Defining Don Matzat

The July 23rd issue of Christian News gave two thirds of a page to Don Matzat’s assault on the Lutheran Service Book Agenda, entitled "Defining the Center". It was a diatribe critical of one sentence on the first page of the overview of the Agenda. It reads, "Baptism is at the center of the Christian faith and life." While it is not likely anyone would take this critique seriously, little errors sometimes grow into huge problems if not addressed, so this unfortunate commentary begs a response.

First, I carry no agenda for the LSB. I am a dyed in the wool TLH sort of guy, and I have no plans to use the LSB, so I am not defending it out of devotion to the product. The attack, however, is classic liberalism and in and of itself false doctrine. This does not surprise, considering the author. Don Matzat is a former charismatic, former conservative, recently connected to Jesus First, who lately defended the gross unionism of Yankee Stadium and aggressively advanced the un-Christian notion that Muslims and Christians worshipped the same God. When Pastor Matzat asked the question: "If I reject that statement, am I still an orthodox Lutheran?", one was tempted to respond, "What ever do you mean by ‘still’?" You haven’t been orthodox in a long time, sir.

Rev. Matzat declares that offending sentence is "false doctrine". It appears from his article that the charge might be maintained if one defined their terms carefully and idiosyncratically enough. Matzat doesn’t do that, however. He simply states as fact things which he does not illustrate or support, and appears to have a unique personal understanding of several concepts over which he is anguishing.

For example, he asserts that Lutheran theologians have always taught a distinction between the baptism of infants and the baptism of adults. He does not clearly articulate the distinction of which he writes. Presumably the distinction is, as he asserts, "Baptism is simply adult confirmation." One would want to see the quotes supporting that distinction which "Lutheran theologians have always properly taught". Matzat doesn’t provide them. Even the single source he references a few paragraphs later speaks of adult baptism, according to Rev. Matzat’s own summary, as sealing, confirming, and increasing the redemption and regeneration wrought by the Gospel. It would appear from his own source to be something more than "simply adult confirmation".

Lutheran theologians of the past have spoken with greater respect for Baptism. Chemnitz, in his Loci Theologici, refers to Baptism as the "ordinary means" of regeneration "But Baptism is the regular [or ordinary; ordinarium] means, that is, "the washing of regeneration," Titus 3:5, so that those who are born of the flesh and were not in the kingdom of heaven might be born again of water and the Spirit and thus enter the kingdom of heaven, John 3:5. For they are "baptized for the remission of sins," Acts 2:38, in order that the sins in which they were born might be washed away, Acts 22:16, and that they might be cleansed and saved by God through the washing of regeneration, Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5."1 Pieper says, "Baptism, then, involves the establishment of a covenant of grace between God and the person baptized."2 "Scripture has decided this question. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper certainly do belong to the foundation of the Christian faith, together with the Word of the Gospel, for Baptism is given "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are imparted as "given for you" and "shed for you for the remission of sins" (Luke 22:19 ff.; Matt. 26:26 ff.). The promise and offer of the forgiveness of sins, which is the foundation of faith, is contained also in the Sacraments."3

Elert says, "Baptism is the basic and crucial event which makes a new man out of the old, and so regarded it is the event of an individual. Its purpose, however, is not private or isolated. By Baptism we are drawn into the death and resurrection of Christ and so out of the domain of enemy powers, above all out of the domain of the Law into the freedom of that kingdom where Christ is Lord. These thoughts are developed by Cyril of Jerusalem in his catechetical instruction of the newly baptized, and he finds in them the basis for the renunciation of the devil effected in Baptism as also for the koinonia of the baptized with the suffering and death of Christ. Now Paul also describes the relationship with Christ which we enter through Baptism by saying that we are baptized in one Spirit into one body, and he derives from this the organic relationship of the members of the body of Christ also with one another (1 Cor. 12:12 ff.). Through Baptism we become not only saints but also "holy brothers" (Heb. 3:1). All Christians share the same sonship, and Christ is "the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). Both the common bond of the ethos of an organized congregation, by which the church separates itself from its unholy surroundings, and specifically also its brotherhood rest on the fact that its koinonia is a baptismal fellowship."4 These descriptions certainly appear to go beyond "simply adult confirmation".

Matzat also declares that Baptism is not absolutely necessary. While he quotes Pieper on this point, he makes more of issue than is warranted. He appears to suggest that Baptism is not really necessary, and brings Pieper in to play seemingly ignoring the context of the quote. Franz Pieper did not argue that Baptism was not necessary, he argued that where Baptism was not possible, there Baptism is not absolutely necessary. "Whoever, therefore, comes to faith in the Gospel, has remission of sins and salvation, even though circumstances prevent his being baptized."5 (emphasis mine) It is disingenuous to argue that because one might in extreme circumstances stand in God’s grace and favor without Baptism, that Baptism is therefore not truly necessary and so not at the center of Christian faith and life.

First, "at the center" does not mean it is the center, just central, connected to the center. One has to reject the Augsburg Confession to arrive at the point Rev. Matzat seems to be making, denying its importance. View article IX: "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into his grace.

"Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children and declare that children are saved without Baptism."6

We also confess that those who are not baptized are lost: Article II. OF THE AC, [ORIGINAL SIN] "Our churches also teach that since the fall of Adam all men who are propagated according to nature are born in sin. That is to say, they are without fear of God, are without trust in God, and are concupiscent. And this disease or vice of origin is truly sin, which even now damns and brings eternal death on those who are not born again through Baptism and the Holy Spirit."7 (emphasis mine)

The truly regrettable element of Matzat’s article, however, is the apparent contrasting of Christ and His work, and holy Baptism. He appears to present Baptism as a work we accomplish, which is to be understood as separate from and at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While I cannot address the possible errors of thinking in the mind of that seminary field-worker from so many years ago whom Matzat references as apparent justification for this concept, I have no experience with any Lutheran teaching Baptism as saving ex opera operato or effective in distinction from and contrast to the work of Christ. The notion that we should "remember our baptism" is thoroughly Lutheran. It comes from an honest reading of the Small Catechism, on Baptism, part four; "What does such baptizing with water signify?
"Answer: It signifies that the old Adam in us, together with all sins and evil lusts, should be drowned by daily sorrow and repentance and be put to death, and that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence.
"Where is this written?
Answer: In Romans 6:4, St. Paul wrote, "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life." 8

Pieper clearly teaches the same idea as the Catechism, "Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs that continually admonish, cheer, and encourage desponding minds to believe the more firmly that sins are forgiven,"9 Or, lest one think that one need "cherry-pick" their Pieper citations, "Though administered only once, Baptism is to be used by Christians throughout their whole life. Nowhere do the Apostles call on Christians to repeat Baptism; however, they frequently recall to their minds the Baptism once received. This reminder is intended both for consolation and for admonition."10

When Matzat suggests that this phrase is in error or leads to "putting at risk the eternal salvation of our people" he is simply not dealing honestly with the theology he is confronting.

Baptism rests on the work of Christ, and connects us to the work of Christ, making us part of the body of Christ. If Christ is the center, Baptism is at the center for the Christian because Baptism initiates our relationship with Christ, being "baptized into Christ" and "putting on Christ" and being "baptized into His death". Walther quotes Luther: "It has been determined that God will not create any Christians unless they are baptized and called by the Gospel. He desires that all who are called Christians should be separated from the world by the Gospel and Baptism."11 The strange notion that we preach might preach "Law and Baptism" rather than "Law and Gospel" suggests that the Baptism is excluded from the Gospel, or offers something other than the Gospel. It is true, or ought to be, that we preach Christ. It should also be true that we preach Baptism, since Baptism is the ordinary means for becoming a Christian and being made part of the Church, and connects us to Christ and His work, whether we are adults or children.

Luther stresses what a precious thing Baptism is, and does not appear to distinguish between adult and infant when expressing the power or majesty of Baptism, as follows:

"This passage must be studied carefully, in opposition to the fanatical spirits who minimize the majesty of Baptism and speak wickedly about it. Paul, by contrast, adorns Baptism with magnificent titles when he calls it ‘the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit’ (Titus 3:5). And here he says that all who have been baptized have put on Christ. Now, as I have said, Paul is speaking about a ‘putting on,’ not by imitation but by birth. He does not say: ‘Through Baptism you have received a token by which you have been enlisted in the number of the Christians’ ; this is what the sectarians imagine when they make of Baptism merely a token, that is, a small and empty sign. But he says: ‘As many of you as have been baptized have put on Christ.’ That is: ‘You have been snatched beyond the Law into a new birth that took place in Baptism. Therefore you are no longer under the Law, but you have been dressed in a new garment, that is, in the righteousness of Christ.’ Therefore Paul teaches that Baptism is not a sign but the garment of Christ, in fact, that Christ Himself is our garment. Hence Baptism is a very powerful and effective thing. For when we have put on Christ, the garment of our righteousness and salvation, then we also put on Christ, the garment of imitation."12

Baptism also has a place in the life of Christians daily. Hear Melancthon: "Therefore when the baptized person learns the doctrine, he should exercise his faith [and] believe that he truly is received by God for the sake of Christ and is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Baptism is to be used in this way throughout life. It should daily remind us: Behold, by this sign God testified that you have been received into grace. He does not want this testimony to be despised. Therefore you should believe that you have truly been received and you should call upon Him in this faith. This is the constant use of Baptism."13 Or listen to Walther again, this time at the end of Lecture 34 in The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel: "When a person has fallen from his faith and baptismal grace, we do not tell him to construct a new ship for himself in which to continue his voyage to heaven, but to return to his faith in Baptism, which is a covenant that remains unshaken, because God does not cancel the word of promise which He has pledged to the baptized. The renegade, who has come to the knowledge of his fall and is penitent has nothing else to do than to cling to God’s promise given him at his baptism, and to rest assured that, since by Baptism he was made a child of God and has now been quickened out of mortal sins, he can rest assured that he will not perish."14

Luther also addresses how we should continue to make use of our Baptism, particularly in the context of those who might try to put their Baptisms behind them, so to speak:

"Those who presume to blot out and put away their sin by "satisfaction" are the same sort of people. They go so far as to disregard their baptism, as if they had no more need of it beyond the fact of having once been baptized. They do not know that baptism is in force all through life, even until death, yes (as said above) even to the Last Day. For this reason they presume to find some other way of blotting out sin, namely, by works. So for themselves and for all others, they create evil, terrified, and uncertain consciences, and despair at the hour of death. They do not know how they stand with God, thinking that by sin they have now lost their baptism and that it profits them no more.
Guard yourself, by all means, against this error. For as has been said, if anyone has fallen into sin, he should all the more remember his baptism, how God has here made a covenant with him to forgive all his sins, if only he will fight against them even until death. Upon this truth, upon this alliance with God, a man must joyfully dare to rely. Then baptism again goes into force and operation. Then his heart again becomes peaceful and glad, not in his own works or "satisfaction," but in the mercy of God promised to him in baptism, a mercy which God will keep forever. This faith a person must hold so firmly that he would cling to it even though everything and all sins attacked him. For he who lets himself be forced away from this faith makes God a liar in his promise in the sacrament of baptism." 15

Or Pieper (again): "Though administered only once, Baptism is to be used by Christians throughout their whole life. Nowhere do the Apostles call on Christians to repeat Baptism; however, they frequently recall to their minds the Baptism once received. This reminder is intended both for consolation and for admonition. In Gal. 3:26-27 Paul reminds the Christians that by their Baptism they put on Christ, that is, became God’s children, without the Law, by faith in Christ. In Rom. 6:3 ff. Paul employs Baptism for admonition, instructing Christians that by their Baptism they have become dead unto sin, but alive unto righteousness. Peter strikingly sets forth the consolation of Baptism. He says (1 Pet. 3:21) that as Noah and his family were saved by the water of the Flood, even so the water of Baptism now saves us, and the reason he gives is that Baptism is ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the covenant of a good conscience toward God.’ Baptism, then, involves the establishment of a covenant of grace between God and the person baptized. With good reason, therefore, the daily repentance of Christians is called a daily return to Baptism, or to the covenant of Baptism, inasmuch as the believers daily confess their transgressions, by faith seize the remission of sins guaranteed by Baptism, and, thus consoled, strive for fruits worthy of repentance in a new life."16

Matzat sets two truths of the Christian faith at odds with one another, contrasting and dividing them. He sets up a straw man, and knocks it down. He seems to actually acknowledge this problem when he complains that he cannot file a complaint with the Commission on Doctrinal review, having been told by the Chairman of the Commission that "no one would agree with [him]". He addresses this rejection as demonstrating the need for theological discussion as though if one individual departs from sound doctrine their departure illustrates the need for further theological debate. Sometimes, however, departure from sound doctrine is just another example of a pattern in that individual’s life

1 Chemnitz, Martin, and Jacob A. O. Preus. Loci Theologici. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1989, p. 728.

2 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. III, p. 276.

3 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. I, p. 86.

4 Elert, Werner. Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1966.

5 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, Vol. III, p. 280.

6 Tappert, Theodore G. The Augsburg Confession : Translated from the Latin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

7 Tappert, Theodore G. The Augsburg Confession : Translated from the Latin. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

8 Tappert, Theodore G. The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2000, c1959.

9 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953.

10 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, p. 275.

11 Walther, C.F.W. Church and Ministry : Witness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on the Question of the Church and the Ministry. Tranlsation of: Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in Der Frage Von Kirche Und Amt. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1987.

12 Luther, Martin. Vol. 26, Luther's Works, Vol. 26 : Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Luther's Works. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1963.

13 Chemnitz, Martin, and Jacob A. O. Preus. Loci Theologici. electronic ed. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1989.

14 Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm, William Herman Theodore Dau, and Ernest Eckhardt. The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel : 39 Evening Lectures. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, c1929, p. 360.

15 Luther, Martin. Vol. 35, Luther's Works, Vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I. Edited by Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald and Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1960, p. 36.

16 Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1950, c1951, c1953, p. 275-276.

Romans 1:22

The passage named in the title says. "Professing to be wise, they became fools." The Apostle Paul writes these words about the decline of man into sin and godlessness. In the environment of our world today, it seems like trenchant political and social commentary.

Our nation faces a threat from an enemy that hides in a religion, Islam. The goals of Islam are clearly and frequently stated: a world-wide caliphate. The whole world under Islamic law and morality. One political party and a significant number of Americans behave as though "it couldn't happen here," or "it really couldn't be all that bad." The evidence of the nature and effect of the Muslim mentality is freely available by looking at Islamic nations. The possibility of it happening here can be assessed by examining the Islamification of Europe, and noting the remarkable similarities between the European response to militant Islam in their midst, and the American government's official response (dhimmitude) to the same sort of insanity as it unfolds among us.

We are winning the war in Iraq, militarily, but losing it in the media, who appear determined to undermine our nation at every point of its strength. The media's behavior defies reasonable analysis. That anyone would pay any attention to it any longer is just as irrational.

The President has led an effective effort of protect our nation from terrorism. The economy is booming. Yet people want to impeach him, and his approval numbers are just below abysmal.

We have people over-wraught about the 3,000+ deaths in a war in Iraq in over three years, and they are absolutely frantic to end our involvement there. These same people seem unaware and unconcerned about the roughly 25,000 people who die each year at the hands of illegal aliens (p.c. speak = "undocumented immigrants"). Statistically, 12 people are murdered by the alien hoard invading our nation each day, and 13 more die daily as a result of things like traffic accidents, usually coupled with alcohol abuse, at the hands of illegals. Still, the deadly invading force is presented to us as nice people who want only to make a living to support their families, and want to do the work no American is willing to do.

That would be nice if it were true, but the illegals often work jobs Americans would do: construction for fifteen to twenty-five dollars per hour. That kind of wage would be welcome by any job-seeking American. They have been hired as Border Patrol Agents, Police Officers (by some communities), teachers, and government employees. All of these jobs would be happily filled by your average American job-seeker.

Speaking of the invasion, how is it that our borders cannot be controlled? How is it that twelve million or more have crossed our borders, and nothing is being done about it? How is it that there is no outcry? How is it that those we have placed in office to do these sorts of things are not being held to public account for their egregious failures?

How can it be that a man can be convicted and sentenced to two-and-a-half years in jail for remembering something differently than someone else? How can he be convicted of lying when the main evidence against him is the recollection of a politically motivated member of the news (yeah, that's a joke) media, who also cannot clearly recall many of the details he is to testify about? How can the act he is convicted of - lying to the FBI in the course of an investigation into what turns out not to be a crime - deserve far more stringent punishment than lying to a federal court under oath (like Pres. Clinton), or stealing classified documents from the national archives, and shredding them, and doing so repeatedly over a period of days? How can a bad memory, or small deceit in insignificant matters be more aggressively punished than, say, coercing bribes of hundreds of thousands of dollars from people while serving as a US Congressman?

How can the President who apparently sold pardons, and pardoned murderers and terrorists, be given any credibility when he criticizes President Bush for commuting the sentence - not pardoning - of the man mentioned above?

Then again, how can it be that congress can pass laws which apply to us, and then exempt themselves from these very same provisions??

The privileged class tells us how to live our lives - save the earth from anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. The Scientific community is clearly divided as to any man-made effect of terrestrial temperature cycles, but setting that aside, the privileged class ignore their own warnings and urgings. They have bigger, less energy-conserving homes. They drive larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles. They travel by private airplane, and their concerts to encourage an environmentally sensitive lifestyle consumes more resources and creates vastly more pollution while ostensibly trying to persuade us of the urgency of living more frugally, and creating a smaller "carbon footprint".

Someone is constantly trying to tell us what to eat, what to drive, and how to live - while ignoring everything they tell us. Somehow, they are exempt from the need to do these thing.

Am I missing something, or is this insanity? The "wise" who would guide us, are the biggest fools of all. We are living in dangerous times, and we have permitted the inmates to run the asylum!

Defining Your Opinions

The recent resurgence of the Ann Coulter controversy has brought into focus one of the modern media's most irritating agendas, defining your opinion.

I used to think that the media excitement about this topic or that was merely the result of a slow news day and reporters of limited talent. Now I discern the goal of shaping your opinions, and mine, by reacting strongly and repeatedly to people and events. Sometimes the media can coerce behaviors out of our leaders (or celebrities) my the artificial uproar they create, but their more fundamental agenda is to tell you how you should see and value people and events.

This would account for the declining popularity of the President in the midst of a booming economy and despite his steadfastness in prosecuting a war on terrorism for the purpose of our own national safety and security. With Ann Coulter, they are deliberately misconstruing her words and telling us that we should have no patience with this woman as she exercises her freedom of expression. We are supposed to be patient and tolerant of expressions that attack our faith, and our sense of what is right and wrong, and our customs and traditions, but let someone poke fun at the politically correct, and freedom of expression has apparently gone too far!

I am looking forward to the Synod's attempt to tell us what to think after the coming convention. True, the national media will probably not pay much attention or care what you think - - but watch the Synodical media! They will try to spin and tell you what you should think and how you should feel. It will be interesting.

It Makes Pefect Sense to Me!

I was breezing through a post on Cyberbrethren that posited the question of how they could do it -- "it" being fellowship between church bodies like the United Church of Christ which sanctions homosexual unions and the E.L.C.A. which does not, yet.

As I looked at the picture, it all made perfect sense to me, in a perverse sort of way. The churches that can marry those two men and/or those two women in the picture almost always give hearty apporval to the fifth person in the image, the female "reverend". Some of my friends refer to women 'ministers' as "priestitutes". I simply call them "penguins." I like the description I once heard Dr. David Scaer give, "true transvestites: women dressed in clothing reserved for men".

In any case, it makes perfect sense to me! If you can ignore the Word of God and ordain women, "Same Sex Unions" are an easy step. They have already lost any ability to tell the difference between the sexes anyhow.