My son is due in the next few weeks, and amidst the deluge of impending changes and responsibilities, baptism has resurfaced to the top of my mind and heart. The issue was one of the original blockades to transitioning to Lutheranism; however, after deeper study, it became a theological topic that was biblically simple, clear, and full of power. After a few years of being Lutheran and with a little one on the way, this seemed an appropriate time to elaborate on my thought journey and solidifying convictions regarding this profound sacrament.
The strongest case comes from Scripture and then transitions to historical testimony and belief. I’d like to offer a decrescendo case for the Lutheran view of baptism along with some brief reflections on the objections.
The Biblical Case for Efficacy in Baptism
Efficacy doesn’t equate to a mechanical, faithless act. Baptismal efficacy simply answers a few basic questions in the affirmative. Does baptism do anything? Is grace given and are sins forgiven via baptism? The Lutheran view says yes. Set aside your theological, denominational, and modern evangelical assumptions for a moment and open your mind to what the Scriptures teach regarding baptism. It’s important to start with the passages related directly to baptism.
The most obvious passage to begin with is 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Most objections to baptismal regeneration from this passage boil down to denying that baptism means baptism, saves means saves, or that baptism now saves you means what it says. So, interpreters assert that baptism is not water baptism, that “saves” is not salvific, or that the thrust of Peter’s line of thought is metaphorical rather than actual. However, is this the plain, contextual, grammatical reading of the verse?
A simple survey of the usage of the original Greek words for baptism and saves indicates that the words mean what they mean at face value. Baptism is referencing water baptism, and saves is referencing deliverance from death in a spiritual sense. So, is the phrase “baptism now saves you” collectively referring to the efficacious nature of baptism, or is it a parallel figurative example of Noah’s deliverance? The flow of the language makes baptism an antitype of the ark, which literally saved Noah and his family from the flood. We then see the clarifying clause that this is not merely an outward cleansing, but that which gives a clear conscience through the resurrection of Christ.
Acts 2:38 specifically connects baptism with the forgiveness of sins. The grammar and flow of the verse does not allow for only connecting forgiveness of sins to repentance. Baptism forgives sins because Christ forgives sins, and Paul will give an explicit foundation for what happens in baptism to accomplish this. Romans 6:3–4 and Galatians 3:26–27 show us that baptism unites us with Christ in His death and resurrection into new life. This is not passive, symbolic language.
These are by no means the only passages, but they are an undeniable core of scriptural testimony that baptism is not merely symbolic. Neither is it merely a sign and a seal to “membership in the covenant community.” Baptism does something because God’s Word promises that it does.
We might discuss other passages that refer to washing or the washing of regeneration to bolster this; however, those do not disprove these passages if they are not referring to the sacrament and would only solidify the Lutheran view. Taken altogether, these core passages point us to the undeniable blessing, reality, and efficacy of baptism.
The Historical Case for Efficacy in Baptism
When we examine the earliest records of patristic belief and practice, we see near unanimity around baptismal regeneration for the first fifteen hundred years of church history. In simplest terms, we can say that the earliest and early church fathers held that baptism forgives sins. It was not merely a symbol, nor was it viewed as merely an empty “seal” to usher God’s people into a covenant community without forgiveness of sins.
One of the earliest written records gives us an implied understanding of baptismal regeneration as the prevailing consensus of the time. The Shepherd of Hermas tells a parable in Similitude 9, chapter 16 that emphasizes this view of baptism:
“For, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.”¹
Irenaeus was a second-century church father who likely wrote his magnum opus sometime between AD 150 and 180. In book 1, chapter 21 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus gives a clear purpose of baptism as “for the remission of sins.”² Likewise, another second-century saint, Justin Martyr, described baptism as clearly effectual:
“Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.”³
These are clear indicators of what the earlier leaders and thinkers in the church believed regarding baptism. Origen and Augustine, cited later regarding infant baptism, also affirmed baptismal regeneration along with many others. While the authority does not rest with the thinkers themselves, it is helpful and wise to ask ourselves whether they were in a better position to understand the passages and formulate belief as those with closer connection to the biblical authors, or whether the distance of fifteen hundred years was more likely to allow for a philosophical muddying of the scriptural waters.
The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism
Infants are not the only ones to be baptized, but the paradigm and flow of Scripture point to them being baptized. To be fair, there is no single verse or passage that explicitly commands us to baptize infants. For that reason, this falls lower down on the arguments for a Lutheran view. The case is solid nonetheless, but it should be noted that the case for believer’s baptism, apart from the efficacy aspect, also has a biblical framework and grounds for argument. Doctrines do not have to be specifically spelled out in a literal verse, although that does occur with some issues and makes things more theologically tidy. Nonetheless, the Scriptures give us multiple examples to point to the baptism of infants.
Scripture is replete with instances of faith in infants and children, and the paradigm of households coming to faith and being set apart via God’s commanded means is undeniable. John the Baptist looked toward the Messiah even before he was born (Luke 1:39–45). Jesus Himself said to let the little children come to Him and even pronounced that the kingdom belongs to those with faith like them (Matthew 19:13–15). We also see multiple examples of oikos baptisms where households come to faith (Acts 10:44–48; Acts 16:15; Acts 16:31–33; Acts 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). Together, these biblical examples and arcs point toward the conclusion that baptism is an act of God connected with a physical means that grants faith and is intended for His people of all ages.
One of the most common arguments for paedobaptism among the Reformed is the continuity between circumcision and baptism. Scripture explicitly connects the two:
“In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:11–12).
Lutheran belief largely overlaps with the Reformed on that point, but also extends the biblical foundation to include all of the scriptural pictures of salvation where God uses physical means to accomplish spiritual ends. We see that the entirety of the family was included in all of the explicit biblical connections to baptism. In addition to circumcision, those who passed through the Red Sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2) and Noah’s family delivered through the ark (1 Peter 3:20) are pictures of Baptism explicitly mirroring the entirety of the family in deliverance.
The Historical Case for Infant Baptism
While the predominance of early Christian belief affirms efficacy in baptism, there are more nuances and variations when it comes to infant baptism. Tertullian is perhaps the best example of the divergence of thought between affirming the efficacy of baptism on one hand while pointing toward believer’s baptism on the other.
“The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.”⁴
Nonetheless, the majority view is certainly in favor of baptizing infants. Origen states that the practice of baptizing even very young children “was received from the apostles.”⁵ Likewise, Augustine argued for an apostolic origin in infant baptism:
“And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority…”⁶
Again, the authority does not rest with figures of church history. However, seeing the continuity of the collective understanding of scripture in the early church and the underlying assumed paradigms as handed down from the apostles pointing toward efficacious, infant baptism should be enough for us to check our 21st century assumptions and let God’s word pour over our minds.
Some Clarifying Final Thoughts
As a Former Baptist
The current Baptist, symbolic view of baptism was an incredibly late development theologically and historically. Nonetheless, a solid biblical framework exists to espouse the believer’s baptism view particularly. Ultimately, I no longer find it convincing, but more importantly, I can no longer answer the following question with even a whimper of a yes: Does Scripture teach that baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change?
Contemporary Reformed or Historic Reformed
If you read the historic Reformed and if you poll the average Reformed congregation, you will often get entirely different pictures of baptism. The historic Reformed view is much closer to the Lutheran view, while the practical belief and practice within many modern Reformed churches is functionally closer to the Baptist view, with the exceptions of the mode of baptism and baptizing infants.
The historic confessions did not change, but the reaction against Lutheran thought in the aftermath of the Reformation, the emphasis on introspection through the Puritans, and a hardened stance against anything Catholic-adjacent on one hand or remotely “mysterious” on the other with the rise of rationalism contributed to a modern view among the Reformed that lacks the original robust emphasis. It is fair to say that their language has softened specifically regarding efficacy. A. A. Hodge was a prominent Princeton and Presbyterian theologian who didn’t shy away from the historic Reformed language while also holding a modified view in line with Calvin’s divergence from the understanding of baptism in the patristics.
“Inasmuch as this water is God’s testimony that the child you have brought hither is guilty and impure, do you present him herein to Christ, that he may receive the forgiveness of sins and the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost?”⁷
The point is that Hodge is comfortable using the language of forgiveness of sins and regeneration as explicitly connected to baptism even if he does not hold to its efficacy at the time of the baptism. Most in the Reformed camps today would not use that language at all.
Faith Alone?
Probably the most consistent critique of the Lutheran view of baptism is that one cannot hold to salvation sola fide and baptismal regeneration at the same time. However, this is a misunderstanding of the locus and focus of baptismal efficacy. The locus of baptism is God’s Word and promise, and the focus of baptism is the faith that God gives to the recipients. When a person is baptized, they are united with Christ in His death. If one holds to faith as a gift, then it is no issue at all to understand baptism as a means of God delivering that gift. Sins are forgiven, we are regenerated, and united with Christ by faith, and baptism is one way that God accomplishes this.
Objective versus Automatic
The Lutheran view differs from the Catholic view. The Latin phrase that describes the Catholic view of baptism is ex opere operato, which means that the act of baptism automatically works in and of itself. Lutheranism holds that the Word and promise of God are the basis of efficacy and that faith receives what baptism gives. God’s good gift of forgiveness in baptism is not mechanical, but it is objective.
Physical Means for Spiritual Ends
How can God use physical means to accomplish spiritual ends? This question has a gnostic undertone as it communicates a distaste for the physical realm. However, God has used physical means to accomplish spiritual realities consistently. God used a bronze serpent to bring healing to His people (Numbers 21:4–9; John 3:14–15), and He used mud and saliva to bring sight to the blind (John 9). Moreover, He used the blood of His only begotten Son to save sinners. The point is that God commonly uses means to perform miracles, bring healing, or to save.
What about Communion?
If baptism is efficaciously connected to faith, then why not also commune small children? This is a logical question to pose to Lutherans who argue for efficacy in baptism and practice paedobaptism. Again, the Scriptures guide us into understanding not only the significance and purpose, but also the practice of what they command. While baptism is a sacrament administered in a one-time event, communion is designed for the ongoing nurturing of faith, and we are commanded to examine ourselves and reflect upon our faith before partaking. This is the difference between what theologians have called direct faith and reflective faith. Infants are gifted direct faith but are not yet ready to practice reflective faith in keeping with the sacrament of the altar, according to God’s Word (1 Corinthians 11:27–32).
Why Does This Matter?
I’ve yet to quote Luther in defending the Lutheran view of baptism, but one of his concluding points from the Large Catechism regarding the significance of holding the line of the historical belief on baptism is excellent:
“Therefore, every Christian has enough in Baptism to learn and to do all his life… In short, Baptism is so far beyond us that if timid nature could realize this, it might well doubt whether it could be true.”⁸
It matters because baptism connects us to Christ, His death, and resurrection. It matters because it forgives sins. It matters because our baptism is not a symbolic act that we perform, but a saving act that God gives to His children. Let us not be timid in our approach to understanding baptism.
I’m not going to settle a debate that has raged for centuries, but my underlying point is that much of what is now disagreed on did not rage at all for centuries. The church has a long-standing tradition that stems from its understanding of the sacred texts. The Lutheran view starts with the promises and commands of Scripture and is bolstered by the testimony of a great cloud of witnesses of faith who held baptism in higher regard than is held by many Protestants and even the Reformed today. When my son is baptized, it will be a supernatural event that will capture my heart, delight my soul, and glorify the God who gifts him faith as He promised.
Footnotes
- The Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9.16, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
- Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
- Tertullian, On Baptism 18, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
- Origen, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 5.9.11, in Patrologia Graeca, vol. 13, ed. J.-P. Migne (Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857).
- Augustine, On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism 1.24.34, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
- Archibald Alexander Hodge, Manual of Forms: For Baptism, Admission to the Communion, Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Marriage and Funerals, Ordination of Elders and Deacons, Etc. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1920).
- Martin Luther, Large Catechism, Baptism, in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006).
Bibliography
Augustine. On the Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 5. Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Manual of Forms: For Baptism, Admission to the Communion, Administration of the Lord’s Supper, Marriage and Funerals, Ordination of Elders and Deacons, Etc. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work, 1920.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Justin Martyr. First Apology. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
Luther, Martin. Large Catechism. In Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, edited by Paul Timothy McCain. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006.
Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. In Patrologia Graeca, vol. 13. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1857.
Tertullian. On Baptism. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
The Shepherd of Hermas. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.
