Luther and Lutherans
By Timothy Glover
The term “Lutheran” was actually a nickname given to Luther’s followers by their enemies. It eventually became popular even among Luther’s followers. Toward the end of his life, however, he was quoted as saying, “What have I done, poor, stinking sack of worms that I am, that Christ’s children should be called by my unholy name? No, dear friends, let us have done with partisan names and call ourselves Christians, after Him whose teachings we have” (Luther, His Life and Times, pg. 374).
Luther did not have any plan of starting his own church. He was only concerned about teaching the truth and reforming the group of which he was already a member, Roman Catholicism. He began to question how a sinner would come to know the grace of God. Luther discovered that man is justified only based on faith apart from works. The context of the works of which he could relate was had to do with church rites, especially the selling of indulgences. According to Catholics, its purpose was to shorten one’s stay in purgatory. When Luther began telling people not to buy indulgences, it naturally bothered people who were making a profit like John Tetzel. He nailed his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg to challenge anyone to debate him on the issues. No one accepted the challenge. Finally, he was expelled from the Catholics in 1521 to live as a fugitive. During this time Luther taught justification by faith and that authority resides in the Bible that all should read and study for themselves. He believed that all can understand enough to partake of God’s grace. Luther contributed to the right and need of each to read the Scriptures. He was right (2 Tim. 3:16). We must continue to revive this spirit today and insist on following the Bible instead of a movement of men. Understanding Luther’s times helps us appreciate what he accomplished. Still, he did not see that faith itself works (Gal. 5:6). While we must not seek our justification by works, faith expresses itself through works. (To be continued)
Continuation…
We have shown in past articles Luther’s attempt to depart from Catholic teaching that salvation is earned or even bought. We have also shown that in going the opposite direction, Luther went too far. Paul teaches, for example, that faith works through love (Gal. 5:6). Although Luther rejected James as inspired, James illustrates this working faith and concludes that “man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (2:24).
In this article, we plan to point out that Luther also supported infant baptism even though he recognized that there was no scriptural authority for such practice. He is quoted as saying, “It cannot be proved by the sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles” (Luther, Vanity of Infant Baptism).
For Luther, babies are born totally depraved and can receive figuratively what he calls the “awakening call” through the “sacramental word”. So, infant sprinkling is practiced to insure their salvation if they die in their depraved state (according to him).
Yet, consider Mark 10:14 where Jesus teaches that the kingdom is made up of those who are like little children. If they are sinners, Jesus’ point is useless and wrong. Numerous examples can be shown (Mat. 28:18-20, Acts 2:38, every conversion in Acts, etc.) that believing and repenting are necessary prerequisites to the act of baptism. No baby is capable of such things. Thus, they are not ready for baptism.
Since Luther, efforts have been made to justify the practice of infant sprinkling. The only defense that I have heard other than the theory of total depravity is the examples of converts with their household. Acts 10:2 speaks of Cornelius, a “devout man and one that feared God with all his house”. Infants must be excluded as they do not “fear God”. In the case of Lydia, too many assumptions are made. It assumes she was married, that she had children, and that she had infant children. And, if such speculation is sound, it is also sound to assume that infants can believe. Notice Acts 18:8, “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house.” Would we insist that Crispus had infants in his house who believed? Another example is the jailer in Acts 16:32-34. Here, the word was spoken to all the house, and all the house rejoiced greatly...having believed in God. No infants are referred to in these passages.
