No Creed but the Catechism

I went to mail a package the other day and wound up getting into a strange little theological conversation. It was brief. To tell the truth, I was a little surprised, and didn’t quite know how to respond to the statement that offended me. The fellow saw that I was mailing some religious books. He asked me what denomination I was. I told him I was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. He seemed to know what that was, but then told me this: “I had dinner with two Lutheran friends from out of town the other night. The one I’m not worried about. The other one… too catholic! He talked too much about the catechism.” I thought to myself that the man he was worried about and I would probably get along better than the other “Lutheran” and I would. I knew I only had a few moments to respond in some way. Rather than being confrontational, or saying something sarcastic (which is my modus operandi), I replied, “God works through His Word when and where He wills.” I got a smile of approval, finished my transaction, and left. 

This attitude among Evangelicals really does kind of bother me. It falls under the umbrella of No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible. This is supposed to express that the person who professes this mini man-made creed doesn’t profess man-made creeds, and that they get their doctrines from the Bible, and not man-made theology. It’s not so much because of their smug sense of superiority when expressing it, but rather that they are so certain about something that just is not so. Not only are they professing a creed that is not “Christ”, one that is far inferior to the ecumenical creeds, they often subscribe to many books other than the Bible for their theology; books that take the words of Scripture out of context and teach things foreign to it, like dispensationalism (I’m looking at you, Cyrus Scofield).

Cyrus I. Scofield, creator of the Scofield Reference Bible

Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism (hereinafter referred to as The Catechism) falls into the second half of the mini-creed; it is a book other than the Bible. It must, therefore, contain the doctrines of men. After all, if it were Jesus’ catechism, it would have His name on it. There are, however, several problems: No Creed but Christ, No Book but the Bible ignores the reality of how men are converted, and how doctrine is preserved and transmitted from one generation to the next; also, my fundagelical friends have a misconception about what a catechism is. 

They don’t know what a catechism is, so they don’t know what they are missing by rejecting such a resource out-of-hand because it was “written by men”. The desire to obey God rather than men is good. We Christians should follow the example of our fathers in the faith who came before us and preached, taught, baptized, and worshiped in the face of persecution. But that is just the point: Christianity isn’t just me and my Bible, and you and yours, having personal experiences with God. Christianity is the death of Jesus as ransom for the sin of the world, and His resurrection for our justification.[1] And when a man is made a Christian by the working of the Holy Spirit through the means of the Word, he becomes a part of something bigger than himself – the body of Christ, the Church, the Communion of Saints, spread out through time and space, preserved by Him until the Last Day when Christ will come to judge the living and the dead, and establish the new creation. I don’t mean to wax metaphysical, but Christianity, rather than being a religion of “do these things in this prescribed way according to this rulebook,” is instead a religion of being. You once were dead in trespass and sin, and now you are made alive by Christ.[2] You once were dirty with the filth of your sin, and now you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God;[3] You have been saved in the waters of Holy Baptism,[4] where you were connected to Christ, His death and resurrection, clothed with His righteousness,[5] washed clean of your sin.[6] You used to be a fallen, sinful creature; now Christ has made you a new creation, by the grace of God through faith in Him.[7] Now, be forgiven. This is a concept that the unregenerate human mind, hostile to God, cannot understand.[8] We Christians can only begin to grasp it, and struggle with sin while we live here in the flesh because of sin living in us.[9]

What does that have to do with The Catechism? Good question. I doubt that most people even understand what the word catechism means, let alone what the book actually is. Catechism means to instruct by question and answer.[10] Consequently, a book containing a summary of religious doctrine in question and answer format is called a catechism. So, is The Catechism not a summary of Luther’s teachings? If it is, then my friend is right, I follow Luther rather than Christ, and I am a filthy pagan. But is he correct? Not hardly. Dr. Luther’s catechism is an instruction in the teachings of the Christian faith, as it had been believed, taught, and confessed since ancient times, using Holy Scripture as it’s foundation. In the preface to his catechism, Luther wrote: 

The deplorable, miserable conditions which I have recently observed when visiting the parishes have constrained and pressed me to put this catechism of Christian doctrine into this brief, plain, and simple form. How pitiable, so help me God, were the things I saw: the common man, especially in the villages, knows practically nothing of Christian doctrine, and many of the pastors are almost entirely incompetent and unable to teach. Yet all the people are supposed to be Christians, have been baptized, and receive the Holy Sacrament even though they do not know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, or the Ten Commandments and live like poor animals of the barnyard and pigpen. What these people have mastered, however, is the fine art of tearing all Christian liberty to shreds.[11] 

The Catechism, according to Luther, is a teaching tool, designed to help instruct people in the doctrines of the Christian faith, all of which are exposed in Holy Scripture. 

If someone claims that they only need the Bible, they probably mean to express that they are faithful Christians who hold Holy Scripture in high regard, and believe what it says. But how did they hear the Gospel? Did a Bible fall from heaven, open, in front of them? Was it a Scofield Reference Bible?[12] If so, are the notes inspired Scripture as well? Did they begin reading it without human interaction, with only the odd quiver of the liver to direct them? No. They were brought to hear preaching and teaching at church, Sunday school, Bible study, and by other Christians as they encountered them in their various vocations, etc. Did these other Christians simply read to them the Gospel of John? Did they answer each question directed to them with a bare quotation of Scripture? No. They summarized and taught, and pointed to the Word as recorded in Holy Scripture, preserved and handed down through the church by the working of the Holy Spirit, to show that what they were teaching was true. 

Some do this faithfully; others do not. But we know that the Holy Spirit preserves the Church in unity, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.[13] This Church, made up of all the faithful of all time, we cannot see, and call the “invisible” church. We seek to remain a part of this “invisible” church, and be faithful to that “visible” church (that gathering of people around the means of grace which is made up of believers and hypocrites[14]) which teaches all of the Bible’s doctrines purely, and administers the Sacraments according to their institution.[15] Moreover, we are called to avoid false teachers, churches, cults, and all organizations that teach contrary to God’s Word.[16]

What about all those people, probably the vast majority in human history, who were too poor to own a printed book of any kind? They had no Bible. How about those people who could not read? How did God make them Christians? Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.[17] Anyone who became a Christian was baptized and taught, and their teacher didn’t just read Bible quotes at them. If he was a faithful teacher and preacher, all that he preached and taught had God’s Word, understood in it’s proper context, as a foundation, just as The Catechism does. I wonder how my fundagelical friend talks to people about Jesus. Does he share his testimony? Does he explain how to walk down the Roman Road? Does he follow the method of Dr. D. James Kennedy? These things are attempting to do what The Catechism does: summarize Christian doctrine and deliver the Word of Christ (Though, I would argue, these other methods are far inferior to The Catechism, and distort God’s Word by teaching it out of it’s proper context).

The human heart is, as I once heard a faithful preacher say, an idol factory. We can make anything into an idol – including Luther – as Rome did with the Pope, as cults do with their leaders, and as some do even with the Bible (KJV Only movement, anyone?).

But creeds and confessional statements, like The Catechism and the Book of Concord of which it is a part, are wonderful things. They distill the teachings of Holy Scripture into concentrated bits that the Church can learn and confess together. They serve as a check for the layman on the preaching of the pastor. If he deviates from the doctrine of Scripture as they have learned it, it is the duty of the people to call their pastor to account. Confessional statements and creeds serve as clear examples of what men are teaching as the Word of God from Holy Scripture. Those documents are the best starting point for Christians to begin talking to each other in a serious and meaningful way about what they believe, teach, and confess, and working toward true Christian unity, so that we teach all things that Christ has commanded.[18]

God works through preachers, and teachers, and the liturgy, and the catechism, and books written by Christians intended to teach, and people talking to one another, and all kinds of ways, provided that God’s Word, the Word of Christ, is being delivered. God does not want to deal with us in any other way than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. Whatever is praised as from the Spirit – without the Word and Sacraments – is the devil himself.[19]

Bibliography

Concordia Publishing House. Luther's Small Catechism. Translated by Concordia Publishing House. Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1991.

Got Questions. "What is the Scofield Reference Bible?" Got Questions: Your Questions, Biblical Answers. July 26, 2019. https://www.gotquestions.org/Scofield-Reference-Bible.html (accessed August 20, 2019).

McCain, Paul T, Robert C Baker, Gene E Veith, and Edward A Engelbrecht. Concordia, The Lutheran Confessions: A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord. 1st. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.

Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1924.

Wikipedia. Dispensationalism. "Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism (accessed August 20, 2019).

---

[1] Mark 10:45; John 3:3-5, 10-17; Romans 3:21-26; Hebrews 2:17; 1 John 2:2; Romans 4:23-25

[2] Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 6:11

[3] 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

[4] 1 Peter 3:18-22

[5] Romans 6:1-14; Galatians 3:27

[6] Acts 22:16

[7] 2 Corinthians 5:16-19

[8] Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14

[9] Romans 7:13-25

[10] Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1924

[11] Concordia Publishing House, 1991

[12]  The Scofield Reference Bible promoted Dispensationalism, the belief that between creation and the final judgment there would be seven distinct eras of God's dealing with man and that these eras are a framework for synthesizing the message of the Bible (Got Questions 2019). It was largely through the influence of Scofield's notes that Dispensationalism grew in influence among fundamentalist Christians in the United States. (Wikipedia n.d.)

[13] Matthew 16:18

[14] Matthew 13:47-48; 22:11-12; Acts 5:1-11

[15] John 8:31-32; Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 1:10

[16] Matthew 7:15-16; Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:8; 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 4:1

[17] Romans 10:17

[18] Matthew 28:16-20

[19] Concordia Publishing House, 1991. SA III VII 10

Baptismal Regeneration: A False Gospel?

Caitlyn's Baptism - 2004
St. John's Ev. Luth. Church - Chicago, IL

I am consistently amazed at the visceral reaction of those who deny the efficacy of Baptism to any talk about how Baptism is efficacious. One person wrote a long response to my article, “Three Examples of How Lutherans DenyJustification by Faith Alone: A Response – Part One of Two,” decrying baptismal regeneration as a false gospel, and calling “water baptism” merely a symbol, commanded to be carried out on/by those who are believers. His comments are too long to reproduce here in their entirety (if you want to read them, simply go to the original article and scroll down to the bottom). I will, however, respond to two points the person made, as I think they get to the heart of the matter. Firstly, he writes:

“Water baptism is simply a remembrance. It is not the means of grace through which God provides salvation; that is simply ‘warmed over’ Roman Catholicism. The Bible asserts unambiguously that an unregenerate sinner is justified by faith alone in Christ alone. Trying to assert that water baptism plays any part in regeneration is simply a false gospel. Any ecclesiastical (church) procedure plays no part in justification.”

First, we have to deal with this term “water baptism.” To talk about “water” baptism is akin to talking about “food” eating. There is no baptism without water, as the Greek word “baptizo,” from which we get our word baptism, means to apply water either by immersing, dipping, pouring, or sprinkling[1]. Certainly we hear about things such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist said that the one to come after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire[2]. Understanding how language works, though, we know that when one applies a word like baptism (which means “to apply water”) to something which is not water, one understands from context that the speaker is using analogy. Continuing with our food/eating parallel, one might say, after reading an interesting book, “I devoured every word!” One would not mean that he engaged in any type of actual eating. Rather, he is saying that the book was interesting and he read it with enthusiasm. So, we must agree with Paul that there is only one baptism, and can dispense with the rather annoying and theologically loaded term “water baptism.”

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all (Ephesians 4:4-6).

Second, I understand what this person thinks they are trying to say, but he misses the mark. Perhaps this is just me knit-picking, but the Bible does not assert that “an unregenerate sinner is justified by faith alone in Christ alone.” I know this, because what this person is attempting to use in his argument, though he may not realize it, are the “solas” which came from Luther's theology and the Lutheran Reformation (you’re welcome, by the way). As I stated in the original article, Paul says we are saved by grace, through faith in Christ, and even this faith does not come from us. Back to Ephesians two, yet again:

For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

So, how does that faith, which is God’s gift, get to us, since it isn’t by work, so that men are deprived of boasting? It comes through his means – His Word. And, when God couples his word of promise with a physical element…voila! You get a sacrament. When God couples water and his word of promise, you get Holy Baptism, which is the washing of regeneration.

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by his grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:3-7).

So, you may say all day long that baptism is simply a remembrance and that it is not a means of grace. I challenge you to show me in Scripture where it says such a thing. You cannot. I, on the other hand, can, as countless orthodox Christian theologians have for 2,000 years, point to the words of St. Peter:

There is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

Emma's Baptism - 2006
Immanuel Ev. Luth. Church - Hodgkins, IL

Did you catch that? Peter says that baptism now saves us! And he clarifies, just so we don’t mistakenly think that he means the physical act of washing dirt away by itself. Baptism saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What wonderful news! If the commenter wants to maintain that, “…to assert that water baptism plays any part in regeneration is simply a false gospel,” he may take that up with the Apostle Peter if he likes. I will cling to the plain reading of the words of Scripture in their context.

That context is the comparison Peter makes between baptism and the flood and Noah’s Ark. Eight people were saved in the ark, “through water,” Peter writes, and in the next sentence likens this salvation (the shadow) to the salvation given by God in baptism, through the resurrection of Jesus. Luther, in his Small Catechism, explains it this way:

How can water do such great things? Answer: It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water. For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism. But with the word of God it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life and a washing of regeneration in the Holy Ghost as St. Paul says, Titus, Chapter three…this is a trustworthy saying (Luther 2008).

In the end, it is a question of what you see baptism to be. Is it God’s act, or man’s? Is it something God does to you, or a work of obedience you offer to God? Scripture is clear that baptism is God’s work, done using the hands of a pastor, and the power of the Holy Spirit, to deliver His gifts to us. It all comes from outside of us.

This brings me to the second point of contention. If baptism is so important in regenerating people, why did Paul say he was not sent to baptize? The commenter writes:

“It is interesting that Christ did not send the apostle Paul, his chief evangelist, to baptize, isn’t it? Instead, he was sent to preach the gospel. That is where the power is…in the gospel, not water.”

My friend, you and I agree. The gospel of Christ is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes[3]. As we have discussed previously, that is why baptism is able to work forgiveness of sins, deliver from death and the devil, and give eternal salvation to all who believe this: It is not simple water only, but it is the water comprehended in God’s command and connected with God’s word! That Gospel, of which we are not ashamed, is the power working in baptism.

Yes, Paul did write that he was not sent to baptize. He was, as he says sent to preach the Gospel. Here is the entire passage in context:

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect (1 Corinthians 1:10-17).

Paul did not baptize. He was sent to preach. Well, except for Crispus and Gaius…and also Stephanas’ household…and maybe some others he doesn’t recall…but he didn’t baptize! Paul is addressing the issue of sectarianism among the Corinthians and he is making the point that it’s good he didn’t personally baptize a bunch of people, otherwise these wretched Corinthians might say he was doing it to gain a following. Certainly Paul is not saying that his mission was only to preach separate and apart from baptism. Paul’s mission is the same as that of the other Apostles:

Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen (Matthew 28:16-20).

So, the disciples are sent here by Jesus to baptize and teach, but not to preach? Right, that was going to be Paul’s job…how absurd. Jesus gave the same mission to all the Apostles. The baptizing, preaching, and teaching can’t be separated out and any one thing omitted, because it is all part of them delivering the means of grace – God’s Word – to unregenerate sinners so that God could, by the power of His Spirit, do his work of making these sinners into regenerate Christians, when and where he willed to do so.

God comes to we who are spiritually dead from outside of ourselves, by means. Jesus is delivered to us through the external word, whether by reading, preaching, or through the Sacraments. The Holy Spirit uses those means, as he wills, to create believers out of unbelievers or, as the confessions say, willing persons out of unwilling ones. This faith is more than intellectual assent and knowledge and comes to us without our work, through the work of the Holy Spirit. Repentance? Another gift worked in us by God the Holy Spirit, and not something done of our own will.

That’s really as far as I know how to take this, so I’ll end with the words of the Small Catechism (which are really the words of St. Paul, because in this passage, Luther ends by quoting Romans):

What does such baptizing with water signify? Answer: It signifies that the old Adam in us should, by daily contrition and repentance, be drowned and die with all sins and evil lusts, and, again, a new man daily come forth and arise; who shall live before God in righteousness and purity forever. Where is this written? Answer: St. Paul says, Romans, chapter six: We are buried with Christ by Baptism into death, that, like as he was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life (Luther 2008).

Works Cited

Catholic Answers. "Baptism: Immersion Only?" Catholic Answers. August 14, 2004. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only (accessed June 22, 2016).

Joersz, Dr. Jerald C. "Baptism: Dunking, Sprinkling, or Pouring?" The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: News and Information. October 5, 2010. https://blogs.lcms.org/2010/baptism-dunking-sprinkling-or-pouring-10-2010 (accessed June 22, 2016).

Luther, Dr. Martin. "The Small Catechism." The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Lutheran Church. September 2008. http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php#baptism (accessed June 22, 2016).

---

[1] According to Strong’s Concordance, baptizo means “submerge” or, literally, “dip under.” It is used in the New Testament, however, to also describe the washing of things which would have been impossible to immerse (such as dining couches), or were not normally washed by being fully submerged under water, (such as the hands of the Pharisees prior to eating). See Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38 (Catholic Answers 2004). One Greek dictionary widely used by translators today gives examples of acceptable ways to translate the term and then says: “such expressions do not necessarily imply the quantity of water, nor the particular means by which the water is applied.” In some churches in Luther’s day the pastor poured water from the baptismal font over the infant’s head. Others immersed an infant three times in the baptismal font. Luther expressed a personal preference for this latter practice because of its symbolic significance (Joersz 2010).  

[2] Matthew 3:11

[3] Romans 1:16