This review of Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the doctrine of Baptism by Patrick Ramsey (in Themelios 34.2, 2009: 179-193) is going to be shocking to some. D. Patrick Ramsey believes it is arguable that “Luther’s own doctrine of justification by faith alone is compromised by or at least in tension with his doctrine of baptism, particularly his understanding of baptismal regeneration.” Ramsey states that “this paper will argue that Luther’s doctrine of baptism is inconsistent with his doctrine of justification by faith alone.” Ramsey, a Presbyterian, is not alone. Southern Baptist theologian John S. Hammett writes, “In fact, Luther, on other issues challenged tradition in the name of Scripture, used tradition to argue for infant baptism against the Anabaptists: “Were child baptism now wrong God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom” (Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. 267).
1. The Efficacy of Baptism:
Luther’s Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration
Luther believed there was “No greater jewel, therefore, can adorn our body and soul than baptism, for through it we become completely holy and blessed, which no other kind of life and no work on earth can acquire” (Book of Concord, 462; emphasis mine; see also 459).
McGrath writes, “Luther does not make the distinction between justification and sanctification associated with later Protestantism, treating justification as a process of becoming. Justification is thus a ‘sort of beginning of God’s creation,’ by which the Christian waits in hope for the consummation of his righteousness” (Iustitia Dei, 200). See also Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 107.
Luther writes: The most certain form of baptism is child baptism. For an adult might deceive and come to Christ as a Judas and have himself baptized. But a child cannot deceive. He comes to Christ in baptism, as John came to him, and as the children were brought to him, that his word and work might be effective in them, move them, and make them holy, because his Word and work cannot be without fruit. Yet it has this effect alone in the child. Were it to fail here it would fail everywhere and be in vain, which is impossible. (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; 55 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955–76, 40:244).
After the rite, the priest proclaims, “The almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given birth to you for a second time through water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen you with his grace to eternal life.” (Ibid., 375).
Also known as The German Catechism, this catechism, like its smaller counterpart, was published in 1529. Concerning what benefits, gifts, and effects baptism brings, Luther bases his answer upon Mark 16:16 and says, This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever (Ibid., 459).
2. Elements of Luther’s Baptismal Doctrine
But with the word, the water becomes “divine, holy, heavenly, holy and blessed.” (Book of Concord, 458).
Defining baptism as God’s work wherein he saves by means of his word or promise is a crucial aspect of Luther’s baptismal doctrine because he thereby avoids the error of Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans, “who forget the Word (God’s institution) and say that God has placed a spiritual power in the water which, through the water, washes away sin” (Book of Concord, 320).
Baptism is God’s work; and “God’s works are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith” (Book of Concord, 461).
Therefore, “if you desire to be saved, you must start from faith in the sacraments—anterior to any works” (The Pagan Servitude of the Church, 296).
Wanting to maintain sola fide and the saving/justifying nature of infant baptism, Luther eventually comes to the settled conclusion that infants receive the Holy Spirit at baptism and believe with their own faith (See Althaus, Luther, 364; John W. Riggs, Baptism in the Reformed Tradition, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 364–69).
3. Problems with Luther’s Baptismal Doctrine
The word and therefore God’s name is in the water. “And where God’s name is, there must also be life and salvation” (Book of Concord, 460). Consequently, the water of baptism is salvific. Ramsey, concludes, “Specifically, the infant is regenerated and given faith, enabling him to be justified.” (188).
“How can Luther’s demand for a conscious, individual fides explicita be reconciled with the statement that the infant ‘becomes a saint in the hands of the priest?’ (Trigg, Baptism, 4).
Luther says that “in case of necessity, a man can be saved without the sacrament, but not without the word; this is true of those who desire baptism but die before they can receive it” (Cited by Althaus, Luther, 349 n. 19). Examples of salvation apart from baptism include children who die before being baptized; believing adults who are unable to be baptized before death; and persons who believe they were baptized as infants but in reality had not been. (Trigg, Baptism, 41, 44; Luther’s Works, 40:258; 3:274).
Apart from these qualifications, Luther unequivocally stressed the importance of baptism for justification. (Ramsey, 189).
Later Lutheranism, and perhaps Luther himself, (Book of Concord 32-23). teaches that baptism achieves something different in adults than in children. This “strange position,” as Karl Barth describes it (Barth, Baptism, 46) states that baptism works regeneration and faith in infants. Limiting baptismal regeneration to infants, however, does not fully resolve the problem.
If infants can truly believe then why is it still necessary for them to receive baptism? Luther himself admits that Christ’s word was able to evoke faith in John while he was in the womb. (Luther’s Works, 40:242-43). This is also Wayne Grudem’s view.
Ramsey concludes his article: The necessity of baptism for justification is by no means a belief of a bygone era or merely a unique tenet of contemporary Lutheranism. It is advocated today, sometimes quite strenuously, by various sections of Protestantism. Those with the loudest voice belong to what is sometimes called “The Restoration Movement,” and are associated with the Christian Church and the Church of Christ. Some teach the absolute necessity of baptism for justification while others like Luther allow for exceptions.
An example of the latter is Jack Cottrell, professor of theological studies at Cincinnati Bible College and Seminary (Baptism: A Biblical Study). It is not surprising then that he paints Luther in a very favorable light (Jack Cottrell, “The History of Baptism, part one, From Paul to Luther,’ Christian Standard, 2004:7-9.
From another direction, a controversy has arisen recently among Reformed churches in America over this issue of baptism and justification due to proposals by the so-called Federal Visionists. Some have affirmed a form of baptismal regeneration, viewing baptism as a converting ordinance and/or as ordinarily necessary for entrance into the church and consequently for salvation, including justification (Douglas Wilson Re-Formed is not enough: Recovering the Objectivity of the Covenant, 103-7). Most striking in this regard are the views of Rich Lusk, pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL. According to Lusk, baptism is God’s instrument of justification and the means by which the Spirit unites a person to Christ (See his internet essays, “Faith, Baptism, and Justification,” http://www.hornes.org/theologia/rich-lusk/faith-baptism-and-justification, accessed May 6, 2009; “Do I Believe in Baptismal Regeneration?” http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/):
Forgiveness is not granted when one believes the gospel, but later at baptism. Hearing the gospel, faith, repentance, and baptism are a package-deal. Hence, Lusk tentatively suggests that the Apostle Paul was not forgiven on the road to Damascus, but a few days later when he was baptized by Ananias.
By viewing baptism as the ordinarily necessary instrument and occasion for justification, Restorationists and Federal Visionists fall into the same error as Martin Luther and either contradict (Restorationists) or undermine (Federal Visionists) the doctrine of justification by faith alone. As we have previously noted, God justifies the sinner the moment he believes and thus before baptism. Some attempt to evade this argument by distinguishing between title and possession. The believing sinner has the right to justification before baptism while he possesses it at baptism. But as Robert Dabney points out in his discussion of Alexander Campbell’s doctrine of baptism, this still does not comport with the Apostle John says, namely, the believing sinner has passed from death to life (Robert Lewis Dabney, Discussions (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982, 1:347–48).