Although Martin Luther was born at a time when most of Europe claimed to be Christian, spiritual darkness reigned. God was seen as a harsh implacable judge, the gospel was not preached, and Christ was viewed as one who condemned sinners. However, that all changed on the thirty-first day of October, 1517, when Martin Luther posted ninety-five thesis (that he wished to debate) on the door of the castle church in Wittenburg Germany. God used the furor that Luther's thesis aroused, to bring the gospel (that he had been quietly teaching to his students) to the attention of all Europe.

    Through the Lutheran Reformation, God restored the gospel to His church, gave His people the Bible in their own language, and made it clear that the message He wants us to get from His Word is nothing other that what we read (2Corinthians 1:13). There are no hidden meanings! Instead, the words that are used mean the same thing that they would mean in ordinary conversation, and the divine doctrine consists of those truths that are plainly stated, “here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10, 2Corinthians 3:12).

    While the preceding paragraph should be easy to understand, past experience tells me that most people will read their own ideas into the words without grasping the significance of what I have said. What I am saying, is that when the Bible says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” that statement is God's doctrine. He has given us that doctrine and, that is the doctrine He wants His church to teach (Romans 6:23). The same holds true for every other doctrinal statement of Scripture. He wants us to teach what the Bible says, not “principles,” ideas, or explanations that we have come up with (2Peter 1:20).

    When the Bible says, “A man is Justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” then that is what God wants us to teach (Romans 3:28). Likewise, when the Bible says, “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” that is what God wants us to believe and teach. Therefore, the true doctrine is not some dark and mysterious teaching that can only be understood by “scholars,” but is instead that doctrine so clearly stated in Scripture, that no one can dispute the fact that it is in the Bible.

    I am not saying that everyone will agree with that doctrine, just that they will not be able to deny that it is in the Bible. For example: even though there are many people who refuse to believe that God created the world in six days, none of them can deny that the Bible says “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). Likewise, none of them can deny that the Bible uses the words “the evening and the morning” in connection with each one of the days of creation (Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31). In short, the doctrine that God restored to His church at the time of the Reformation consists of what the Bible clearly and explicitly says, and that doctrine is the standard to which all teaching should conform, and by which all teaching should be judged.

    During the first fifteen years of the Lutheran Reformation, that doctrine went forth with such power that Luther could say, “At the beginning of our preaching, the doctrine of faith had a most happy course, and down fell the pope's pardons, purgatory, vows, masses, and such like abominations, which drew with them the ruin of all popery. No man could condemn us: for our doctrine was pure, raising up and comforting many poor consciences, which had long been oppressed with men's traditions under the papacy, which was plain tyranny, a racking and crucifying of consciences.” (Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, page 124)

    Because the doctrine Luther championed was nothing other than what the Bible says, he “freely admitted that infant baptism is neither explicitly commanded or explicitly mentioned in Scripture. There are no ‘specific passages’ referring to infant baptism. The direct witness of scripture is by itself not strong enough to provide an adequate basis for beginning infant baptism were it not already practiced.” (The Theology of Martin Luther, by Paul Althaus, page 361)

    However, because infant baptism had been the universal practice of all churches from ancient times, Luther felt that He could not abandon it in good conscience. Nevertheless, once certain radical sects (known collectively as Anabaptists) began to attack infant baptism for all of the wrong reasons, he was forced to defend it. While some of those sects were moderate, others could hardly be called Christian. In addition, they disagreed among themselves and had little in common other than an emphasis on works, and a commitment to adult baptism. Furthermore, instead of helping the cause of the Gospel, they tried to discredit Martin Luther, while using their attack on infant baptism to justify doctrines that were clearly contrary to God's Word.

    Concerning those sects Luther said, “Many therefore gave thanks unto God, that through the gospel (which we first by the grace of God then preached) they were so mightily delivered out of these snares, and this slaughter–house of consciences. But when these newfound heads sprang up (who went about by all means to work our discredit), then began our doctrine to be evil thought of; for it was commonly bruited about that the professors thereof disagreed among themselves.” (Luther's Commentary on Galatians, page 124) [Note: A number of related sects, such as Mennonites, Quakers, and Hutterites still exist.]

    Because it was common for those sects to claim that infants could get to heaven on the basis of their own righteousness, without Christ and without faith, they were in effect teaching a false gospel that had to be opposed (Acts 4:12). At the same time, they were contradicting the passages of Scripture that tell us that death has passed upon all men (Romans 3:23 and 5:12), that we are conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5), and that we are by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

    Once that happened Luther could not have ended the practice of infant baptism (even if he wanted to) without giving credibility to those sects and opening the door to all of the false doctrines that they taught. Therefore, the effect of being forced to combat Anabaptist errors tended to move Lutherans in the opposite direction on infant baptism. That eventually led them to create a doctrine of infant baptism that is based on interpretation, rather than what the Bible explicitly says. [Note: The Lutheran confessions nowhere claim that the Bible teaches infant baptism, but do assert that infant baptism is included in the general command to baptize.]

    However, by basing a doctrine on interpretation, Lutherans departed from the Reformation principle of Scripture alone, and became guilty of something that they condemned Rome for doing, namely interpreting Scripture in the light of tradition. The Church of Rome not only interpreted Scripture to support unbiblical traditions, but also fabricated entire doctrines out of interpretations. In fact, because the Church of Rome based its false doctrines on interpretation, the Reformation would never have succeeded if Luther had nothing more to offer than another set of interpretations. The thing that set Lutherans apart was the fact that they stood on what the Bible explicitly said, and insisted that Scripture be allowed to interpret itself.

    In order to harmonize infant baptism with the idea that doctrine must rest on the bare words of Scripture, Lutherans have convinced themselves that three passages of Scripture actually teach infant baptism. Those passages are Matthew 28:19, Luke 18:16 and Colossians 2:11.

     In regard to Matthew 28:19, they claim that Christ’s words, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” command infant baptism, because nations include infants. However, when this verse is interpreted in the light of what the Bible says about baptism being a “baptism of repentance,” it becomes obvious that Matthew 28:19 is telling us to baptize those who repent (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38).

    While nations do include infants, they also include atheists, unbelievers and others who are unrepentant (Matthew 28:19). Therefore, the legitimate question is not whether nations include infants, but whether we should baptize them before or after they repent. The Bible then answers that question, by defining baptism as a “baptism of repentance,” and by giving us parallel passages that make it clear that Christ was talking about baptizing those who repent (compare Matthew 28:19 with Luke 24:47 and Mark 16:15–16). In fact, that is why Lutherans will only baptize adults who profess faith in Christ.

    In regard to Luke 18:16, the words, “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God,” are seen as a call to baptize infants. It is also assumed that they become part of the “kingdom of God” by being baptized. However, that interpretation would only be valid if Luke 18:16 was being interpreted in the light of passages that explicitly teach infant baptism. Because there are no such passages, that interpretation is a “private interpretation” (2Peter1:20).  

    Since the children being brought to Christ were Jewish, none of them had been baptized, and the girls were not even circumcised. Therefore, the fact that He did not baptize them tells us that He was not talking about baptism. Thus, while He clearly wants us to bring our children to Him, because the Bible nowhere commands or even explicitly mentions infant baptism, it is wrong to assume that infant baptism is the way to do it.

    In regard to Colossians 2:11-12, the words, “Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God who has raised Him from the dead,” are seen as saying that baptism has replaced circumcision. However, when we examine this passage in the light of what the Bible clearly says elsewhere, we find that the circumcision made without hands is not infant baptism (hands are used to baptize), but the inner circumcision “of the heart” that comes with faith in Christ (Romans 2:28-29). Moreover, the parallel between the circumcision “of the heart” and baptism lies in repentance, not infancy.  Only those who repent are truly circumcised at heart (Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6, Acts 7:51, Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38).

HOW INFANT BAPTISM DISTORTS THE GOSPEL

 
    Because the Bible DEFINES baptism as a “baptism of repentance,” the promise of forgiveness that is connected with baptism, belongs only to those who repent (Acts 2:38, Mark 1:4, Acts 22:16, 1Peter 3:21, John 3:5). Nevertheless, Lutherans who believe that the Bible actually teaches infant baptism, tend to assume that the infant receives forgiveness simply by going through the rite, and that is not only contrary to the Gospel but also to what the Lutheran church teaches.

In reference to that error C. F. W. Walther (first president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) had this to say:

    However, even though Lutheran theological writings, such as the one just quoted, reject and condemn the idea that baptism can convey forgiveness without personal repentance and faith in Christ, many Lutherans continue to speak of infant baptism as if the mere act of being baptized brings forgiveness, the new birth, and salvation. Even those who know what C. F. W. Walther said, often fail to realize that they are guilty of the very thing he condemned. In fact, if you pointed it out to them they would probably insist that they are not actually teaching “that the Sacraments produce salutary effects ex opere operato,” because they teach that the Holy Ghost gives the infant the faith needed to receive forgiveness. What they fail to see, is that they are still claiming that baptism produces salutary effects by the mere outward performance of a sacramental act, still assuming that something done without faith will bring God's blessing, and still giving the unrepentant a false assurance of salvation. Concerning that error, Lutheran theologian Dr. John Warwick Montgomery said, “Luther's actual objection to the church of his day was that it had become an end in itself, and no longer a means to an end. Luther's real objection was that the church had become SACRAMENTALISTIC, that is to say, people went to church feeling that if they took part in the prescribed sacramental rituals, in some automatic fashion their problem of God-relationship would be taken care of for them. They regarded the sacramental rites ex opere operato, as works having power already inherent in them – as virtually automatic means of salvation.” (Damned through the Church, page 55)

BACK TO THE BIBLE

    As I see it, the problem is not with infant baptism, but with the false claim that it is taught in Scripture. In fact, I would not object to infant baptism if it was presented as a matter of freedom in Christ. However, when the advocates of infant baptism create a false way of salvation, by claiming that God gives every baptized infant faith (and thus salvation), I cannot remain silent. Likewise, I cannot remain silent when Scripture is not allowed to interpret itself, or when a tradition that is nowhere commanded or even explicitly mentioned in Scripture is passed off as a doctrine of Scripture.

    While the Bible does make several references to forgiveness in connection with baptism, whenever those statements are interpreted to contradict what the Bible says about faith in Christ, the truth of the gospel is obscured. Therefore, since the Bible clearly tells us that God’s grace comes to us through faith in His promise of forgiveness in Christ, any offer of forgiveness that is connected with baptism should be seen as a promise of forgiveness in Christ (Galatians 3:6-22). In other words, God uses baptism (just as He uses preaching) to give us His promise, but it is only through personal faith in Christ that we receive what is promised (Romans 5:2, Galatians 3:22). C.F.W. Walther put it this way:

    Just as Scripture does not teach (as the simplest Christian knows) that the mere outward act of hearing the Word saves any one, just as little does it teach that the Sacraments save thus. The mere symbol, placed before men’s eyes, does not produce the salutary effect, but indicates what the Word proclaims. We baptize with water, which signifies that Baptism effects cleansing from sin, sanctification, regeneration, and renewal. What I am being told by means of preaching I behold in the external element of Baptism. The Word and the Sacrament produce the same effect in the heart. (Law and Gospel)

    The promise of forgiveness that God has connected with baptism is of greater value that anything this world has to offer. However, even though God uses the ceremony to give us His promise of forgiveness, because that promise is only meant for those who trust in Christ, only those who trust in Christ actually receive it. That being the case, the relationship of baptism to repentance and faith in Christ is just this, when someone comes to baptism believing that there is forgiveness in Christ, they depart believing that when they came to Christ their sins were forgiven, and that God now accepts them for Christ’s sake.

    For that reason, if we have faith in Christ, we have the true baptism, no matter how the water was applied, and if do not have faith in Christ our baptism is incomplete, no matter how the water was applied (Mark 1:8). Or to put it another way, just as those who had been circumcised, yet were unrepentant, were “uncircumcised at heart;” those who have been baptized with water, yet are unrepentant, are unbaptized at heart (Jeremiah 9:26, Acts 7:51, Romans 2:28-29, Mark 1:8).

    In that regard, it is also worthy of note, that even though Martin Luther had been baptized as an infant, he did not claim to be saved until he came to faith in Christ. In describing that moment he said, “I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise.” (Here I Stand, by R. H. Bainton, page 49) He later described true repentance this way, “That a man do first acknowledge himself by the law, to be a sinner and that it is impossible for him to do any good work… The second part is: If thou wilt be saved, thou mayest not seek salvation by works, ‘for God hath sent His only–begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.’” (Commentary on Galatians, page 68) By coming to baptism we do nothing to earn salvation, we simply accept God's offer of forgiveness in Christ. At the same time, God uses baptism to tell us, and all who repent, that He has washed away our sins (Acts 22:16, 1John 1:7-9).

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

    In regard to the practice of the Apostolic church, the Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say, “The whole early period knows baptism only for adults, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was indeed practiced also during the following centuries, yet only as an exception. In contrast to it the custom was widespread rather of postponing the baptism even of adults as long as possible in the prudent calculation that the complete forgiveness of sins conferred by baptism might be first undertaken at a time when the person considered that he had the main period of transgression behind him.” (1956 edition, Volume 3, page 84)

    The Augsburg Confession portrays infant baptism as a way of committing children to God. However, because the Bible nowhere portrays baptism as a way of committing children to God, it would be more in accord with God’s Word for us to simply ask God to receive the child in question into His care and bestow upon it His gifts of faith, forgiveness, and salvation. In fact, there is no reason why we cannot bring our infants before the congregation and, as a congregation, ask God to forgive their sin, receive them into His care, bring them to the knowledge of Christ and faith in His finished work, and keep them through faith unto eternal life. Such a practice would be in full accord with Christ’s admonition, “Suffer little children to come unto me” (Luke 18:16). And, we have God’s own assurance that He is able to keep the children we commit to Him “against that Day” (2Timothy 1:12).

    A more controversial option lies in the possibility of letting those who were baptized as infants confirm their faith by the baptism of repentance. While that suggestion runs contrary to a long–standing tradition that is opposed to rebaptism, because infant baptism is nowhere commanded or even explicitly mentioned in Scripture it need not be viewed as a rebaptism. In fact, since martin Luther regarded baptism without faith in Christ as incomplete, it could be viewed as the completion of baptism. Moreover, the Lutheran position has always been that “It is better to repeat Baptism than to be in doubt about the one that had been received” (“Pastoral Theology”, page 96). However, there is no real need to repeat the ceremony, for God accepts the baptism of all who have faith in Christ, and forgives any shortcomings in the way the ceremony was performed, just as He forgives all of our other shortcomings.

SO WHAT OF INFANTS?

    While the Bible clearly indites the entire human race (including infants), and tells us that through the sin of Adam “judgment came upon all men to condemnation,” there are some passages that seem to imply that the infant children of believers are saved (Romans 5:18). However, we do not base doctrine on what we think a passage implies! As I pointed out earlier, our doctrine is to consist of those truths so clearly stated in Scripture that no one can deny that that is what the Bible says.

    Therefore, what the Bible says about infants is just this: Psalm 58:3 tells us that the “The wicked are estranged from the womb.” Genesis 8:21 says that, “the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” And, Ephesians 2:3 tells us that we are “by nature the children of wrath.” At the same time, when David’s infant son died, he said, “I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2Samuel 12:23). And, Christ said of the little children brought to Him, “of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14).

    That being the case, the true doctrine is just this: No one gets to heaven on the basis of their own innocence, for all (infants included) are under the condemnation of sin. At the same time, because there is “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved,” if the infant children of believers are saved, they are only saved through faith in Christ (Acts 4:12). Furthermore, while the faith of an infant would obviously differ from the faith of an adult, because faith is a gift of God, and because John the Baptist had faith while yet in the womb, we cannot deny that it is possible for infants to believe (Luke 1:44). Therefore, when it comes to the infant children of believers, we need to pray for them, commit them to God’s care, and lead them to faith in Christ at the earliest possible age

    Sadly, however, I believe that parents often neglect to talk to their children about Christ during the first few years of their lives. While some neglect that responsibility because they think that their children are under the mythical “age of accountability,” others neglect it because they believe that baptism has given their children faith, simply by the performance of the act (ex opere operato). In either case, they are failing to bring their children to Christ.

    I began to talk to my oldest daughter about salvation when she was only three months old. Since I firmly believed that if she could begin learning a language at that age she could learn other things too, I would hold her and say to her “Jesus died for your sins, yes He did, yes He did. He died for your sins so that you could have salvation. Yes He did.” As I spoke, she would look right at me, smile, and take in everything I said. When she began to talk I would get her to say, “Jesus died for my sins” and, “I'm a sinner saved by grace.” Then, one day, just before she was two years old, she walked up to me while I was sitting in a chair, placed her hands on my leg, looked up at me and said, “Jesus died for my sins.” In reply I said, “Yes, He died for your sins so that you could have forgiveness.” After that she would go around saying, “Jesus died for my sins so I could have forgiveness.”

    My younger daughter had a very different personality. I saw a resistance in her that I did not see in her sister. For example, when I would say to her, “Jesus died for your sins, yes He did,” she would turn her head to the side and shut me out. By the time she was two years old, whenever I would try to get her to say, “I'm a sinner” she would adamantly reply, “no! I'm not a sinner! I'm not a sinner!” However, since I knew that children who resist their parents often listen to their peers, I went to my oldest daughter (who was just four), took one of her hands in my right hand and the other in my left hand, and told her that I needed her help to convince her sister that she was a sinner. I explained to her that if her sister would not admit that she was a sinner she would not be able to get forgiveness, and would go to hell when she died. When I got home from work the next day, my wife told me that my older daughter had taken what I said to heart, and had a long talk with her sister explaining to her that she had to admit that she was a sinner so that she could get forgiveness and not go to hell. After that, my youngest daughter was willing to admit that she was a sinner, but it was a few more years before she understood the way of salvation.

    When she was five years old I sat her on my knee and asked her this question. “If you died tonight and God asked you, ‘Why should I let you into heaven,’ what would you say? Her answer was, “I don't know”. I then said, “You know you are a sinner don't you?” She said, “Yes.” So I asked her, “Can you tell me what some of your sins are?” At that point I was prepared to mention such sins as fighting with her sister, etc. However, to my surprise she hung her head and said, “I lied to mommy once.” I then said, “Do you know that if that sin is not forgiven you will burn in hell when you die?” A shudder went through her as she said, “Yes.” Therefore, I quickly comforted her by saying, “But Jesus died on the cross so that you could have forgiveness. He already died to get forgiveness for you, but you need to tell Him that you are sorry you lied and that you want His forgiveness.”

    A year later I took her on my knee and again talked to her about salvation. When I asked her how she would answer the question, “Why should I let you into heaven?” she again said, “I don't know.” She had forgotten what I had said to her the first time, so we went through it again. I reminded her that she told me that she had once lied to mommy, and she admitted it. I then talked to her about Christ and her need for forgiveness, and we prayed. A year later we went through a similar session and I explained the way of salvation to her a third time. After that it seamed to stick. I noticed that her defiant attitude started to wane once she understood the way of salvation and began to look to Christ for forgiveness. I believe this was because the Holy Spirit was at work in her heart. Therefore, while she eventually came to faith in Christ, she certainly did not get it automatically, simply because she had been baptized as an infant.

    I never once told my girls to ask Jesus into their heart, or to go forward to be saved, because that is not the way of salvation taught in the Bible. I simply taught them that they were sinners and that Jesus died for their sins. They believed it, and that is what faith in Christ is all about (1Corinthians 15:1-3). I also never placed any importance on the day they were saved. Instead, I told them that the important thing is to know – right now – that Christ died for your sins and that you are trusting in Him for forgiveness and salvation.
 

CONCLUSION

    Because the idea that infant baptism will impart faith to an infant has no basis in Scripture, Lutherans who confuse that idea (or interpretations used to defend infant baptism) with Bible doctrine, have ceased to base doctrine on Scripture alone. Furthermore, because the doctrine that God wants us to teach is nothing other than what His Word plainly says, no church is justified in teaching any doctrine that is not clearly and explicitly set forth in Scripture, and no church has the authority to require anyone to believe something that is not in the Bible.