Tag: Sacraments

Stained glass depicting the Luther seal on Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2021, at Immanuel Lutheran Church, Seymour, Ind. LCMS Communications/Erik M. Lunsford

A Baptist, A Presbyterian, and a Lutheran Walk Into a Bar (It’s me)

April 26, 2026 / Chris / 0 Comments

Why I Became Lutheran (and Didn’t Leave the Gospel)

Around three years ago, a local church had teams going door to door to share the gospel and invite people in our neighborhood to attend services. Because we were out for a walk, we actually encountered multiple teams and had similar conversations each time. We were greeted warmly and asked whether or not we attended church. When I answered that we attended a Lutheran Church, you could sense their disbelief that we were believers. It isn’t my goal to be hard on the church that was out doing door-to-door evangelism. In fact, I used to do that myself while in a youth group and as a youth pastor. Instead, my goal is to explain how I ended up at a Lutheran Church and to provide some clarity for my southern Bible belt brothers and sisters about what that means and what it doesn’t.

Every Denomination Has a Spectrum

One reason we received such a look is simply that there aren’t many Lutherans in this area. However, despite Lutheran concentration in the Midwest, the real issue was the underlying belief that “Lutherans are liberals.” What that translates into is the caricature of a church that no longer holds to the confessions and has jettisoned all the ethical cargo as it sailed at breakneck speed toward cultural relativism and relevancy. What most people fail to realize is that every categorical denomination has a spectrum. There are liberal and conservative Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and yes, Lutherans.

The terms conservative and liberal are used to refer to those who affirm core doctrines and a basis of orthodoxy. Conservatives assert the authority of the Bible and generally use Scripture as the basis for forming theology and practice. Liberals recast the Bible as a guide for ethical discussion but are unmoored from historical orthodoxy or ethics. Back to the Lutherans in particular, the two major denominations are the ELCA and the LCMS. We belong to the latter, which affirms the five solas of the Reformation but also our confession in the Book of Concord. So, for anyone worried that my “going Lutheran” meant a denial of Christ as the only way to salvation or that the Bible would be jettisoned, you can rest easy. I’d also like to remind you of two things: 1) Your own denomination has its own liberal counterpart, and 2) Both your and my denominations have their own spectrums on a host of issues, even within our respective conservative wings.

How Can you Go from Baptist to Lutheran?

Not easily. My journey to Lutheranism began in the Free Will Baptist Church, settled into the Calvinistic wing of the Southern Baptist Convention for an extended period, and included a pitstop in the Presbyterian Church of America. It takes me a while to research and process, and it is difficult to open yourself up to reconsidering entire theological paradigms. After years of academic training and ministry, it’s rare to entertain such a transition. Nonetheless, the seeds were planted in studying the Scripture and the history of the church in a deeper way, and over the course of around fifteen years, they bore Lutheran fruit.

Allow me to add more clarity for my brothers and sisters who wonder how I could make such a change. Lutherans certainly do hold hard distinctions, which I’ll highlight next, but they are Protestants and hold much of the same core doctrine alongside Baptists and Presbyterians in first-order theological issues.

What I Found in Lutheranism

Conservative Reformation

The Lutheran Reformation is sometimes referred to as the conservative Reformation because it sought to conserve those elements of the church deemed edifying and consistent with Scripture. Later Reformers took it further, denouncing additional elements of the Roman Catholic Church. This often leads to the mischaracterization of Lutherans as “Catholic” adjacent because of the preserved traditions and liturgical elements. However, that’s an unfair assessment because any church that confesses the Trinity or the hypostatic union is also confessing aspects solidified in the Catholic Church.

Law and Gospel

Seen as a Biblical framework, interpretive grid, and paradigm of preaching, we see God’s revelation within these two main categories. These categories flow naturally from Scripture rather than being later theological paradigms that we read into the biblical witness at best or force onto the text at worst. The law condemns, and the gospel resurrects! The emphasis in Lutheranism on the gospel aligns with what I see in God’s Word, as Jesus taught us how to interpret the law and the prophets, and the apostles carried out their ministry with Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection as the focal point. These things were written that we might believe! The law of God is good, the gospel of God did what the law could not do, and together they kill any false concept of self-sufficiency or merit and raise us to new life in Christ.

Liturgy

Because we follow a liturgical order of service, we are often associated with Catholics. We are certainly different in doctrine, but there are similarities in form. Our clergy still wear vestments for the most part, reflecting continuity with the historic church. We confess the creeds corporately. Yes, we chant. What does that mean? We follow a musical pattern that is the same, even though we sing different Psalms or passages of Scripture. Not all Lutherans do this regularly, but it is common and certainly a part of our heritage. The service can be difficult to follow at first, but once you move from confession of sins through absolution to praising God with His own word, hear the good news of Christ crucified for you, and receive the body and blood of our Lord for the forgiveness of your sins, the peace of God may surpass all understanding, but it is yours.

Sacramental Efficacy

Ironically, this was the hardest hurdle to get over, yet one of the strongest connections and encouragements after I’d allowed myself to be open enough for the Word of God to feed and wash my mind. In the Lord’s Supper and Baptism, we believe that sins are forgiven because Scripture says so (Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38). The bent toward symbolism or a middle ground came much later. Lutherans hold a view more in alignment with the beliefs of historic Christianity regarding the sacraments. Why was the symbolic or middle ground view not prevalent prior? One simple reason is that the theological perspective developed later in the Church’s history. On a personal level, it meant forgiveness wasn’t contingent on the scale of my works or my emotions. It was given to me freely by grace because of God’s promises.

Head, Hearts, and Hands

In our Lutheran Worship, we recite Creeds, chant the Psalms, and stand and sit a lot. We receive the body and blood of Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. There are head, heart, and hand aspects of our makeup as those made in God’s image and in our worship of our creator. We aren’t merely brains sitting in vessels that need more data to shape us into the image of Christ. At times, I’ve felt that way as I sat and listened to sermons that were more like seminary lectures. Not perfectly, but with consistency, the Lutheran service targets the person as a whole.

Universal Grace

Despite my long-term layover in Calvinism, the scope of the atonement was always a question in my mind. While the system’s logical consistency is impeccable, it doesn’t square with the biblical testimony regarding the reach of God’s grace. This certainly rubs up against other doctrinal differences, but it is a critical distinction. “Limited atonement” became an issue that I could no longer reconcile with the biblical testimony of God’s limitless love expressed through Christ’s sacrifice for all (John 3:16, John 12:32, 1 Timothy 2:4-6, and 2 Peter 3:9).

For You

Because faith is objective and grace is universal, you can hear the good news of the gospel “for you.” Several years ago, I was having a conversation with a Calvinist about what I was hearing in a Lutheran Church, and I pointed out the “for you” nature of the proclamation of the gospel in the preaching. The response that I received was perplexing and concerning, although logically consistent. His reply was essentially that he just wasn’t sure he could do that because of God’s sovereignty. To be fair, not all Calvinistic theology strains at the universal proclamation of the gospel. However, that instinct toward logical consistency created hesitation to tell “anyone” that Christ’s atoning work was for them. That inclination and hesitation gave and gives me pause.

I was educated to be a Baptist, but going deeper academically and professionally pushed me even deeper personally. For a time, I thought the Calvinistic wing of Baptists, or even the Reformed camp, would suffice, but that’s not where the Biblical witness or church history pointed me. Beyond the intellectual, the spiritual benefits have stretched my faith as much as my perspective.

I can honestly understand the look of unbelief I received three years ago. In a region where Lutherans are often misunderstood, I hope the centrality of Christ, the universal nature of grace, the authority of Scripture, and the efficacy of the sacraments have been made clear. Simply put, it’s Christ for you.

No, I’m not a heretic, and I don’t believe Baptists or Presbyterians are heretics. No, I’m not a “liberal” in the theological sense of the word, but all of us have our respective theological counterparts.

Yes, I’m a Lutheran, and this transition has deepened and anchored my belief in the risen Christ intellectually, spiritually, and tangibly.

Baptism: A Decrescendo Case for the Lutheran View

December 30, 2025 / Chris

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.

Lording Logic Over Faith

November 24, 2023 / Chris

Logic and faith are not antithetical—however, only one leads to salvation. As I think back over my journey from Baptist through the Reformed and now to Lutheran, one of the strongholds I had to bring down was a rigid logical systematization of belief. Would I allow scripture to speak and form my belief, or would I superimpose my theological system onto the scripture? No better area highlights this struggle than the sacraments.

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper caused the most struggle in my transition. It took years of wrestling through the texts and recognizing my presuppositions to come to a point of open-mindedness. A combination of historical hubris, rationalistic reading, and a hint of Gnosticism was a recipe for lording logic over faith.

Historical Hubris

For the first 1500 years, the church accepted the efficacy of the sacraments nearly unanimously. Church tradition does not equal scriptural authority, but what changed in the next phase of church history? We must arrive at our conclusions from the text of scripture. Still, are those closer to the original author’s time or those centuries removed better temporally equipped to understand?

Ignatius, who was discipled by John, Augustine, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Cyril, and Thomas Aquinas, is a small sampling of the testimony of the early church for the bodily presence in the bread and wine. Zwingli departed from this and contributed to the many elements that hold a strictly symbolic view today.

The further away we get from the original events, the more likely we bring our cultural and philosophical baggage to the interpretive process. Does this mean we must hold all views that the earliest patristics espouse? No. However, to ignore their writings and teachings in favor of the contemporary is historical hubris.

Reading by Rationalism

If a equals b and b equals c, then a also equals c. That is exemplary logic. Does that translate over to Biblical interpretation? Does syllogistic law apply equally to scripture? How I understood scripture and formed theological convictions largely depended on a rationalistic reading of texts.

Sometimes, harmonizing seemingly contradictory thoughts in the Bible merely extrapolates our presuppositions. When this happens, we’re engaging in eisigesis. We assert that what the scripture plainly says cannot be the case because it rubs against the grain of our theological framework. We exhibit this tendency most clearly when we affirm the antithesis to a positive Biblical proposition despite the scripture not explicitly stating the antithesis.

Baptism is exhibit A. We see the passages that connect baptism to salvation and the forgiveness of sins, but we reason that they cannot mean what they say because it would “contradict” justification by faith. In our rationalistic bent, it doesn’t occur to us that God’s means are true and perfectly coherent despite our inability to connect the dots.

A Hint of Gnosticism

Gnosticism is multi-faceted and complex, but at its core, it has two key elements: a belief in secret knowledge and that the material realm is inherently evil. This mindset creeps into our perspectives on the sacraments as the secret knowledge of logic and our suspicion of the world and the flesh cast aspersion on any view that connects physical elements to faith.

With an inflated view of our knowledge on one hand and a distrust for anything material on the other, the efficacious nature of the physical means of God’s grace has two strikes. Supposing we are wise, we eisegetically undercut the wisdom that is the foolishness of the gospel revealed biblically in word and water.

How is it that we can affirm that a Jewish man was virgin-born, lived a sinless life, walked on water, raised the dead, and conquered death Himself yet stumble over biblical truths that don’t seemingly align with our theological system? Why do we balk at the supernatural when it defies our logic but not when it defies the laws of nature?

God’s revealed truth is never outdated, inherently contradictory, or subservient to our notions of logic. Do you believe that a particular divine Jewish man was born, lived, died, and rose again for the forgiveness of your sins? Christ is Lord over faith and logic. All of us should reflect on how we are prone to elevate logic over faith.