tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post6242648422724783149..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Too Hot to Handle: Baptized Into What?Dr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-60480101621346470382015-02-10T08:57:38.562-05:002015-02-10T08:57:38.562-05:00Agreed. Too big for the comments section of a week...Agreed. Too big for the comments section of a week-old post. Give me a few days to chew on it.<br /><br />But in the meantime, Qman, where did this whole "literal business" thing come from? It sounds like you may be arguing with other Protestants there. I don't believe I've mentioned literalism in this post or its comments.<br /><br />Since you bring it up though, I do subscribe to a literal interpretation of scripture, but by "literal" I mean "natural", or not spiritualized without a solid, text-based reason to read it that way. Literal interpreters of scripture read metaphors as metaphors, poetry as poetry, allegory as allegory (the parables, for example), figurative language as figurative language and hyperbole as hyperbole.<br /><br />Certainly "it would be a disaster to claim that only a totally literal interpretation of written material is useful", but I've made no such claim that I'm aware of, and I think all but the most extremely "literal" interpreters of scripture would agree with me.<br /><br />Frankly, I suspect it's a bigger disaster to interpret something figuratively that is intended to be interpreted literally; the instructions on a medicine bottle, for instance.<br /><br />Can you give me an example, Qman, of what you're referring to when you bring up the literalism issue? It sounds to me like you're either introducing another topic entirely here, or else you're confusing the concept of <i>sola scriptura</i> with a mode of interpretation, when they're two very different things.<br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-38644271565060070892015-02-10T07:19:04.096-05:002015-02-10T07:19:04.096-05:00Hmmm....
The interpretation doesn't follow th...Hmmm....<br /><br />The interpretation doesn't follow there, Qman...or to put it philosophically, you conclusions are insufficiently connected to the available premises. Unfortunately, doing justice to explaining this is going to take some doing. I wonder if we're better to do it here, or to make a new post to address this case...<br /><br />Whatever the decision, I trust you'll understand we're not trying to Catholic-bash or pick on you personally, but rather to deal with questions you've raised yourself in a fair and substantive way. Take it as a sign of appreciation for your frankness, if you will.<br /><br />What say, Tom?Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-20942510628854334892015-02-09T19:52:49.524-05:002015-02-09T19:52:49.524-05:00Tom, respectfully, but it seems to be a matter of ...Tom, respectfully, but it seems to be a matter of interpretation. It's just a question of who's interpretation. See the material below.<br /><br />Also, I have a problem with this totally literal business only without room for extrapolation, reasonable interpretation and review within solid limits of reason.<br /><br />As someone who wrote a lot, especially involving complex technical materials and market driven issues and based on my knowledge of communication in general it would be a disaster to claim that only a totally literal interpretation of written material is useful. Quite the opposite is true, it would be totally detrimental to getting the job done.<br /><br />I therefore, for sound practical reasons, cannot buy into the exact written word only meaning of the bible. It is, in my opinion, artificial and not realistic and sound. I agree though that deviating from pure literalism would make life more complicated if there are different thoughts of interpretation. But I think that could be resolved based on their historical, logical, and psychological merits.<br /><br />Here are some references:<br />"Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism." <br /><br />Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason. <br /><br />Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse. <br /><br />Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants. <br /><br />Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults. <br /><br />Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults. <br /><br />Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children. <br /><br />Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith."Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-21460475288551885852015-02-09T17:23:36.628-05:002015-02-09T17:23:36.628-05:00Qman:
Did I anywhere mention the Catholic Church?...Qman:<br /><br />Did I anywhere mention the Catholic Church? I've reviewed my message, and have found I didn't. <br /><br />But if the shoe fits...I mean, your article says that baptism "is not most commonly administered to infants." That stops a long way short of saying "believer baptism." Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-64591443013244153362015-02-09T17:16:19.680-05:002015-02-09T17:16:19.680-05:00Well, we certainly believe in original sin, but no...Well, we certainly believe in original sin, but not in the efficacy of baptism (by immersion or sprinkling) to remove it. Believer's baptism in the New Testament merely identifies you publicly with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. Any other meaning that may be offered for it comes from tradition or fancy. I would be interested in any scripture reference you can find that might suggest that any form of baptism removes original sin.<br /><br />Part of the reason, I suspect, that non-believers may look at Christians and think our beliefs "messy" is that the authority of tradition and history gets held up by some as equal to that of the word of God itself. If we were all to simply agree that only the Bible is authoritative, we might have a better chance of coming to an agreement about what any particular scripture means.<br /><br />As it is, if some say that, say, infant baptism was "practiced from the earliest days of the Church", anyone who believes in Scripture Alone cannot possible accept that as counterevidence for the teaching the Bible itself. The two things are simply not of equal weight.<br /><br />I'm not expecting you to agree with me on that, Qman, but that is certainly where we part company on the meaning of baptism.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-79720146395091221562015-02-09T14:22:15.187-05:002015-02-09T14:22:15.187-05:00Here is an explanation of the Catholic perspective...Here is an explanation of the Catholic perspective on infant baptism based on the source below. <br />It stresses that dying in the state of original sin is risky and therefore baptism should occur early.<br />Of course, if you do not believe in original sin, or that original sin remains with you were you not baptized, then it's a moot point. The Catholic church, to mitigate that risk also suggests, however, that there are other forms (spiritual) forms of baptism possible, a baptism of desire, (think of being/dying in a desert, then what?), which is also available to a non-Christian if they have heard of and desire Christ at point of death without having an opportunity for an actual baptism.<br /><br />"Infant Baptism<br />In the Catholic Church today, baptism is most commonly administered to infants. While some other Christians strenuously object to infant baptism, believing that baptism requires assent on the part of the person being baptized, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants also practice infant baptism, and there is evidence that it was practiced from the earliest days of the Church.<br />Since baptism removes both the guilt and the punishment due to Original Sin, delaying baptism until a child can understand the sacrament may put the child's salvation in danger, should he die unbaptized."<br /><br />From http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Sac_Baptism.htm<br /><br />Btw, to me this falls into my interest and fascination with why and how human irrationality manifests itself so often that the best brains over centuries cannot resolve something like that amicably. It also plays into the hands of the non-believer because they say "just look at yourselves and you expect us to get involved in your messy beliefs?"<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-50618677849094329582015-02-08T20:42:09.905-05:002015-02-08T20:42:09.905-05:00I disagree on that a bit on point 2, Tom. Of cours...I disagree on that a bit on point 2, Tom. Of course I was not implying that anyone can get the better of God. <br /><br />What I am saying is that God permits us to throw a monkey wrench into the works because of free will. Why else are we often simply making a mess of our lives? God simply does not play policeman (a complaint that many atheists have and take as proof of no God or an uncaring God, (not my opinion)).Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-6249528136844185412015-02-08T10:08:28.545-05:002015-02-08T10:08:28.545-05:00AmenAmenMicahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-58633607231015831412015-02-07T10:03:52.232-05:002015-02-07T10:03:52.232-05:00I note also a basic difference that is included (b...I note also a basic difference that is included (but not perhaps recognized) in the discussion between you and Tom so far, Qman. That is, the question of whether or not belief is an essential precondition of baptism. <br /><br />If infant baptism is to be considered at all, then personal belief would have to be thought unnecessary, as babies clearly have no beliefs of their own concerning Jesus Christ. However, if faith is a necessary prerequisite for conversion, and subsequently for baptism, then infant baptism would be unscriptural, one of those innovations brought in illegitimately by clerical fiat or tradition-gone-wrong.<br /><br />My own view would be the latter. For I do not know of a single Scriptural instance of anything remotely resembling infant baptism, and find only precedents for believer baptism.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-69821338961936358042015-02-06T22:24:11.652-05:002015-02-06T22:24:11.652-05:00Hmm. By sola scriptura, as you will have seen, I m...Hmm. By <i>sola scriptura</i>, as you will have seen, I mean "scripture alone". That is to say I believe the only legitimate authority for human conduct and the only useful source of understanding in the world is the word of God as contained in the Bible.<br /><br />So, as I understand it:<br /><br />(1) Does God know about the divide between people who call themselves His and and do nothing to resolve it? It would seem so.<br /><br />(2) Does the obdurateness of human nature throw a monkey wrench into God's plans? I would say not. Since he is all-knowing and infinitely powerful, he cannot be surprised and he cannot be outmaneuvered.<br /><br />(3) Will human intellectual and/or moral capacity resolve the differences? I would say not. What is needed for unity is the character of Christ worked out it each life by means of his Spirit. It is a spiritual issue, not merely a moral or intellectual issue.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-47634793113273563172015-02-06T19:27:34.725-05:002015-02-06T19:27:34.725-05:00You gave me too much credit, Tom. I mentioned befo...You gave me too much credit, Tom. I mentioned before that I am not a theologian but a natural scientist (physics, math) that got interested in philosophy as more of a hobby. Turns out that philosophy of religion, or involving religion, is one of the largest and busiest topics out there that was able to hold my interest. So, I looked up sola scriptura and now understand what is involved here for Protestants. Your opinion, do you think there can ever be some type of rapprochement between the faiths? <br /><br />Since I debated a lot of atheists, I can also ask,<br /><br />1. God of course knows about the divide but seems to do nothing about it. Thus, is it, unbeknownst to us, a strategic move by God to have the current state of affairs, and eventually a greater good will come out of it? Thus you could argue it is even a beneficial thing.<br /><br />2. Is it simply the obdurateness of human nature that always throws a monkey wrench into God's works?<br /><br />3. Is it lack of human intellectual and/or moral capacity that needs further development over time to resolve this?<br /><br />4. Neither of the above?<br /><br />5. All or most of the above?<br /><br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-16505266498061440502015-02-06T18:54:48.822-05:002015-02-06T18:54:48.822-05:00We are in agreement then because that's exactl...We are in agreement then because that's exactly what baptism means for Catholics as well. As a matter of fact the emphasis in the Catholic tradition to talk to the parents and have them be aware of the significance of baptism and determine if they have the intent and disposition to follow through with the promise of baptism for their child is commendable and in no way interferes with but strengthens the biblical purpose of baptism. The fact that baptism is performed in small or large settings including, a resulting celebratory social setting does not detract from it but will encourage new parents to seek baptism for their child. To me there is no issue or divide here between the faiths.<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-47901292859950864472015-02-06T15:31:33.270-05:002015-02-06T15:31:33.270-05:00Yeah, I'll back you on that, Tom.
If baptism...Yeah, I'll back you on that, Tom. <br /><br />If baptism were a human artifact, designed for our purposes and dependent on our needs, we might make it whatever we wished, I suppose. Or if it were a church artifact, then any church -- local or denominational -- could declare its baptism policy to be whatever it liked...and I would say nothing.<br /><br />However, my belief from Scripture is that baptism was ordained by the Lord, for His purposes. He arranged in it a way in which the believing person could mark his decision to consecrate Himself to God by placing his faith in Jesus Christ, and God the Father could draw to the believer's consciousness the full implications of any decision to follow Him.<br /><br />So I must confess I have no patience at all for anything that interferes with the Lord's purposes in baptism. It's His ordinance, for the individual believer...any church, clergyman, denomination or person who undermines that loses my sympathy immediately.<br /><br />So that's my position.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-74749470426875528552015-02-06T12:48:11.657-05:002015-02-06T12:48:11.657-05:00Thanks for the thoughts, Q. If you ever feel like ...Thanks for the thoughts, Q. If you ever feel like you're banging your head against a wall talking to Protestants and evangelicals, it may be because ... well, you are. I appreciate that there are all sorts of practical reasons why baptizing in a church with family may produce this or that good consequence, and all sorts of logical reasons why Catholicism (and numerous Protestant denominations too, to be fair) have evolved into doing this or that down through the years.<br /><br />There are probably logical reasons for sprinkling too, though it is not the pattern of scriptural baptism and we actually did not even get around to discussing it in this post.<br /><br />That said, with your knowledge of church history you are probably aware of the concept of <i>sola scriptura</i>, and that is the hill I am prepared to die on, personally. I think IC, for all his higher education and philosophy background would completely back me on that one, as would Bernie and everybody who writes here. What matters to us is the words and the pattern of scripture, nothing else. That's where our authority comes from and it's ... well, really the only thing we care about.<br /><br />All to say, you may wonder why we don't always see what may seem to you to be obvious, logical and practical. That's why. Everything I need to know about baptism is found in the pages of the word of God. Nothing else enables me to act with the confidence of faith in the church or at home, nothing else holds any authority for me, and -- not in the least meaning to be rude -- for me, nothing else even holds much interest.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-18637984914519439092015-02-06T12:23:02.280-05:002015-02-06T12:23:02.280-05:00Let me share my experience and opinion on this top...Let me share my experience and opinion on this topic. First of all, the Catholic church, no matter what the topic, always seems to get a bum rap when protestants (of any persuasion) make her part of a discussion :-/. That is often done in an uninformed way and simply based on century old stereotypical thinking. Here is what Catholics (this one) think and know about baptism. Yes, baptism is generally done in a church because it is also considered an important social event by the church community. Guess what, it often gets people to set foot in a church that haven't done that for decades but will do so for their new relative. Next, the church (and for a Catholic "the church" means its members, who also happen to like having priests) has come to realize that the romantic notion of baptizing at a lake site can be inconvenient and that there is a better flow of events if people are in a more social setting, dress up a little and enjoy a good social get together in a nice restaurant afterwards. We always appreciate that because we get to see and talk to long lost relatives that way. Get over the hang up with this church vs lake business. The directive and empowerment that has been passed on to me as a Catholic absolutely includes that I can, should, and will baptize at any time, from a dripping water cooler if I have to, if there is a lost soul in a personal or public emergency situation who wants to reconcile with Christ on the spot. This is totally within the purview of the Catholic teaching and the catholic believer.<br /><br />I have attended numerous Catholic masses where, without my knowing, or agreeing to beforehand, baptisms were held as part of a mass by one or several families having everyone in the congregation enjoy when those little squealing bundles are held up high after having experienced a dunk in (a non-heated) baptismal font. Invariably, at those baptisms, there were also a godfather and godmother present, friends or relatives of the baptismal family who commit to encouraging their new godchild in their faith as they grow up. Their presence stresses the fact that, as you mention yourself, it is preferable that you baptize if feasible with parents and godparents informed about the responsibility they bear for guiding that new life in faith. That is another reason, to demonstrate the readiness and willingness of the family to pass on and support faith of the new member, why church baptisms are preferred to an ad hoc baptism by the lake.<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.com