Tricky Lutheran Theology

Martin Luther really had his work cut out for him. He was trying to reform Catholic theology from a "faith plus works" belief to "faith alone" aka sola fide. Yet he also wanted to keep the power found in baptism, Communion, and other Sacraments. I imagine he also put himself in quite the pickle there!

The way Lutheran doctrine tries to balance all of these out was one of the main hindrances for me for becoming part of the Lutheran church. Lutherans say we are saved by faith alone. Yet baptism and Communion are considered acts that bring forgiveness of sin and grace. They even go so far as to say you aren't saved unless you're baptized! How does this not scream of faith plus works salvation?

I think Luther might have been the one who said it, but the reason it's not works-based is because in these things, the person receiving it isn't really doing anything. Granted the person is getting sprinkled with water (this form of baptism I do not think is the proper method) or is standing in line and eating the blood and wine, but the active agent is God.

The denomination does this strange thing where it turns Catholic doctrine on its head. In Christian lingo, a work is an act done to get salvation from God. We're the active agent in this. The reason things like baptism and Communion aren't works per Lutheran theology is because we aren't trying to get salvation by doing these things. Instead we are receiving grace and forgiveness. It's the opposite of a work. Luther didn't think we could do enough good works to merit our salvation, so a faith plus works-based salvation would mean nobody got to Heaven. This is of particular importance in baptism, where you aren't saved until you're baptized, during which you receive the Holy Spirit. You're not somehow taking salvation, but rather receiving it. (The exception is when you want to be baptized but die before you're able to. That's called baptism of desire and you'll still be accepted by God.) Also, the Sacraments have no effect if you don't have faith.

This, in my eyes, is very strange. Does it sound reasonable to me? Yes. But it's still kind of weird. Perhaps it's because it's an inversion of Catholic doctrine, which existed for over a thousand years beforehand. Or maybe it's more due to my past of attending churches that didn't think there was inherent power in baptism or Communion; they were just symbolic actions. For the most part, though, I do believe it. Although I still need to read up and study to figure out the details.