# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1846 04 04_S62
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

may be born again of water and the Spirit as children of God, but only as a symbol of the inner purity of the soul, etc. These are the helpers of your salvation who, so far as it lies in them, would rob your children of the saving power of this heavenly bath. — One might think one were listening to an avowed rationalist speak! I am convinced that an honest Calvinist would abhor this loose talk about baptism as a blasphemy against baptism — and should a Lutheran approve of it, or even give a silent Yes to it? I pass over a great number of other repulsive statements in the third form, and will say only this much about the fourth: this form, too, in no way denies its spiritual kinship with Nos. 2 and 3; in part it is purely Pelagian, locating natural corruption in the "power of the sensual inclinations"; in part semi-Pelagian, in that it ascribes to natural man a struggle between spirit and flesh; in part Reformed, in that it makes baptism into an "outward sign which guarantees the child the grace of God"; in part rationalistic, in that it again calls baptism the "consecration of Christianity." Now let a Lutheran Christian take his Small Catechism in hand, which answers the question, What does baptism give or profit? thus: It works forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe it, as the words of God's promise declare; and let him compare the Agenda with this, to see whether he finds the very same confession concerning Holy Baptism in it; then he will easily be able to answer the question posed above. I do not claim that a baptism performed according to this Agenda is no baptism at all, provided it is still carried out with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; but this I do claim: "If a Lutheran Christian who well knows the Lutheran doctrine of the sacrament of Holy Baptism and believes it with his heart approves of this blasphemous distortion of the doctrine of the sacrament of Holy Baptism, or even silently acquiesces in it, he thereby makes himself a partaker of all the grave sins that the authors of the Agenda have brought upon themselves." — In one of the next issues, a brief examination of the rite of the Lord's Supper shall follow, as it is prescribed in the Agenda of 1842.

Holy Absolution Vindicated against the Slanders of the Methodists.

(Continued.)

However clearly the doctrine of Holy Absolution is grounded in Holy Scripture, as we saw in the previous number, there is scarcely a doctrine that in this age of unbelief and enthusiasm meets with such general contradiction as this very one. Now one might indeed think that, since Scripture speaks so plainly, it would be unnecessary to waste a word on the objections raised against the doctrine in question, for whoever rejects this doctrine can surely not believe Scripture at all; such a person, then, could only be helped by seeking to convince him of the divinity of Holy Scripture; once that were accomplished, all doubts regarding the divine character of an absolution spoken by a human apostle would fall away of themselves. But as certain as it is that with most people — even the so-called "believers" — who oppose the doctrine of absolution, the trouble lies in the fact that they do not yet believe with the heart that the Bible is God's Word and that the Lord Jesus is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20), just so the Word of God itself tells us that heretics "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Romans 16:17-18) and "corrupt their minds from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:3). For the sake, therefore, of such innocent hearts and simple souls, easily seduced and led astray, it is indeed necessary to address the objections, to stop the mouths of the gainsayers, to take from them the poison of seduction, and thus at least to render harmless those who do not willfully remain in error and wish to be damned in it.

The manner in which people oppose the doctrine of Holy Absolution varies greatly. The most godless and infamous method that so-called believers can employ is the one used by the Methodists of our day, and now in particular by the Reverend Messrs. Nast and Mulfinger. For they deny not only that the Christian church still now has the power to forgive and retain sins; they even assert, in defiance of Christ's own sunlight-clear words, that even the holy apostles never had nor used this power. They reason quite correctly that, if they could persuade Christians of this, they would thereby have rooted out the doctrine of absolution, stock and stem, from every heart. But in order to achieve this purpose, they twist the words of Jesus Christ in a manner that must deeply outrage a Christian heart.

Thus Mr. Mulfinger writes, first: "The passage, 'Whosesoever sins ye remit,' etc., seems at first glance to be favorable to absolution." Afterward, however, he explains that, according to this passage, absolution is only the "authority to preach the conditions of reconciliation and of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus." We would not set down here this drivel of a puffed-up, ignorant novice, were it not that Mr. Nast declared it very "thorough and edifying," and cited as proof for it that a "great German theologian" of our time likewise says: "The power of the keys is nothing other than the setting forth of the conditions under which God saves or damns human beings."

Indeed, if anyone fails to see, from this sample of Methodist scriptural interpretation, that the Methodists do not take what is distinctive to their religion from the Bible but from their own heart and reason, what then could ever open his eyes? Consider, dear reader: when our Lord Jesus Christ gives someone the charge to forgive others their sins, this, according to Methodist biblical interpretation, means simply that one is to lay before them the conditions of forgiveness. So when Christ demands of his believers that they forgive those who wrong them, he does not, according to the Methodists, demand that they actually forgive their offenders their offenses — assuring them with their mouths that these are truly forgiven and forgotten, and regarding them in their hearts as though they had never happened — but rather Christ demands from them, according to the Methodists, only this: that Christians show their enemies the power, that is, what they would have to do, to obtain forgiveness. Is this not a fine way to interpret Scripture? Indeed, is this not — it is dreadful to say — to treat Christ's speech as though it were the speech of a fool who did not know how he ought to have expressed himself? Is this not to send the Holy Spirit to school? If one may interpret God's words in this way, to what word can the sinner still hold fast? What word still stands firm? What doctrine of Scripture could not, if this method were allowed, be exegeted (explained) right out of Scripture? — It is undeniable: with this the Methodists prove that they, as offspring of the Reformed church, actually stand on the very same ground as the rationalists.

For let someone just ask Mr. Lichtfreund whether he too believes that Christ, as the Bible says, has redeemed mankind. That gentleman will at once answer: "Why, certainly — for I by no means side with that somewhat-too-honest torch-writer in New York, who rejects the Bible as a book of lies and Christ as a deceiver; but of course one must not suppose that Christ has actually redeemed mankind; no, he has done this only insofar as he has shown men the conditions they would have to fulfill in order to be redeemed." Is the Methodist manner of explaining the forgiving and retaining of sins one hair better than this? Does it not resemble the rationalist manner as one egg resembles another? Whoever, then, still believes God's Word should be warned against the Methodist spirit; it is a spirit that has no fear before the words of God.

The words concerning the office of the keys are not the only ones in which this becomes evident. The Methodists deal just as recklessly and irreverently with the words of God concerning Holy Baptism, the Holy Supper, the imputation of Christ's active obedience, and the like. And would that this shameful contempt for the written Word were found only among the leaders of the Methodist congregations! But unfortunately this plague has infected, almost without exception, the poor souls who are led by them; for when one speaks with a Methodist, or with a Methodist-minded Evangelical, pseudo-Lutheran, or the like, one sees