian's regeneration. You haven't touched Luther's argument. I can tell you I don't agree with all of his beliefs but I do agree baptism is salvific because the Bible tells me it is. Luther just happens to have that aspect of baptism correct.

You are doing what is called Poisoning the Well:

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:


Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-the-well.html

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

"for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it. (Titus 3:5.)"

" Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it."

A laver of regeneration? ......HUH?

The name of God (i.e. Jesus)... inherent within the waters of baptism.? SAY WHAT???


Say it ain't so!! Martin Luther is such a hero to so many one steppers.

If a "3-step" conservative Pentecostal had written these words, certain one-steppers would accuse him of sacramentalism, salvation-by-works, etc, etc, etc.

But since their buddy Martin Luther is the one who said it... I'm sure those same folks can come up with some way to explain away the meaning of his words. .

I won't try to explain his words. I will state that I simply disagree with what it looks like he is trying to state.

Acts 10:43 states (paraphrased) that everyone who believes on Jesus receives forgiveness of sins, through His name.

If you believe you will be baptized.

Besides, unless Martin Luther is an, "One God, Apostolic, Tongue-talkin', holy roller, born again, Heaven-bound, believer in the liberating power of Jesus name", he is a FALSE PROPHET.

Bro Epley would not need to fall back on a FALSE PROPHET to back him up.

Using this FALSE PROPHET to back your opinion on what the Bible states is the same as using witch craft to validate one's holy magic hair doctrine.

[ReformedDave]

Luther was very inconsistent at times. He was very bombastic and had some quirks he never worked out.

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Shocked I say I am shocked and all this time I thought Maple Leaf was a con like us?

I find it funny that Bro. Epley is rejoicing over this from Luther as he believed Luther was a False Prophet

I suppose if Luther is supporting an Epley doctrine.. he is now a credible source

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Luther was very inconsistent at times. He was very bombastic and had some quirks he never worked out.

You mean he wasn't perfect and correct on every doctrinal stance he took?

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Dr. Vaughn

I find it funny that Bro. Epley is rejoicing over this from Luther as he believed Luther was a False Prophet

I suppose if Luther is supporting an Epley doctrine.. he is now a credible source

Who? Luther or Epley?