# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1848 05 24_S166
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

all men, since the fall of Adam, being conceived and born according to nature, are conceived and born in sin (Ps. 51:7)" — that is, that they are all, from their mother's womb, full of evil lust and inclination" (which is, however, something more, and other, than merely having an inclination to evil) "and can have no true fear of God, no true faith in God, by nature" (by this last phrase the possibility of doing so of themselves is already cut off), "that this same inborn disease and original sin is truly sin, and condemns, under the eternal wrath of God, all who are not born anew again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit."

"Herewith are condemned the Pelagians and others who do not hold original sin to be sin, so that they may make nature godly by natural powers, to the disgrace of the suffering and merit of Christ." Now this condemnation, to be sure, does not fully apply to the doctrine of the Methodists; for in Article 8, "Of Free Will," they in turn teach that, since the fall of Adam, man cannot, by mere natural power and by means of his own works, turn himself to faith and to calling upon God, nor make himself fit for it. Likewise, Article 9, "Of the Justification of Man," says: "we are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ's sake, through faith, and not on account of our own works or merits."

Now although the doctrine of the Methodists here rightly testifies against the Roman church, on the other hand it makes itself suspect of a leaning toward that same church, in that it likewise does not properly call original sin sin, but only guilt — as though a son, against his own inclination, together with his father's estate, also had to take on his father's debts, which he himself had not incurred. But Paul says (and indeed not of sin that breaks out into outward act), Rom. 7:7: "I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Compare Matt. 5:28; 1 John 3:15.

Thus God proves to us, in the Ninth and Tenth Commandments, that the coveting of the heart is already sin.

Philipp. What, then, is their doctrine of Baptism in that printed little book? From their spoken sermons it never becomes at all clear to me what they think of it! What is certain, however, is that they are not in the habit of mentioning it with a single word when they extol the miraculous effects of the anxious bench or invite penitent souls to it.

Martin. You take the very word out of my mouth. For I was just about to quote to you what stands in that little book about Baptism, namely the following:

"Baptism is not only a sign of Christian profession, whereby Christians are distinguished from the unbaptized, but it is also a sign of the new birth, or regeneration. The baptism of children ought to be retained in the church."

Philipp. Is that all that is said about Baptism?

Martin. Yes! In Art. 16, "Of the Sacraments," it is said only in general terms "that God, through them, works in us in an invisible manner, and not only quickens but also strengthens and confirms our faith in him."

Philipp. What, then, might it mean, "that Baptism is a sign of the new birth, or regeneration"?

Martin. In no case anything other than that it is an outward image of regeneration — but not that it is an effectual means of grace for regeneration, and that in the outward sign of water it also actually confers and imparts the heavenly good thereby signified, by virtue of the word of command and promise of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is much as, for example, by the washing of the feet the Lord only pictured humility to his own, but did not confer it in substance.

This opinion, at least, of Baptism as a mere sign and image of an inner cleansing that takes place elsewhere, is the prevailing view of the Reformed church in all its branches.

One branch of it, however, is the Episcopal Church of England, to which Wesley belonged, and from whose doctrine, in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Methodists, as far as I know, do not essentially depart. The difference between the two lies more, in part, in the various forms, manners, and customs of public worship, and in part in the particular institutions and means employed by the Methodists for the "revival of true religion of the heart and godliness." (See the First Section: "Of the Origin of the Episcopal Methodist Church.")

Philipp. But what, then, do the Methodists make of the weighty proof-texts of Holy Scripture, which, in their plain and straightforward sense, unanimously testify that holy Baptism is not merely an outward sign and image of regeneration, but an effectual means of grace, and that regeneration is truly worked in all who do not, in wicked unbelief, resist the grace of the Holy Spirit? For does it not say expressly, Tit. 3:5: "God saved us by the washing of regeneration"? Does not the apostle Paul call it, Eph. 5:26, "the washing of water by the word, by which Christ cleanses his church"? Does not the same apostle say, Gal. 3:27, "for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ"? And did not the same Lord and Savior, who by the almighty word of his command (Matt. 28:19) and of his promise (Mark 16:16) made holy Baptism to be exactly what it is — did he not himself say to Nicodemus, John 3:5: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God"? And in this last passage, does not the little word "of" belong just as much to water as to Spirit, so that the two are joined together — which, however, happens in no other way than through the word of the command and promise of the almighty Son of God, so that the Holy Spirit works regeneration through the word in the water? And does not Peter likewise say, Acts 2:38, to those whose hearts his preaching had pierced and who said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" — does he not say there, "Repent (change your mind), and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"? Must not one forcibly put on tinted spectacles, in order not to see, or not to wish to see, that it is precisely through holy Baptism alone — as the washing of water in the word, and the means of grace ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ and therefore essential and effectual — that there comes to the person baptized, however weak in faith he may be, the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the putting on of Christ, the death of the old and the rising of the new man (Rom. 6:3–4) — in short, regeneration? It only vexes me that the Methodists everywhere claim that all their doctrine and practice is thoroughly in accordance with Scripture, while here, for example, in this important article, it is directly contrary to Scripture.

(To be continued.)

Methodism.

The Apologete, in No. 13, makes some communications concerning the alteration of the Augsburg Confession which, however, stand in need of correction,* since they do not contain the plain historical truth.

Melanchthon had altered the tenth article to read: "that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly presented (exhibeantur), with bread and wine, to those who eat"; and had omitted the words "wherefore also the contrary doctrine is condemned." It is evident to us at first glance how wavering, uncertain, and ambiguous this wording is, whereas the original confession expresses the truth with the greatest precision and definiteness. The Apologete now indeed admits: "since the Confession was the common property of the Lutheran church, Melanchthon certainly had no right to make this alteration on his own authority." Yet he also gives as the reason for it that the peace-loving Melanchthon sought, by such improvements, to remove ever further out of the way the cause of strife between the Lutherans and the Reformed.

Against this, the true evangelical Lutheran church has always disapproved of this conduct of Melanchthon's in the most serious terms. It was, unfortunately, a sinful love of peace and desire to please men

* Sources: the detailed Historia motuum by Löscher, and the Handbook of Church History by Dr. Guericke.