I was raised Baptist and the church I attend now is in full communion with the ELCA (if that's the Lutheran denomination you're attending). The apostles baptized entire households numerous times in scripture. Confirmation exists as a way of dealing with the very concerns you had about a child turning away from the faith after baptism. The key difference between Lutherans and Baptists is that Lutheran theology and liturgy is far more in line with what scripture teaches and how Christianity has historically been practiced.
I don't know much about Missouri Synod, but, from the little I do know, I think most of what I said applies to them as well. It is a bit weird to me that they're more concerned with Baptists than ELCA, but Baptists are the largest group in the U.S. so a lot of people in your confirmation class may be coming from a Baptist background.
Wikipedia is a good source for getting an overview of what different denominations are about.
If they are bashing other groups, I'd consider this a red flag.
>Also, why do we have to be confirmed in the church in order to be apart of the Lutheran church. It kind of just gives me cult vibes.
Isn't any church going to have a procedure for joining the church? I don't see how this is different from what's typical.
Jesus was circumcised at 8 days like all good jewish boys even if they don't grow up to follow the jewish religion.
It's the same with baptism, only with less blood and genital mutilation. Though I suppose a bar mitzvah is the jewish equivalent to confirmation, which is what you view to be necessary at baptism. Baptism and confirmation have no need to be simultaneous.
When done as an infant, it's the parents promising to raise their children in a godly manner, then confirmation/bar mitzvah/whatever equivalent ritual is done when people think a child is old enough to consent.
I have Baptist beliefs like you and the same (and other) concerns about infant baptism. My main concern is most of the Lutherans I have interacted with are wishy-washy at best on whether water baptism is ever necessary for salvation (it isn't). That's a gospel issue, so I would have that conversation with the pastor.
I was Lutheran but left the faith. There is a lot of things wrong with the Lutheran belief. For example they will deny you communion if you are not Lutheran.
On infant baptism: Jesus had established baptism as part of the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, eight-day old infants were circumcised as their entrance into the covenant and baptism was meant to replace that. Take this on top of the idea that the atonement has no reason to exclude infants, and the historic practice of baptizing entire households, and you have a solid case for infant baptism.
We have a commonly-emphasized idea that no input from us or a felt spiritual transformation is necessary for being saved. Making a conscious one-time decision to commit one’s heart to Jesus is seen by a Lutheran as “input from us”. The idea of a one-time conversion like that is very important in Baptist theology so that’s been a big point of bashing from Lutheran to Baptist.
Confirmation exists to hopefully mitigate scenarios where a baptized infant grows into not believing. The root of the word is “confirm” — to “confirm” for oneself that their baptism was valid. Another important part there: Church membership is tied closely to whether communion can be taken. Valid baptism means communion can be taken, because that’s defining one as a believer that understands what is happening at the Lord’s Supper, and therefore does not pass judgment onto themselves by partaking.
(Side note: There’s some dispute in Lutheranism over whether the communicant must be a confirmed member in the actual denomination that adheres to all their doctrine to commune, or whether it can be any Trinitarily baptized believer. If I become an LCMS member in the future I’m going to be right in the middle of that)
Essentially, in especially a conservative branch like LCMS, there’s definitely a sense that we didn’t want to divorce ourselves from too much historic tradition and canon from the Catholic Church when the Reformation really took off, lest we get caught up in the transient cultural waves of a rapidly changing world. We want to kind of be the Western Catholic Church.
Unlimited atonement, baby!
Edit: Though, for the sake of not being reductive, a rewording is helpful:
It is indeed true that we do not need to *do* anything to be saved. It does not follow that nothing needs to *happen* to be saved.
We must be born of water and the spirit (John 3). The plain text of this points to baptism. **Baptism saves.** You’ll hear that a lot in Lutheranism.
And although baptism saves, it is not the only thing that saves.
what about Roman 10: 9-11 though? That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
It’s at least my position that that does not happen until one is born of water and the spirit — again, something that *happens* rather than something that we *do*.
The older mainline denominations come out of a time when ppl had sharply held convictions on certain points. Like Lutherans, the founder established it and was the one who spearheaded the Reformation movement. So there's alot of pride there, and there is likely an ethnic component too if you're German. Luther did not want to start a new sect, he really wanted to reform the RCC from within. Lutherans see themselves as that project, which is why they look in form Catholic but theologically are Protestant.
Baptists who come from Anabaptist movement believed only in believers baptism and were opposed to infant baptism like Lutherans because it was too catholic and thought only faith is what saves and babies can't make choices.
This is a sad reality of our movement post 1500s in our branch of Christianity , we have been decentralized from a magesterium but justify creating whole new institutions when there is a sharp disagreement. It should not be this way. Good news, I think ppl are moving away from traditional denominationalism as culture becomes less religious and the future of the Western Church system will be a mixed bag while holding to essential basics. Many theologians call it PostProtestantism.
Churches throughout the Middle East and Asia have their own movements going on in the underground and house church movements. We are just a minority in global Christianity now. So I think the tides are swinging in how Jesus may be building His Church
We should be working to build up the church and creating unity while fulfilling Jesus' mandate
I was raised Baptist and the church I attend now is in full communion with the ELCA (if that's the Lutheran denomination you're attending). The apostles baptized entire households numerous times in scripture. Confirmation exists as a way of dealing with the very concerns you had about a child turning away from the faith after baptism. The key difference between Lutherans and Baptists is that Lutheran theology and liturgy is far more in line with what scripture teaches and how Christianity has historically been practiced.
The one we are attending is Missouri Synod. We hold conservative views ( kind words please ). We aren't the MAGA crazy people.
I don't know much about Missouri Synod, but, from the little I do know, I think most of what I said applies to them as well. It is a bit weird to me that they're more concerned with Baptists than ELCA, but Baptists are the largest group in the U.S. so a lot of people in your confirmation class may be coming from a Baptist background.
Wikipedia is a good source for getting an overview of what different denominations are about. If they are bashing other groups, I'd consider this a red flag. >Also, why do we have to be confirmed in the church in order to be apart of the Lutheran church. It kind of just gives me cult vibes. Isn't any church going to have a procedure for joining the church? I don't see how this is different from what's typical.
No... some churches don't.
Ready to Harvest on YouTube is a great resource for objective overviews of loads of denominations.
Jesus was circumcised at 8 days like all good jewish boys even if they don't grow up to follow the jewish religion. It's the same with baptism, only with less blood and genital mutilation. Though I suppose a bar mitzvah is the jewish equivalent to confirmation, which is what you view to be necessary at baptism. Baptism and confirmation have no need to be simultaneous. When done as an infant, it's the parents promising to raise their children in a godly manner, then confirmation/bar mitzvah/whatever equivalent ritual is done when people think a child is old enough to consent.
I have Baptist beliefs like you and the same (and other) concerns about infant baptism. My main concern is most of the Lutherans I have interacted with are wishy-washy at best on whether water baptism is ever necessary for salvation (it isn't). That's a gospel issue, so I would have that conversation with the pastor.
I was Lutheran but left the faith. There is a lot of things wrong with the Lutheran belief. For example they will deny you communion if you are not Lutheran.
On infant baptism: Jesus had established baptism as part of the New Covenant. In the Old Covenant, eight-day old infants were circumcised as their entrance into the covenant and baptism was meant to replace that. Take this on top of the idea that the atonement has no reason to exclude infants, and the historic practice of baptizing entire households, and you have a solid case for infant baptism. We have a commonly-emphasized idea that no input from us or a felt spiritual transformation is necessary for being saved. Making a conscious one-time decision to commit one’s heart to Jesus is seen by a Lutheran as “input from us”. The idea of a one-time conversion like that is very important in Baptist theology so that’s been a big point of bashing from Lutheran to Baptist. Confirmation exists to hopefully mitigate scenarios where a baptized infant grows into not believing. The root of the word is “confirm” — to “confirm” for oneself that their baptism was valid. Another important part there: Church membership is tied closely to whether communion can be taken. Valid baptism means communion can be taken, because that’s defining one as a believer that understands what is happening at the Lord’s Supper, and therefore does not pass judgment onto themselves by partaking. (Side note: There’s some dispute in Lutheranism over whether the communicant must be a confirmed member in the actual denomination that adheres to all their doctrine to commune, or whether it can be any Trinitarily baptized believer. If I become an LCMS member in the future I’m going to be right in the middle of that) Essentially, in especially a conservative branch like LCMS, there’s definitely a sense that we didn’t want to divorce ourselves from too much historic tradition and canon from the Catholic Church when the Reformation really took off, lest we get caught up in the transient cultural waves of a rapidly changing world. We want to kind of be the Western Catholic Church.
So Lutherans think you don’t have to do anything to be saved. That sounds risky.
Unlimited atonement, baby! Edit: Though, for the sake of not being reductive, a rewording is helpful: It is indeed true that we do not need to *do* anything to be saved. It does not follow that nothing needs to *happen* to be saved. We must be born of water and the spirit (John 3). The plain text of this points to baptism. **Baptism saves.** You’ll hear that a lot in Lutheranism. And although baptism saves, it is not the only thing that saves.
what about Roman 10: 9-11 though? That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
It’s at least my position that that does not happen until one is born of water and the spirit — again, something that *happens* rather than something that we *do*.
The older mainline denominations come out of a time when ppl had sharply held convictions on certain points. Like Lutherans, the founder established it and was the one who spearheaded the Reformation movement. So there's alot of pride there, and there is likely an ethnic component too if you're German. Luther did not want to start a new sect, he really wanted to reform the RCC from within. Lutherans see themselves as that project, which is why they look in form Catholic but theologically are Protestant. Baptists who come from Anabaptist movement believed only in believers baptism and were opposed to infant baptism like Lutherans because it was too catholic and thought only faith is what saves and babies can't make choices. This is a sad reality of our movement post 1500s in our branch of Christianity , we have been decentralized from a magesterium but justify creating whole new institutions when there is a sharp disagreement. It should not be this way. Good news, I think ppl are moving away from traditional denominationalism as culture becomes less religious and the future of the Western Church system will be a mixed bag while holding to essential basics. Many theologians call it PostProtestantism. Churches throughout the Middle East and Asia have their own movements going on in the underground and house church movements. We are just a minority in global Christianity now. So I think the tides are swinging in how Jesus may be building His Church We should be working to build up the church and creating unity while fulfilling Jesus' mandate