[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam Terrorists shut down Park Avenue. Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala. The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear? France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England. George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed. Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus. In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Creationism/Evolution See other Creationism/Evolution Articles Title: Pope Francis says Big Bang theory and evolution 'compatible with divine Creator' Source: telegraph.co.uk URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor ... tible-with-divine-Creator.html Published: Oct 28, 2014 Author: By Nick Squires Post Date: 2014-10-28 13:42:04 by Ferret Mike Keywords: None Views: 61868 Comments: 132 Theory universe born in cosmic explosion 13.7 billion years ago 'doesn't contradict' divine Creator but 'demands it', says pontiff The theory of the Big Bang is compatible with the Catholic Church's teaching on creation and belief in both is possible, Pope Francis has said. The Pope insisted that God was responsible for the Big Bang, from which all life then evolved. The Big Bang - the theory that the universe was born in a cosmic explosion about 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and evolved since - "doesn't contradict the intervention of a divine Creator, but demands it," the Pope said. The beginning of the world was not "the work of chaos" but part of a divine plan by the Creator, he said. The Jesuit Pope made the remarks during an address to a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature". "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve," he told the meeting. God should not be regarded as some sort of "magician", waving a magic wand, he said. "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," he said. "He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one so they would reach fulfilment." The Pope's remarks were in line with Catholic Church teaching of the last few decades. As far back as 1950, Pope Pius XII said that there was no intrinsic conflict between Catholic doctrine and the theory of evolution, provided that Catholics believed that the human soul was created by God and not the result of random evolutionary forces. That stance was affirmed in 1996 by Pope John Paul II. "The Pope's declaration is significant," said Giovanni Bignami, the president of Italy's National Institute for Astrophysics. "We are the descendants of the Big Bang, which created the universe. You just have to think that in our blood we have a few litres of hydrogen, which was created by the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. "Our blood is red because it contains iron, which was created by the explosion of a star millions and millions of years ago. Out of creation came evolution." Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 123. #48. To: (#0) This isn't really NEW. The Church's position regarding evolution has been that it isn't incompatible with Catholic faith as long as one acknowledges the ultimate creator, and that man originally sinned. In the frontspiece to my 1978 edition of the New American Bible was an essay that included the language "No well educated person any longer disputes that man has descended from primates" and that we are to understand Genesis 1 as an allegory. Being a scientist by training and mindset, I found that position to be good: it made it possible for me to BE a Christian at all, of the Catholic variety. It is only with direct encounters with the divine that my eyes were opened to the rather more radical reality of God not as simply the organizing principle of the universe, but as a thinking person, and angels (and demons) as real beings. THAT provoked a complete rethink on my part, but nothing SHORT OF that would have ever done it, at least not for me. Obviously Pope Francis has never spoken directly with God or has his face grabbed by angels and such. (I also note that later editions of the NAB have significantly toned down that rather obnoxious and dismissive language in the frontspiece, and not longer suggests that people like me, who have come to realize that Genesis 1 is a whole lot more than a poem or an allegory, am not well-educated.) Catholic schools have taught basic evolution, not creationism, in science class for decades. The caveat (I didn't go to Catholic school, but had a Catholic biology prof) was simple: after going through evolution, and going through the medieval belief in spontaneous generation and demonstrating how spontaneous generation has been disproven and discarded, the prof made the simple point that spontaneous generation had been discarded as the basis of life...except at the origin of life. Well, having just seen all the reasons why spontaneous generation was not viable - to then have all of life itself suddenly hang upon spontaneous generation is obviously not intellectually viable either, especially when one considers that decaying meat and plantlife already have all of the amino acids for life already pre-formed in them, so even with all of the elements for life RIGHT THERE, life still doesn't spontaneously generate from dead things. To have it spontaneously generate, then, from disorganized atoms - well, THAT'S a beaut. What Pope Francis said isn't anything new. And maybe it will bring eyes like mine were to focus on the Church and find out they can walk with THIS form of Christianity. Unfortunately, evolution isn't TRUE, so unless God reaches down and grabs THEIR faces too, I don't know how the step to the actual TRUTH of the matter is closed. But I don't think it really ultimately matters either. Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test. And it isn't as though the Christian creationists are perfectly right in their theories either. THEY don't read the verb tenses of Creation right. Stuff wasn't CREATED on day X, it BEGAN TO BE created, on day X, and that's a key difference. (And it wasn't actually CREATED on any of those days, it was made substantial. FIRST it was created in the head of the Elohiym, then it began to be unfolded in 3D. That's really what Genesis 1 SAYS, but you cannot see that unless you leave off English and read the Hebrew and the ancient pictographs. So, truth be told, EVERYBODY fighting about evolution, on ALL sides, is wrong in some pretty fundamental things. The secularists are wrong: life didn't spontaneously generate. And the creationsts are wrong about the exact timeline. The Catholics are wrong: it's not an allegory or a poem on creation. The right answer: God made it all, on a staccato timeline (that is written into Genesis, but the key question of animal life (which is really the issue): THAT was brought forth quickly, in a couple of days. The piece most scientists are missing is the slowing of the speed of light. Once that is factored into the Standard Theory, there is a lot less time, and without the time, evolution as understood naturalistically simply couldn't happen. But just TRY to have a reasonable talk to correct the record with ANYBODY - Protestant, Catholic, Atheist...what one believes about origins is what one believes about science, and that is probably the central contention in religion today. Science is the "indulgences" of old. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-01   9:54:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: Vicomte13 (#48) Final judgment is not a science test but a morals and deeds test. More than that for sure. Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? I presume our Father's specs will slide down his nose, he'll bite his lip as He peruses our Life File -- despite noting high scores on Tests #2 and #3. Liberator  posted on  2014-11-01   15:29:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: Liberator (#53) Test #1: Did we ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins? But Scripture does not actually SAY that. What it SAYS is that none come to the Father except through Jesus. That's true. But that does not mean that one must "ask for and accept the blood of Jesus Christ as ransom for our sins". That is the interpretation supplied by human tradition. And it's not quite right. Look at the last page of Scripture, where Jesus himself, enthroned in Heaven, says that men will be judged by their DEEDS, and then lists the deeds that will earn a trip to the lake of fire. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-01   16:34:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: Vicomte13 (#58) says that men will be judged by their DEEDS Yes. The ones not saved. A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-01   21:13:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: A K A Stone (#84) (Edited) Yes. The ones not saved. Read Revelation again and look at whom Jesus was warning. It was a letter addressed to the CHURCHES. The recipients of this letter, being told by Jesus they would be judged by their deeds, where all Christians and Christian Churches. Christians are judged by the deeds, and the standards that Christ set are high, that is true. And Christ set the standard, too, when men fall short. He did not say that it was all covered by his death, not at all. Rather, he said that if YOU want to be forgiven by God for the sins YOU have committed against HIM, YOU have to forgive other men the sins they commit against you. The Lord's prayer itself establishes this standard, and we're always asking God to apply it: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." There is a strain of theology that essentially sets everything Jesus said aside and says that it's all about the blood. It's an interesting theory, but it isn't based on what Christ SAID, and after all, HE was God, not the Christian theologians. So I'll stick with Christ on this one: what you do matters, there's a (short) list of "Don't dos". Once you find Christ and are baptized, your past sins are indeed completely washed away. But if you commit new sins after that, then you've got to ask God for forgiveness, and he will forgive you TO THE EXTENT THAT you forgive other men their sins. We ask for this very standard every time we say the Lord's prayer, so if we don't really MEAN "Lord, forgive me my sins against you to the extent that I forgive the sins of other men against me", then we should stop saying it. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-01   21:38:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: Vicomte13 (#86) Once you find Christ and are baptized, your past sins are indeed completely washed away. But if you commit new sins after that, then you've got to ask God for forgiveness, and he will forgive you TO THE EXTENT THAT you forgive other men their sins. Do you believe that you have to be baptized to be saved? If so what do you base that on sir? A K A Stone  posted on  2014-11-02   0:54:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: A K A Stone, liberator, GarySpFc (#92) Do you believe that you have to be baptized to be saved? I'll try and take a swing. In NT (mostly Acts) we see those who heard the Gospel and believe were baptized. The only example of a believer who was not baptized was the repentant criminal on the cross. Of course that was before Pentecost and the situation where a sinner had direct contact with Christ and was sure to die in minutes or hours. What do we see the disciples and apostles do in Acts? They believed, were filled with the Holy Spirit and then immediately got in the water to be baptized. Probably the best explanation I have seen comes from an acquaintance of GarySpFc(Gary maybe we can have Greg Finch get an account here. Goldi never approved his account, I'm sure Stone will). It is posted at Gary's site evidenceforjesuschrist.org: The following is authored by Mr. Greg Finch: Christian Baptism Since the Protestant Reformation, the issue of baptism has been a source of much controversy. While arguments about doctrine have become less prevalent in recent years as such topics have become less in vogue, there continues to be disagreement over this subject – though it seems as though it ought to be a relatively straightforward and simple topic. This piece is not a comprehensive study of all the various issues associated with baptism with a lengthy series of ‘proof texts’ – there are plenty of articles like that which have been written over the years. Instead, I am addressing this to an audience of believers who have heard confusingly competing teachings about this subject, and who may have ended up being not quite sure what to believe. Rather than seeking to present a series of logical, ‘air-tight arguments,’ I will simply present how I think about the issues associated with baptism, as well as address some of the most common questions. Underlying Roots of Differing Views Much of the controversy seems to me to be rooted in a battle between: 1) the Roman Catholic view of baptism; 2) the Sola Fide view of the Reformationists; 3) an Enlightenment-era (and Hellenistically-rooted) view that ‘spiritual things’ matter, whereas ‘physical things’ (with baptism being a physical act) are ultimately ‘of this world’ and therefore do not. In keeping with the early creeds and writings of the Church Fathers, many Protestants continue to view baptism as a sacrament – a ‘means of grace,’ as opposed to a ceremonial symbol with no real spiritual significance. Since the Reformation, however, for others the Sola Fide tenet often seems to have been used to create a false dichotomy that prevents any real significance from being assigned to this ritual at all. Some even seem to feel as though they are ‘doing the work of God’ by emphatically insisting that this biblical ritual is totally unnecessary and even superfluous. Though it was a universal practice in the early church and is spoken of on numerous occasions within the New Testament (including Jesus’ direct instructions in the Great Commission), for whatever reason, many churches today don’t characterize baptism as being all that important, or even significant enough to include a mention of it in their Statement of Faith. In looking at the various arguments, I do believe this very ‘low view’ of baptism emerged largely as a knee-jerk reaction against what they saw as attributing to the waters of baptism some sort of a mystical power (apart from faith), rather than an intentional desire to ignore the teachings of Scripture (and the example of Jesus) which paint baptism as a practice that was intended to be an integral element of the Christian faith. While I understand and appreciate much of the thinking and motivation of the 16th-century Reformationists, I would nonetheless advocate for a return to classic Christianity rather than using a theological formula from the 16th century as the litmus test for doctrinal truth. Measuring one’s doctrine and theology against a 16th-century standard – or, for that matter, a 19th-century American revivalist view – is simply not as safe or as wise as relying on the Scriptures as the ultimate source of theological and doctrinal truth. Recent Changes in Christian Thinking All that being said, believer baptism has actually become more prevalent in recent years, as fewer ‘exegetes’ have sought to define and defend a comprehensive systematic theology that seeks to excise the need for such a physical expression of faith. In today’s less doctrinaire and more experiential world, new converts have increasingly chosen not only to take the passages pertaining to baptism at face value, but they have also found there to be much meaning found in a physical ritual that signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ – and which emulates the way Christ himself began his own ministry. Even members of denominations that historically have not practiced believers’ baptism increasingly have sought to identify both with Christ and the early Christians, and requested baptism as an adult. Such an approach makes a good deal more sense than losing the importance of baptism in favor of a rationalistic debate over the question of the exact instant at which a person ‘crosses over from death to life’ – with the answer to which being one where I would simply defer to God. I would propose that we collectively quit ‘arguing about words’ (2 Timothy 2:14) and instead simply seek to do what God told us to do, and to practice this most ancient and significant of ceremonies as a part of our commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Does being baptized constitute an attempt to earn one’s salvation? Some have made the claim that to attach any real significance to baptism transforms it into a ‘meritorious work’ that one is performing in order to earn their salvation. In Colossians 2:12, Paul notes that the active agent in baptism is God, not man, however – and that the person being baptized is actually a passive recipient: …having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. Such language is not at all consistent with the argument that baptism is something the recipient is doing in an effort to ‘earn their salvation.’ Rather, it is a ritual where a covenant is sealed – not unlike a marriage ceremony – and it is clearly linked to “faith in the working of God.” Saved by Christ Alone When it comes to religious controversies, the issue of erroneous ‘category assignment’ is the source of many problems. Many disputes are rooted in false conflicts between concepts that simply belong at different levels of a hierarchy of belief. This results in numerous controversies and endless arguments where the Bible is used against itself in often illogical and inherently irresolvable disputes as both sides just ceaselessly and unknowingly argue past one another. In an effort to circumvent this problem here, I would always want to note that there is but one, single overarching element that alone accounts for our salvation – there is nothing else that belongs in this same category, or at this same level of the ‘hierarchy.’ That one thing is that Christ shed his blood and died on the cross on our behalf. At the most basic and fundamental level, this is the only thing that saves us – the one thing that atones for our sins and allows us to be reconciled with God. I have often said that it would be important to remember – if you ever find yourself standing in front of God and he were to ask you why you should be allowed to enter heaven – that you most certainly should remember not to tell him it’s because you were baptized . . . or because you have faith . . . or because you ‘tried to live a good Christian life.’ However important these things may be, any one of them at this most fundamental of levels would be the wrong answer – because relying on any of them would be implying that your sins were ultimately being atoned for on the basis of something other than the blood of Christ. Faith Going down a level from Christ’s death on the cross, whether a person comes to have faith in Christ is the pivotal element as to whether or not that person will respond in such a way as to be reconciled as a result of what Christ did on the cross. We come to God in faith – we come to believe that Jesus was who he said he was, and we acknowledge in faith that it is by virtue of his death on the Cross that we are able to be reconciled with him. Repentance As an element of this, however, once we believe we still have to make a decision as to whether we wish to align ourselves with him or to continue to live a life of rebellion. If we choose to submit our lives to him and his will, in faith, we will repent. This will certainly result in a change in our behavior, but the fundamental element is the surrendering of our will to God – not the improved behavior. Baptism Once a decision has been made to turn in faith and repentance to God, the practice we read about in the book of Acts in the early church was to go through a religious ritual – a ceremonial washing. This is what baptism is, and I think of it as being quite analogous to a wedding – a physical ceremony where our covenant with God is sealed. Salvation Some have sought to turn the covenant we have with a personal God into something more akin to a legal contract, the benefits of which are obtained seemingly by perfect adherence to a very explicit and exacting set of terms & conditions. This seems a lot like a formula (“Say these magic words in precisely this way!”) by which one becomes legally entitled to forgiveness from God. On its face, this seems to resemble very little that God ever modeled for us in the Scriptures. Such a mentality often causes its adherents to become consumed by the question, “But, we must establish the point at which someone crosses the threshold from death to life; at what exact moment does an individual become saved?!” – with some even concluding that any misunderstanding regarding the answer to that question renders one’s conversion invalid. Let’s look at another passage – not related to baptism – but one that could have at least something to say in response to this question. In speaking of the old covenant, in Romans 4:9-11: We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Though this is a reference to the Old Testament covenant, it seems to indicate that, at least under the old covenant, God considered coming to faith as the pivotal moment when one ‘crossed from death to life’ – even though that was prior to the point when that covenant was actually sealed. Not only was Paul illustrating the continuity between the Old and the New Covenants, but such thinking would also seem to be consistent with what we read in John 5:24: “I tell you the truth; whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” On the flip side, disappointingly and inexplicably, many would-be logicians have pointed to this and other Scriptures to absolve everyone of any need to be baptized at all. Such an approach to the Bible in general and baptism in particular seems very puzzling. Why would any believer exhibit a refusal to submit to a clear biblical practice such as baptism as some sort of a ‘badge of honor’ – seemingly, I suppose, as proof of what a ‘high view of faith’ they hold – and ascribe some sort of nobility to refusing to acknowledge and submit to the clear words of numerous passages from the Scriptures? While ultimately we’re saved only by virtue of Christ’s atoning death on the cross, unless you believe everyone has been reconciled with God, one does need to become a Christian. When we read in the Bible about people becoming Christians, they believed, repented, confessed Christ Jesus as Lord – and they were baptized. This causes me to say that a person isn’t really finished becoming a Christian – they haven’t ‘sealed the covenant’ – until they’ve been baptized. If someone is trying to find a way to justify not being baptized (perhaps finding a ‘loophole’ by pointing to other passages that state that we are ‘saved by faith’) and subsequently decides not to be baptized, I don’t think they – to use the word in a slightly different way – are acting in ‘good faith.’ For whatever reason, they are looking for something that is analogous to a legal loophole. In the Great Commission, Christ himself instructs us to be baptized – so why would motivate we even look for such a loophole? Insofar as possible, shouldn’t each of us just desire to do what Christ told us to do? Do exceptions disprove the rule? Once someone asserts that baptism is ‘necessary’ or important, however, others quickly pose a mystifying array of theoretical questions about whether it is being asserted that a person isn’t saved until ‘their nose breaks the surface’ on their way up out of the water, about what this means for the (apparently, scores of) people who presumably have been killed in car wrecks on their way to be baptized, or about the fate of someone who comes to faith in Christ while they’re stuck in the middle of the Sahara Desert and dies without being able to be baptized. I am not seeking to address such extraordinary circumstances here (though I would refer back to the aforementioned passage in Romans 4), but again would simply say that if a person has come to faith in Christ they ought to be baptized, if at all possible. I find an obsession with questions about extraordinary circumstances or exceptions to the rule to be somewhat distracting, and the motivation for raising them a bit puzzling. I am also reminded of the legal maxim, “Hard cases make bad law” – which highlights the fact that basing normative practices on exceptional, out of the ordinary circumstances is not generally a wise approach. Is simply doing what we were told to do in the face of ordinary circumstances really such a controversial notion? A Straightforward Approach For a number of years, I attended a church where the minister spoke in his sermons of what Christ did on the cross, about the need to come to a saving faith in Christ, to commit your life to him, and to be baptized. When someone was baptized, the person performing the ceremony typically read a number of Bible passages about what baptism means, and everyone just did what God said they were supposed to do upon coming to faith in Christ. Afterwards, everyone was happy that the person had become a Christian. I saw a lot of baptisms, and there were no ‘doctrinal watchdogs’ lurking about, attempting to pin down any of those who were being baptized as to what instant they thought they had ‘crossed over from death to life.’ And that was as far as anyone took it . . . no parsing of words, no trying to bind or reduce God to a set of legal statutes or doctrinal systems – and no derisive observations about any other group’s doctrinal assertions or misconceptions. This is exactly how I believe God would have us approach this subject. The pivotal element toward which we are working is to bring a person to faith, but they’re not really done becoming a Christian until they’ve been baptized, because that is the ceremony where the covenant is sealed . . . but we need always to keep in mind that the ultimate basis for anyone having their sins forgiven is solely a result of the shed blood of Christ. I saw a Statement of Faith on one church’s Web site – they said they would “baptize anyone by immersion upon a credible statement of faith” – such an approach seems to make perfect sense. As I said earlier, I’m often troubled and mystified to see how many churches’ Statements of Faith make no mention of baptism at all. A presentation of the gospel is intended to bring people to where they understand, believe, and commit their lives to Christ – to come to a saving faith in Christ and the power of his blood. Once they’ve come to faith, however, the Scriptures say they are to be baptized. I don’t understand why such a biblical instruction would not even be mentioned in a Statement of Faith – what is the thinking behind such a glaring omission? So, for anyone who is waiting for an incriminating word to pounce upon, I do believe baptism is ‘required’ – but I do think the use of that word sometimes reflects a skewed way of thinking about Christianity. It can easily be construed so as to reduce salvation to a formulaic set of ‘legal requirements,’ making some sort of a ‘lawyerly’ argument that involves a parsing of words similar to debating the definition of the word “is” – but that is most certainly not what I am doing here. Why the Distortions? In everyone’s defense, I think a good bit of the reason that so many who are at different points on the doctrinal spectrum end up taking such skewed positions is in reaction to excesses associated with someone else’s position . . . with that other side’s position, in turn, being distorted as a result of a distortion they were (correctly) perceiving in the first (or some other) party’s doctrinal assertions. I think this has caused people on all sides of this particular doctrinal divide to inadvertently distort their own positions as a reaction to what they perceive as a wrong perception or level of emphasis on the part of another. I think this can best be corrected by refusing to formulate our own theology in response to what we perceive as someone else’s misconceptions. Instead, let’s just look at what we were told in a very straightforward manner to do – and then do our best to do it. Baptismal Practices One additional note . . . while I am not horrified when I hear of a church that offers baptismal services only 2-4 times per year, this practice does seem to me to be out of sync with the spirit of the commands and examples we see in the Bible. Those examples clearly indicate that the normative practice in the early church was to be baptized as soon as one came to faith in Christ. This practice is not difficult to understand, as it seems logical that one would wish to seal the covenant they were entering into with God in the way He had ordained as soon as they were able. Certainly the waters of baptism possess no magical power – we are saved solely by the power and as a result of the grace of God – but baptism was clearly regarded in the 1st-century church as a normative part of a Christian conversion, and I can find no reason not to regard it in that same way today. Bible Passages – About Baptism / Examples of Baptism Below is a cataloguing of many passages that pertain to and illustrate examples of New Testament baptism. Though some will respond that some of these passages are referring to a ‘spiritual baptism’ that has nothing to do with a baptism in water, I have never been able to come to any conclusion other than that the sum total of all these passages clearly indicate that the early church practiced baptism in water. I have seen some of these verses elicit a very hostile reaction on the part of some, but am providing no additional commentary here as to what any of these passages mean – I am simply cataloguing them to be read, meditated upon, and harmonized by the reader – hopefully, with an eye toward coming to understand them in the way the original authors intended that they be understood. Passages Pertaining to Baptism • Romans 6:3-6 – Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. • Matthew 28:18-20 – Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” • Mark 16:16 – [Then Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” • Acts 2:38-39, 41 – Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. • Acts 22:16 – “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” • I Peter 3:21-22 – And this water [of Noah’s flood] symbolizes baptism that now saves you also – not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand – with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. • Galatians 3:26-27 – You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. • Colossians 2:11-12 – In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men, but with the circumcision done by Christ; having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. • Titus 3:5 – . . . he saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior. • John 3:5 – Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” • Matthew 3:13-17 – Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. A voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” • Hebrews 10:22 – . . . let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience, and having our bodies washed with pure water. Examples of Baptism • Acts 2:41 – Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about 3,000 were added to their number that day. • Acts 8:12-13 – But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized. • Acts 8:35-38 – Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” And he ordered the chariot to stop. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. • Acts 10:46-48 – Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. • Acts 16:14-15 – One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. • Acts 16:25-33 – About midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the other prisoners were listening to them. Suddenly there was such a violent earthquake that the foundations of the prison were shaken. At once all the prison doors flew open, and everybody’s chains came loose. The jailer woke up, and when he saw the prison doors open, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself because he thought the prisoners had escaped. But Paul shouted, “Don’t harm yourself! We are all here!” The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. • Acts 18:8 – Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized. • Acts 19:1-5 – While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. • Acts 22:14-16 – “The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on His name.” Above fully posted at evidenceforjesuschrist.org Above from a Mr. Greg Finch letter to Dr. Gary Butner and posted with permission at evidenceforchrist.org. redleghunter  posted on  2014-11-03   13:44:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, liberator, GarySpFc (#110) Once someone asserts that baptism is ‘necessary’ or important, however, others quickly pose a mystifying array of theoretical questions about whether it is being asserted that a person isn’t saved until ‘their nose breaks the surface’ on their way up out of the water, about what this means for the (apparently, scores of) people who presumably have been killed in car wrecks on their way to be baptized, or about the fate of someone who comes to faith in Christ while they’re stuck in the middle of the Sahara Desert and dies without being able to be baptized. I am not seeking to address such extraordinary circumstances here (though I would refer back to the aforementioned passage in Romans 4), but again would simply say that if a person has come to faith in Christ they ought to be baptized, if at all possible. I find an obsession with questions about extraordinary circumstances or exceptions to the rule to be somewhat distracting, and the motivation for raising them a bit puzzling. I am also reminded of the legal maxim, “Hard cases make bad law” – which highlights the fact that basing normative practices on exceptional, out of the ordinary circumstances is not generally a wise approach. Is simply doing what we were told to do in the face of ordinary circumstances really such a controversial notion? Thanks for posting that, I thought that it was a very well thought out and reasonable approach to baptism for those coming at it from a Protestant background. In particular, I liked the portion that I quoted above. The Orthodox Church refers to the "sacraments" as "Mysteries". And a lot of that is just as above, we don't try to dissect and explain how they work, we just do them because Jesus told us to. And for anyone unfamiliar with Orthodox practice in regards to baptism, while most often it will be performed by ordained clergy, that is not an absolute requirement. In one case a canonized Saint was literally baptized in a pool set up in the Roman arena where people who had professed Christ were being tortured and killed, and this Saint was baptized by a layperson also facing death in the arena in front of the pagan mobs. So when the situation requires it, a baptism by a layperson is perfectly OK. The Orthodox Church normally baptizes by full immersion, but just like with the exception made for lay baptism when the situation requires it, full immersion isn't rigidly required if it isn't logistically possible (someone facing death in a desert, for example). In like manner, the Orthodox Church does not re-baptize a Christian who was given a Trinitarian Baptism in some other Christian Church. By this I mean that we would not consider Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, or similar sects who do not worship the Holy Trinity to have a valid baptism -- but pretty much any mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic would be considered to have had a valid Baptism. If someone from such a confession wished to become a member of the Orthodox Church, they would be received with the Mystery of Chrismation, which is the equivalent of Roman Catholic Confirmation. In Orthodoxy, this anointing with oil is believed to bestow the Holy Spirit upon the believer receiving it. Orthodoxa  posted on  2014-11-03   20:15:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #118. To: Orthodoxa (#117) Scripture really is not clear on what exactly baptism does, but it is clear that it's important, and that whole families were baptized. Two virtues of infant baptism, as practiced by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches: (1) the mystical seal on the child - that "magic" part that the writer denies, but that is real nevertheless, and (2) children who are baptized and know it may fall away from the faith, but many find their way back eventually, in part no doubt because that seal is tugging at them, and in part because it lurks in their background and is eventually a solace when life turns black and there's no hope. Look at the good it did St. Patrick, for instance. A baptized child has to actually rebel AGAINST the Church to separate himself, while the unbaptized child never felt a part of it in the first place and has to seek it. Infant baptism is the most effective form of evangelization. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-03   20:36:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #122. To: Vicomte13, ALL (#118) Scripture really is not clear on what exactly baptism does, but it is clear that it's important, and that whole families were baptized. Two virtues of infant baptism, as practiced by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches: (1) the mystical seal on the child - that "magic" part that the writer denies, but that is real nevertheless, and (2) children who are baptized and know it may fall away from the faith, but many find their way back eventually, in part no doubt because that seal is tugging at them, and in part because it lurks in their background and is eventually a solace when life turns black and there's no hope. Look at the good it did St. Patrick, for instance. A baptized child has to actually rebel AGAINST the Church to separate himself, while the unbaptized child never felt a part of it in the first place and has to seek it. Infant baptism is the most effective form of evangelization. I am reading "Infant Baptism in Historical erspective," and will report more later. I offer the following excerpt. An American scholar, Everett Ferguson, in an article in the Journal of Theological Studies in 1979, used the evidence of the inscriptions to argue that infant baptism developed by the regularising of emergency procedures. ‘Tertullian stood at the point where there was pressure from some to extend the emergency measure to other circumstances.’30 Ferguson linked the emergency baptism of children observed in the inscriptions to the influence of John 3:5, ‘the favourite baptismal text of the second century’, which was thought to deny heaven to the unbaptized. ‘The high mortality rate of infants in the ancient world, to which the Christian inscriptions are a powerful if mournful witness, would encourage the practice of giving baptism soon after birth as insurance no matter what might happen.’31 This thesis is not inconsistent with the evidence surveyed so far. It offers an alternative explanation to Jeremias’ of Justin’s failure to mention infants in his account of baptismal practice at Rome at a time when, from Irenaeus’ assertion, we inferred that baby and infant baptism were already being observed there. Justin’s silence would show that the emergency baptism of infants had not by then become the regular baptism of all infants, while Irenaeus might be alluding to the regular practice of emergency baptism of children. Ferguson’s account also has the advantage of smoothing out the course of the early history of paedobaptism, at least if it did not begin until well into the second century and did not become common until the third century, and then in the fourth century became less common. To Ferguson the fourth-century delay of baptism arose from the same association of baptism with death evident in the emergency baptism of infants.32 Ferguson’s hypothetical account does not comprehensively answer the question when infant baptism began, for it does not tell us when the emergency baptism of infants began. Worth quoting at this point is Beasley-Murray’s comment on 1 Corinthians 15:29: ‘The attitude that could adapt the baptism of believers to baptism for dead people, that they might gain the benefits believed to attach to the rite, would find it a short step to baptize infants, that they too might receive its blessings.’33 It is not clear whether he implies that the baptism of infants might have begun as early as 1 Corinthians, but the link between baptism for the dead and emergency baptism is a suggestive one. Both, in Beasley-Murray’s view, find their roots in a sacramental-magical perversion of Paul’s teaching. Wright, D. F. (2007). Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective (pp. 12–13). Great Britain: Paternoster. GarySpFC  posted on  2014-11-07   13:57:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #123. To: GarySpFC (#122) Both, in Beasley-Murray’s view, find their roots in a sacramental-magical perversion of Paul’s teaching. I have tired of this bias. On at least four occasions in Scripture, whole families were baptized: by Peter and by Paul also. The naturally assumption is that children were baptized, this can be assumed to have happened when "households" were baptized - the MULTIPLE households mentioned in the Bible (we could suggest that one household didn't contain children, but there is no basis at all to assume that multiple ancient households were all childless; that would certainly not have been the norm in ancient Jewish or Roman or Greek society - quite the opposite). The argument that children were NOT baptized collides with the baptism, in the Bible, by Peter and by Paul, of at least four named whole households. The first Gentile baptism was of Cornelius and his whole household. There is no Christian OR Jewish basis to argue that young children were not part of a Jewish household. Moreover, three key points made by Jesus himself put the whole argument against infant baptism in a very negative light. The first is that children clearly have angels, who are always facing their Father. The Father loves children. The second is that one must become as a little child if one wants to enter the Kingdom. And the third, which I take is Jesus pointing his finger directly in the face of every latter-day disciple who would keep the children away and telling them to knock it off, is his rebuke: do not prevent the little children from cling unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven. Now add two logical points: (1) Jesus said that rebirth in water was needed - and that's baptism. So why would one deny children this. and (2) Jesus never explicitly explains what exactly baptism does. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, but what Jesus was doing was much more than that. Truth is, the Scriptures do not clearly tell us what, exactly, baptism does. They tell us that baptism washes away sins, but not just that, there is more to it than that. So, I've got Scripture that has God telling us to do it, and Peter and Paul doing it, and families baptized. So, why is this an argument? Because some Christians started making things up, that's why. I watched a bunch of tutorials on why Christians have to follow the Jewish luni-solar calendar and keep the Sabbath. Once sentence of Paul puts that rubbish to bed. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and they're going to grind whatever axe they want to grind. From my perspective, infant baptism is presumptively in the Bible, and it fits the logic of what Jesus said about children and the childlike state, and what he said about baptism also. I note something else too, from my own life and more generally around the world: Baptism as an infant ties people mystically to that Church. People may walk away, but many are drawn back in their older years, and as they are, they find that they ALREADY are members of the community, but estranged. Over and against this are people on the fringes who scream about the calendar, or about eating pork, or about the modalities of baptism. I try to be endlessly patient with such things, but I'm not endlessly patient. The very notion that some bogus man-made theory by moderns and late medievals renders something that Peter and Paul did a "sacramental-magical PERVERSION" is ITSELF a lie and a perversion. Ultimately, that's what some people want to obsess about, and they're going to, but it is nonsense. I've reached the limits of my patience on the subject of infant baptism, really. I wish you luck in your continued study of it, and I hope you come to the correct conclusion, in the end, which is that Peter and Paul baptized ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS, with all the children in them, and that this is perfectly in line with what Jesus said about children. I hope that you will come to realize that the Christians who oppose infant baptism are nothing more than new disciples taking up the same role as Jesus' disciples who tried to prevent the children from coming to the Master. Jesus sharply rebuked them then, and they're worthy of rebuke now. To call infant baptism a "perversion" is ITSELF blameworthy, calumnious, and wrong. I hope you come through to the right answer, but my patience with this subject is exhausted. Infant baptism is Biblical, it's what God has always wanted, it's the right thing to do, and there is no more powerful form of permanent evangelism than bringing people into the Church as babies. The sheer size and durability of the Catholic Church proves it. So does the behavior of countless saints over history who, having sown their wild oats and lived badly, were pulled back by God into line with his will, and whose baptism called them back. Baptism of infants requires godparents to ensure the training of the child. I'm not going to argue the matter any further. To my mind it has always been Scriptural, clear, holy, from Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Peter and Paul and IN SCRIPTURE. To my mind, those arguing against infant baptism have always been agents of Satan, however unwitting, and the ferocity of their arguments proof of the intrinsic evil that drives the argument. They are as sincere, and as wrong, as the people who claim that if we don't keep kosher we're going to Hell. And the Apostle who agrees with me most in all of this? The one I never quote: PAUL. For PAUL baptized several whole households, and did it right there in Scripture. Said he was doing it. Against that, what has Satan got? Inferences and make believe. "Suffer the little children to come unto me and deny them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." - Jesus Christ. In other words, if you oppose infant baptism, you're arguing with Christ. I hope you come to the right answer on this. But I've said all that I can say on the subject. I will just keep repeating myself: it happens four time in Scripture, Peter and Paul both do it, and Jesus' own words about children, and about the general necessity of baptism in water, all point to infant baptism. The arguments against it are anti-Scriptural and the artifices of Satan. Good luck. Hope you come out in the right place. In general, if you're reading a book that holds the view that the roots of baptism are "in a sacramental-magical perversion of Paul’s teaching", you're reading some guy whose not as smart as he thinks he is. He's following his logic, and it's faulty. I'm following Jesus. You're coming from a tradition that thinks that infant baptism is bad. I'm hoping that Jesus' voice will smash through that and persuade you. Peter and Paul baptized infants: four whole households. That means children, presumptively, in ancient societies that valued children. Jesus said to baptize, and Jesus told the disciples to stop trying to block children coming to him. THOSE things are clear. Jesus never clearly spelled out exactly WHAT Baptism does, he merely said to DO IT. Peter and Paul baptized children, and so should we. Vicomte13  posted on  2014-11-07   16:06:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 123. #124. To: Vicomte13 (#123) Scripture really is not clear on what exactly baptism does, but it is clear that it's important, and that whole families were baptized. Two virtues of infant baptism, as practiced by the Catholic/Orthodox Churches: (1) the mystical seal on the child - that "magic" part that the writer denies, but that is real nevertheless, and (2) children who are baptized and know it may fall away from the faith, but many find their way back eventually, in part no doubt because that seal is tugging at them, and in part because it lurks in their background and is eventually a solace when life turns black and there's no hope. Look at the good it did St. Patrick, for instance. A baptized child has to actually rebel AGAINST the Church to separate himself, while the unbaptized child never felt a part of it in the first place and has to seek it. Infant baptism is the most effective form of evangelization. It sounds as if you are demanding the final word on baptism, and that after stating you really don't know what baptism does. The items I post are always meant to honor Christ, and I would be very careful attributing them to Satan. GarySpFC  posted on  2014-11-08 10:26:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 123. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com