The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Salvation unto Us has Come"

Speratus, this is not the version YOU yourself cited when you stated, "For the sake of completeness..." and then gave us a Lutheran hymn! I will remind you that YOU yourself stated, “Those in LCMS who uphold the Brief Statement say Luther, Chemnitz, Speratus, etc. taught the concept of Universal Justification.” Thus, I feel confident, even by YOUR own words, that YOU are incorrect. It is an Universalistic text (or at best Arminian) and thus doctrinally impure. When will you understand that LUTHERANISM is NOT reformed?


I agree it could mean "bondage of the will," but it was VERY unclear and thus I stated it could mean a lack of responsibility, especially since Speratus believes in universal atonement.

I am unsure what you are saying here? What I am sure of is false doctrine gives one no unity with the Triune God. The words of his hymn are not faithful to that which brings glory to God. A drop of poison in a cup makes the whole cup poisonous. Speratus there is the Doctrine of God and the Doctrine of Devils, if one purports not the Doctrine of God, then all he has left is …..

I am not trying to harmonize the two. Lutheranism and I reject atonement as pertaining to the elect only.

Those who uphold the Brief Statement of the LCMS see Speratus teaching, not only universal atonement, but universal justification. Those who reject universal justification say that the LCMS distorted later versions of "Salvation unto Us is Come" to promote universal justification.

Although not fluent in German, I have studied five english versions of the hymn from 1905 to 1996 (BTW, I posted the only english translation that included all 14 verses) and find there may be merit in their argument. The 1941 translation that packsaddle posted is the most pro universal justification.

The wording of later translations may have even been altered to promote universal atonement. Here's the original German. If you know German, judge for yourself:

1. Es ist das Heil uns kommen her
Von Gnad' und lauter Güte,
Die Werke helfen nimmermehr,
Sie mögen nicht behüten,
Der Glaub' sieht Jesum Christum an
Der hat g'nug für uns all' getan,
Er ist der Mittler worden.

2. Was Gott im G'setz geboten hat,
Da man es nicht konnt' halten,
Erhub sich Zorn und große Not
Vor Gott so mannigfalten;
Vom Fleisch wollt' nicht heraus der Geist,
Vom G'setz erfordert allermeist,
Es war mit uns verloren.

3. Es war ein falscher Wahn dabei,
Gott hätt' sein G'setz drum geben,
Als ob wir möchten selber frei
Nach seinem Willen leben;
So ist es nur ein Spiegel zart,
Der uns zeigt an die sünd'ge Art,
In unserm Fleisch verborgen.

4. Nicht möglich war es, diese Art
Aus eignen Kräften laßen.
Wiewohl es oft versuchet ward,
Doch mehrt' sich Sünd' ohn Maßen;
Denn Gleisnerswerk Gott hoch verdammt,
Und je dem Fleisch der Sünde Schand'
Allzeit war angeboren.

5. Doch mußt' das G'setz erfüllet sein,
Sonst wär'n wir all' verdorben;
Darum schickt' Gott sein'n Sohn herein,
Der selber Mensch ist worden;
Das ganz' Gesetz hat er erfüllt,
Damit sein's Vaters Zorn gestillt,
Der über uns ging alle.

6. Und wenn es nun erfüllet ist
Durch den, der es konnt' halten,
So lerne jetzt dein frommer Christ
Des Glaubens recht' Gestalte.
Nicht mehr, denn: Lieber Herre mein,
Dein Tod wird mir das Leben sein,
Du hast für mich bezahlet!

7. Daran ich keinen Zweifel trag',
Dein Wort kann nicht betrügen.
Nun sagst du, daß kein Mensch verzag',
Das wirst du nimmer lügen:
Wer glaubt an mich und wird getauft,
Demselben ist der Himm'l erkauft,
Daß er nicht wird verloren.

9. Es wird die Sünd' durchs G'setz erkannt
Und schlägt das G'wissen nieder,
Das Evangelium kommt zuhand
Und stärkt den Sünder wieder
Und spricht: Nur kreuch zum Kreuz herzu,
Im G'setz ist weder Rast noch Ruh'
Mit allen seinen Werken!

10. Die Werk', die kommen g'wisslich her
Aus einem rechten Glauben;
Denn das nicht rechter Glaube wär',
Wollt'st ihn der Werk' berauben.
Doch macht allein der Glaub' gerecht,
Die Werke sind des Nächsten Knecht'.
Dabei wir'n Glauben merken.

13. Sei Lob und Ehr' mit hohem Preis
Um dieser Gutheit willen
Gott Vater, Sohn, Heiligen Geist!
Der woll' mit Gnad' erfüllen,
Was er in uns ang'fangen hat
Zu Ehren seiner Majestät,
Daß heilig werd' sein Name.


It doesn't matter what Speratus believed if his words are correct unless he and his followers put a false construction on the words. If they do, you shouldn't sing the hymn in their churches.

Pilgrim already answered the remianed of the thread in another post thus I will contend only with the following.

Speratus words have MEANING. Why would Speratus invent a hymn that was against his held doctrine? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />

Why would someone invent a hymn against his held doctrine? It happens all the time. Let's take for example:


Rev. Bonar was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland. I could sing that hymn in a Lutheran church but not in a Presbyterian church.

Pray tell WHAT Presbyterian Church would prohibit the singing of that hymn. I'm referring of course, to a conservative, historic Presbyterian Church and not the likes of one of the apostate varieties, e.g., the United Presbyterian Church, the UPCUSA, et al which are no churches. Where in the world DO you come up with such ideas? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" />

Oh, I should also ask if you are going to answer J_Edwards direct question or not? These asides are entertaining but hardly salient.

In His grace,

I'm sorry I did not make myself clear. When I said I could not sing the Bonar hymn in a Presbyterian church, I did not mean that no Presbyterian church would sing it. I meant that I personally could not sing it.

Rev. Bonar uses the correct words but assigns incorrect meaning to the words. Because of Bonar's and his church's false Christology, singing that hymn in a Presbyterian church would be confessing false doctrine.

I hope that answers J Edwards question.

Speratus you missed the implications of the answer that you are avoiding. The historical Speratus either lied in his doctrine or lied in the hymn he prepared if we take your definition of its interpretation. Thus, when did Speratus lie and why did he lie? More importantly are you like the real Speratus? Or could it be that you were incorrect and just refusing to admit it?

Stop avoiding the question Speratus. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/3stooges.gif" alt="" />

Soooooo, what false meaning do you allege the Presbyterian Church gives to these words:

Thy cross, not mine, O Christ,
Has borne the awe-full load
Of sins that none could bear
But the incarnate God.

In His grace,

As I said previously, I will leave it to those fluent in German to the judge the accuracy of the translation I posted. Hymn translations often reflect the bias of the translator.

I concur with the doctrine expressed in that translation. As far as I know, the translation reflects Speratus' personal doctrinal stance as a minister of an Augburg confessing church.

We could discuss in a separate thread, if you wish, whether or not Westminster is saying that bearing of sins applies to both natures. It is clear from the "God Died?" thread that the intent of the Bonar hymn is not to teach that the Incarnate God bore our sins in His suffering and death but to attribute the bearing of sins on the cross to the person denominated by the other nature.

I had hoped that packsaddle would return, correct his misstatements, and answer your questions. But that seems unlikely. So I will attempt to correct some of your misconceptions regarding Lutheranism.

J Edwards asks:

1. So you and other Lutherans would have us to believe that one passes from being a "dead man" to a "spiritual man" through baptismal regeneration—a work in which man is involved!

Man is purely passive in regeneration. The work of regeneration is performed by God alone when and where He pleases.

2. Yet I must ask, from whence does this desire to be baptized come in an adult?

Same as in an infant. The Holy Spirit works faith through the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the Sacraments.

3. How do the dead (Eph 2:1) inquire of life when they are dead (Rom 3:11) in sin, for they are, according to your philosophy, not yet regenerate until they are baptized.

Your premise is false and contrary to the Augsburg Confession, Art. V. Baptism is not the only means of grace.

4. The unregenerate man cannot even understand the will of God (1 Cor 2:14; Rom 8:5-8), thus how does he know to ask and how can he effectually ask for baptism to be regenerate?

If he regards baptism as his work or the work of the minister, he has denied the gospel. If he believes through the preaching of the Word, he is already regenerate.

5. How do these enemies of God (Col 1:21) first make peace with God (Rom 5:1-3) and then ask for baptism to be regenerate?

Romans 5:1-3 does not apply to them if they are trusting in their own work of baptism not Christ alone. If they are trusting in Christ alone, the Holy Spirit has already made them regenerate.

J Edwards states:

“Thus, in baptismal regeneration, Lutherans (1) make man able to do things he is not able to do, (2) diminish God's grace to a mere aid, and (3) make the death of Christ a mere premise that is conditional upon man's act of obedience (rather than the finished and effectual work of Christ alone; i.e. a man does the water baptism, i.e. works)). This is nothing less than a false Arminian gospel—which is no Gospel at all.”

(1)Man does nothing in baptism.
(2)God does all in baptism.
(3)The grace of Christ is offered to all in baptism. The grace of Christ is received in baptism when and where it pleases God.

“When we read Titus 3:5 it states, “not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” It is significant to note that at no point in this verse is human activity ever the subject or means of any verb. Humans are the objects of the main verb (HE saved US, according to HIS mercy, by the HOLY SPIRIT). Thus, a sound contrast is given here. It is not on the basis of our works, but it is on the basis of God’s mercy that any are saved.”

Correct.

“Furthermore, baptism is not seen as a parallel activity—since the washing is not given as an unconnected function from the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (the Greek here states, “through a washing” not “through a Lutheran baptismal bowl for washing.” The washing referred to is wholly spiritual. It is that of regeneration and renewing, regarded as one concept (Ezek 36:25; John 3:5; Eph 5:26; Jam 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23). If, truly, "all our righteousness is as filthy rags,” then even the greatest of our deeds (of which baptism is a part) cannot merit eternal life. Regeneration does not depend upon our own will, works, or obedience (John 1:12-13; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8-10), but upon God's will and works and on Christ's perfect obedience in laying His life down for us (Eph 2:4-10; Tit 3:4-7; 2 Tim 1:8-9, etc.). “

Again, baptismal regeneration is purely passive on our part not dependent on our will, works, or obedience. And, yes, it is spiritual and renewing.

“Also, you stated, “Lutherans see Baptism as mostly "Gospel.”” What are the other part(s)? Please note that your argument about faith from Romans 10:17 is insufficient as it deals with faith and not regeneration. Regeneration is by the sole act of the Holy Spirit, and precedes faith. We are not regenerated because we believe, we believe because we are regenerated (2 Thess. 2.13; Acts 16:14). A person is passive in regeneration, but active in faith.”

Packsaddle was in error. The Baptism of Christ is all gospel; there are no other parts. Justification by faith and regeneration occur simultaneously. If regeneration precedes faith, we would be justified by the subsequent work of believing not faith alone or by an inner change rather than imputation. Lutheranism denies the synergism you propose.

“Your doctrines do not look at the whole of the Scripture as; (1) If baptism is necessary for salvation then why did Paul downplay/exclude it from the description of what is required for salvation? (1 Cor 1:14-17). (2) Christ was baptized (Matt 3:11-15). But, if baptism was for the remission of sins as Lutherans claim, then Christ "also" had his sins remitted, but if it was not to remit His sins, then the sins of men are not remitted by it. Christ had no sins to remit, thus man's sin cannot be remiited through baptism. (3) It is not essential to salvation. The thief was not baptized before his death (Luke 23:43). (4) OT saints, John, and many others in the New Testament, who were filled with the Spirit, were not baptized with water (Heb 11, Luke 1:15, Luke 1: 41, Luke 1:46, Luke 1:67; Luke 2:25-38), etc. Your doctrine in indefensible from Scripture!”

(1) Since salvation does not require the work of the preacher or the baptizer, your premise is false. Paul consistently excluded all human works from salvation.
(2) Lutherans testify to the words of scripture: Acts. 22:16. As our substitute, Christ fulfilled all righteousness. He who knew no sin became sin for us. In our baptism, our sins are washed away. In His baptism, He becomes filthy with our sins.
(3)Baptism is essential to salvation. Whoever rejects baptism can not be saved. ”Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. To what else do they refer than to Baptism, that is, to the water comprehended in God's ordinance? Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith; and Christ, who directs us thither and binds us to Baptism.” Large Catechism, BOC.
(4) John 3:5.

How can you hold to these contradictory statements with a clear conscience?

Those statements above the line say that anyone who believes the Word is already regenerate. And, if one is regenerate, then automatically faith is expressed. And further you say "Justification by faith and regeneration occur simultaneously." All this is in full agreement with Scripture; regeneration is the secret and sovereign work of God wherein faith is implanted in the newly created soul which infallibly reaches out and takes hold of Christ whereby the sinner is pronounced justified. This is the first and most essential element of salvation from which sanctification and glorification proceed.

However, you go on to say that "Baptism is essential to salvation" because in baptism "our sins are washed away". What pray tell is "justification" if not the remission of sins; the judicial declaration of God to the sinner that Christ's blood has washed away his/her sins and Christ's righteousness is imputed to him/her? Since faith alone is sufficient to obtain justification, then why is baptism "essential to salvation"? What is lacking in the means which God has ordained for salvation; faith in Christ? Is this not the very foundation upon which the Reformation stood; even Luther himself? (cf. Rom 3:22, 28, 30 [significant to see here is that both the uncircumcised and circumcised are justified by faith and that baptism, at least for us paedobaptists, having replaced circumcision is excluded]; Gal 3:11, 22, 24, 26).

In His grace,

Your assumption is incorrect; therefore, your conclusion is incorrect.


I find it strange that a person holding the WCF has trouble grasping the concept that "The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." The washing away of sins through baptism, forensic justification, is not tied to a moment of time wherein it is administered.


If we are justified by Christ alone through faith alone, tell me, how is it possible that someone who despises Baptism in Christ could have received faith in Christ?


Faith is the only means whereby the sinner apprehends the righteousness of Christ. But, God does not grant that faith apart from the work of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments instituted by Christ. Thus, God protects the sinner from imagining that faith comes through his own works, prayers, and secret strivings.

The contradictory remarks you made I quoted verbatim. From your response I must conclude that you are either incapable of defending them or unwilling to do so!

Wrong again! I am in complete agreement with the WCF on this matter, which I have many times affirmed publicly. What I have a hard time grasping is your unbiblical views. Further I do not appreciate you injecting your unbiblical ideas into the WCF which says nothing about the "washing away of sins through baptism"!!

[color:"bluesize4"]The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

9. Acts 8:36, 38; 10:47; Matt. 28:19

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

10. Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21; Mark 7:2-4; Luke 11:38

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

18. Rom. 6:3-11

The "despising" of baptism isn't relevant to the subject at hand which is the "efficacy" and "necessity" of baptism for justification/salvation. The WFC, Section V states very clearly that, "yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;". I heartily concur. Again, making baptism "essential to salvation" annexes the sacrament to faith and thus contradicts "Sola Fide".

So, now we are to deny the Scriptural teaching as to the origin of faith, i.e., regeneration of the Holy Spirit which comes through the Gospel found in the written Word (Rom 1:16; 10:14-17) and add to it that faith must come through not only the Word but baptism too? Sir, an adult comes to baptism having already believed. Adults who deny Christ are not qualified nor allowed to partake of baptism. Faith is a prerequisite for baptism. Thus, it is illogical to posit that one gains faith through baptism.

In His grace,

The WCF means by "not tied to that moment wherein it is administered" only that the one who is baptized is not necessarily at that moment made regenerate and justified. It does not mean that unbaptized believers have received the grace of regeneration and justification through the sacrament even though it has not been administered to them. (For grace can only be received through the sacrament when it has once been administered, not sooner.)

Furthermore, as Pilgrim has pointed out numerous times, the WCF states that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it." Whereas the WCF allows for salvation entirely apart from the sacrament, you insist that salvation comes through the sacrament even when it has not yet been administered.

In short, you'd best stop attempting to find Lutheran teaching on baptism in the WCF, because it simply isn't in there.