I actually enjoy reading this kind of invective. This online attack on Luther's teaching on baptism is forthright and energetic in its denunciation of baptismal regeneration. It is refreshing to read a strong unashamed confession of belief.
Mr. Oswald is pretty close to getting Luther right. He simply thinks his teaching is grossly in error. But he is right : Luther does teach salvation in baptism. There is no sense in trying to capture Luther for your side or another unless you deal with the whole Luther.
The essay does a fair job of presenting believer's baptism as well. The contrast is clear.
5 comments:
What did you think (if anything) of his claim that Michael Horton and R.C. Sproul agree with Luther's sacramental theology?
I'm not familiar enough with Horton or Sproul to say. Off the cuff, no they do not agree with Luther. They strike me as more Calvinists than anything.
The guy in the web article, though, is a way radical Baptist. So from his perspective they are closer to Luther than to him.
Horton and Sproul are both of the Continental Reformed variety, which basically means that they're not as hard-nosed as your average Presbyterian. Horton can do Law & Gospel pretty well, and he really wants to find common ground. But no, in the end, it's still what the Confessions call "Sacramentarianism."
After reading it, I'm not at all sure that he captures Luther's thought. If you read Luther through the lenses of "baptism is our work" rather than "baptism is God's work", he [Luther] sounds like an idolater. In order for Luther to make sense, you must understand that God is the subject, and we are the object!
Poor Mr. Oswald just doesn't get it.
Yes, the author does not understand Luther's baptismal theology completely, how faith and Christ and baptism fit together.
What he does get is that Luther is no Baptist. He sees that and says it clearly.
Post a Comment