CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (01/07/91)
Some reflexions on the Bible: At the time of the Reformation in the 16th century, Luther and his co-reformers reacted against the decadent Catholic church of the renaissance. Without a doubt, the Bible was often trodden upon or ignored by those who used the Church for their own ends. It is therefore understandable that the reformers put forth the Bible as the sole corrective to all errors, the only reliable source of the Christian faith. "Sola scriptura" was a healthy contrast to the many man-invented falsehoods and superstitions which then riddled the church. But many of the later congregations and sects who have adopted the idea of biblical supremacy, have drawn this theme too far. It has become a worship of the letter of the Bible. They have made the Bible, including the New Testament, into a LAW instead of a GOSPEL. If you take a person who has never heard of Christianity or Jews, and let this person read the Bible, what do you think this person will think about it? Even given a vast intelligence, there is no way that he can come to know Christianity in any of its existing forms from this book. I am trying to say that the Bible is not enough. The bible does not interpret itself -- we do, with the help of tradition and Holy Spirit. All the churches and denominations I know of, no matter how Biblio- centric they are, do in fact depend a lot on the facts of historic Christianity. Just as Jesus did not appear in a cultural, historc vacuum where only God spoke and there were no human ideas around, we cannot separate human and divine into two distinct, crisp and clear entities. Human and divine are mixed in the Bible because it was written on Earth by Humans, with guidance from God. The most absurd example of bibliocentricism is Baptism (not the sacrament, but the denomination). Claiming that a child cannot be baptized because the Bible says faith must come first, logically means that almost every Christian in the world has been unbaptized since AD 300 or so... with the exception of pagans converted as adults. With the same kind of literal interpretation, you will reach the conclusion that these people cannot go to heaven because baptism is required for salvation. Thus, all those holy martyrs and saints, the devoted of over a thousand years, will be cast out because they weren't baptized as adults... So the Church, that Christ promised would never perish, was almost dead all that time, until someone re-discovered the proper way to get baptized... In my view, that cannot be true. Christianity is a historic fact. It has existed in many cultures and times. Errors have crept in through human weakness and evil spirits, but the core has remained -- through all these centuries there have been people who loved God and sought Him, using the best means they knew of. Christianity has developed through these people, it has gathered experience and knowledge. Where one generation goes wrong, the next seeks to set right and perhaps goes too far in the opposite direction. The Christian faith as defined by the Pope is one extreme, the Christian faith as defined by the Bible only, separated from the history of Christianity, is another and opposite. The Bible is our foremost source. It is to the Bible we should go to set human errors right. But the Bible doesn't give us all the answers. It needs interpretation. Part of this comes through the Holy Spirit. But there is also a part that comes through tradition. No existing congregation today has a faith that is identical to the faith of the Christian congregations of the first century. But we share the essential fact of being Christians. Ake Eldberg [In all fairness, I don't know of any Baptists who claim people baptized as infants are damned. --clh]
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/16/91)
In article <Jan.9.23.31.22.1991.21039@athos.rutgers.edu>, geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes: >CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes: >And it's not really fair to blame such a belief on Sola Scriptura. The >only place that I can think of the even comes close to saying such a >thing is the end of Mark. But even that passage doesn't say that >the unbaptized are damned. It says, ``Whoever believes and is >baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be >condemned.'' (Mark 16:16) One who believes but is not baptized isn't >covered here. Add to that the fact that Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in >the oldest manuscripts, and you'd be on very shaky ground trying to >claim authoritatively from this passage that baptism is required for >salvation. > I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. Which means that the person who believes and is not baptised is *not saved*. The second half of the verse simply states the oposite, that a person who don't believe is damned. Baptism is not an issue in this case because baptism is worthless without faith. Your arguement that Mark 16:16 doesn't exist in earlier manuscript means that we can ignor it is questionable in my opinion. Besides, the requirement for baptism is not only supported by Mark 16:16. Let me give you a few others: John 3:5 ======== "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto the, Except a man be born of the water and of the spirit, he can't enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus clearly teaches that baptism by water and by the spirit is a requirement for entry into the kingdom of God. Acts 2:37-38 ============ "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." They had faith after they heard Peter, but they wanted to know what they should do. The answer is precise and clear. Peter answers that: 1. They must repent 2. Be baptized for the remission of their sins and that they may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. There is no promise that a person may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost without faith, repentence and baptism. The big question is, what would have happened to one who would have said that, I have faith and that is sufficient for my salvation, therefore, I don't have to repent nor do I have to be baptised, because repentence and baptism are works and works do not save? Would he be saved? It is clear from the scriptures that to be saved one must: 1. Have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Repent as a precondition for baptism. 3. Be baptised. 4. Receive the laying on of the hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 4. Receive baptism with fire and the Holy Ghost. >Baptism is a *very* important part of the faith, and is done as a >testimony to one's faith. But the *only* requirement for salvation is >faith in Christ. > That is not what Mark 16:16 says, it is not what Jesus said to Nicodemus, and this is not what Peter said to those who have heard him, and as a direct result had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Additional food for thaught. Jesus who was sinless was baptised by John the Baptist. John resisted at first and used the arguement that Jesus should baptise him and not the other way around. Jesus didn't disagree, however, he told John that it should be done to fulfill all righteousness. Now, if Jesus who was sinless was baptised to fulfill all righteousness, how much more we sinners need to be baptised. Jesus showed the way a man may be saved and I for one will not intellectualize away the requirements he has set. >And don't let anybody tell you otherwise. :^) > >-- >Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, >uunet!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. >geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV) With brotherly love, Frank [The case against Mk 16:16 being part of the original document is quite convincing. You might want to clarify the exact implications of your position. This is the position normally associated with the Catholics. But they make provisions for unusual cases, where there was not time or opportunity for baptism, with concepts such as "baptism of desire". --clh]
charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) (01/22/91)
[This continues a discussion on the necessity of baptism. It's hard to be sure who said what beneath all the widgets, but I believe Frank Farkas cited Mark 16;16: >I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 >doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". >In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. --clh] Um, Frank, it says that if you have x and y, then you get z. This does not prove that if z, then you must have x and y. You could have x and v. A simple math demonstration will show this: 2 plus 2 equals 4, but 4 does not always equal 2 plus 2, you could have 3 plus 1, 0 plus 4, -3 plus 7, 2 times 2, square root of 16, all of these could give you 4. Thus your statement that Mark 16:16 says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptized" is not true. It only says that if [believe & baptized], then saved. Geoff Allen is right, you are wrong. You need to take some courses in logic and argument. I have, and it often helps me catch mistakes like this. >[text deleted] > >John 3:5 >======== >"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto the, Except a man be born of the >water and of the spirit, he can't enter into the kingdom of God." > >Jesus clearly teaches that baptism by water and by the spirit is a >requirement for entry into the kingdom of God. > Umm, Frank, Christ talked to Nicodemus that man must be "born again", i.e. that man is not only born of the flesh, but he must also be born of the spirit. Now what does Christ mean by born of water? You say he means baptism, but I point out that when I child is in his mother's womb, he is supported in a fluid. At birth, this fluid often rushes out of the womb ahead of the child. (excuse my non-medical terminology, if I am wrong here, someone give me a quick flame of correction) Thus, people are born of the water, which is one way of describing that phenomena. This sounds likely to me, but then again, I am not looking at the original greek, so I may be way off-base. But this is a valid alternative to Christ meaning baptism, rendering his statement more as "You have to be born physically and spiritually to get into the kingdom of God", which is basically what he told Nicodemus. >Acts 2:37-38 >============ >"Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto >Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" > >"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in >the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the >gift of the Holy Ghost." > Again, this verse does NOT say that you are not saved if you believe but are not baptized, it only says that if [believe & baptized], then saved. >[text deleted] >>Baptism is a *very* important part of the faith, and is done as a >>testimony to one's faith. But the *only* requirement for salvation is >>faith in Christ. >> I agree whole-heartedly. Faith is the only requirement. > >That is not what Mark 16:16 says, it is not what Jesus said to >Nicodemus, and this is not what Peter said to those who have heard >him, and as a direct result had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. > Sigh. Frank, I refuted this logic above. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. >Additional food for thaught. Jesus who was sinless was baptised by >John the Baptist. John resisted at first and used the arguement that >Jesus should baptise him and not the other way around. Jesus didn't >disagree, however, he told John that it should be done to fulfill all >righteousness. Now, if Jesus who was sinless was baptised to fulfill >all righteousness, how much more we sinners need to be baptised. Jesus >showed the way a man may be saved and I for one will not intellectualize >away the requirements he has set. > I was of the opinion that Christ's baptism was an anointing, and a sign to show that he was selected by God. Unfortunately, Frank, you have intellectualized your way into the baptism REQUIREMENT. I am not saying that believers don't need to be baptized, just that it is not required to be SAVED. Love in Christ, Charles [It is notoriously hard to convince people that their reading of a text is wrong. I can only say that every commentator I've ever read takes water and the Spirit as both referring to being born again. Those who do not believe that baptism is absolutely necessary (e.g. Calvin) see water here as symbolic of cleansing by the Holy Spirit or otherwise symbolic. I think the problem with this is that the NT doesn't really answer our question. The authors take it for granted that people who came to believe were baptized. That doesn't mean however that situations can't come up where this is unrealistic. Catholic tradition, which generally has accepted baptism as necessary for salvation, also has made allowances for situations where it is impossible or unreasonable for one reason or another. --clh]
davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (01/22/91)
The thief on the cross is an example of someone saved without having been baptised. Personally - if his heart was such that he would have refused baptism if he had been removed alive and released from the cross that day then it is my IMHO oppinion that Jesus would not have assured him of his salvation. Would not refusing baptism, considering what the NT says about it, be a form of rebellion? To claim to love Jesus and then refuse baptism would make little sense to me IMHO. But there are circumstances under which baptism is not physically possible inspite of how much it is desired. God will not hold such circumstances against anyone. It is possible to fall in love, eager to get married, and die before the wedding date. That does not mean that you were not in love. Baptism is a ceremony that has its parallels in the wedding ceremony between a man and a woman - IMHO. Friend, Dave
ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (01/22/91)
>[The case against Mk 16:16 being part of the original document is >quite convincing. > >--clh] Could you explicitly explain the evidence for this? It was my understanding that we don't have any of the original manuscripts of Paul, Luke, John, etc but rather copies and most possibly copies of copies or even copies of copies of copies etc. etc. ( If I am wrong please direct me to these originals that were penned by the apostles of Christ.) If two manuscripts disagree, who is to say that the oldest manuscript is therefore the least corrupted. It is quite possible that the older manuscript is a corrupted or altered (or edited) version of the original and that the more recent manuscript is a more faithfull copy of the original. Other than the dates of various manuscripts, what is the *case* that clearly demonstrates that Mk 16:16 was not in the original version ( which we don't have to compare with) that was written by the apostle Mark? Robert O'Barr [In this case there's more reason to be suspicious. Not only do the early documents not have the longer ending, but some of the later ones that do have it also have it with asterisks or a critical note. There are two additions, the "short ending" (one verse, which does not seem to have a number), and the "long ending", 9-20. Some have one, some have the other, and some have both. This all suggests strongly that it's a late addition. Here is Vincent Taylor's comment in his commentary on Mark: "Both the external and internal evidence are decisive. The passage is omitted by aleph B k sy(a), and important MSS of the Georgian, Armenian, and Aethiopic versions, and Eusebius and Jerome attest that it was wanting in almost all the Gk MSS known to them. It is also significantly combined with the 'Shorter Ending' in L and phi and in Sahidic, Syriac, and Aethiopic MSS. W inserts a third passage, the Freer ending, after xvi. 14, and a tenth-century Armenian MS contains the rubric 'Aristonos the Presbyter' which by wide consent ascribes xvi. 9-20 to the Ariston mentioned by Papias in the well-known quotations given by Eusebius in his Historia Eccclesiastica, iii. 39. 15. 'In the whole Greek Ante-Nicene literature', Hort, 37, writes, 'there are at most but two traces of vv 9-20, and in the extant writings of Clem. al. and Origen they are wholly wanting.' The two exceptions are a possible allusion in Justin Martyr, Apol i.45 ... and the express quotation of Irenaeus, iii. 10. 6. ... With this evidence, the internal evidence, based on vocabulary, style, and subject-matter of the section, is in complete agreement, as will be seen ..." --clh]
art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) (01/24/91)
In article <Jan.22.01.44.13.1991.29155@athos.rutgers.edu> charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >[This continues a discussion on the necessity of baptism. It's hard >to be sure who said what beneath all the widgets, but I believe >Frank Farkas cited Mark 16;16: >>I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 >>doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". >>In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. >--clh] > >Um, Frank, it says that if you have x and y, then you get z. This does not >prove that if z, then you must have x and y. You could have x and v. >A simple math demonstration will show this: 2 plus 2 equals 4, but 4 does >not always equal 2 plus 2, you could have 3 plus 1, 0 plus 4, -3 plus 7, >2 times 2, square root of 16, all of these could give you 4. Thus your >statement that Mark 16:16 says that to be saved one must believe *and* must >be baptized" is not true. It only says that if [believe & baptized], then >saved. Geoff Allen is right, you are wrong. You need to take some courses >in logic and argument. I have, and it often helps me catch mistakes like >this. Hmmmmm... But there are an *infinite* number of mathematical expressions for which the result is 4; if your analogy is carried through, there must also be an infinite number of ways to attain salvation. I guess the only issue is to decide which one is right for you, huh? "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [ I Cor. 1:20 ] My point is not that a disciple of Christ should throw out all logic in his spiritual life, but that we should be extremely cautious when applying mere intellectual knowledge to the doctrine of God, lest we over-intellectualize it and miss the point entirely. Christianity is based on a relationship with God and a desire to put His will before *anything* else in your life. The doctrine (mind knowledge) will come, but it means nothing if one's heart really isn't sold-out for God. To justify your views on salvation by application of your study of logic is as mis-applied as science trying to prove the existence of God. It's like trying to measure a cup of justice or a pound of love. Peace, Arthur Miller art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (01/29/91)
In article <Jan.22.01.44.13.1991.29155@athos.rutgers.edu>, charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >[This continues a discussion on the necessity of baptism. It's hard >to be sure who said what beneath all the widgets, but I believe >Frank Farkas cited Mark 16;16: >>I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 >>doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". >>In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. >--clh] > >Um, Frank, it says that if you have x and y, then you get z. This does not >prove that if z, then you must have x and y. You could have x and v. >A simple math demonstration will show this: 2 plus 2 equals 4, but 4 does >not always equal 2 plus 2, you could have 3 plus 1, 0 plus 4, -3 plus 7, >2 times 2, square root of 16, all of these could give you 4. Thus your >statement that Mark 16:16 says that to be saved one must believe *and* must >be baptized" is not true. It only says that if [believe & baptized], then >saved. Geoff Allen is right, you are wrong. You need to take some courses >in logic and argument. I have, and it often helps me catch mistakes like >this. > Initially I was not going to respond to this response. Arthur Miller's excellent response made me realize that my position was not correct at all. I believe that Arthur has provided a very good response. The only thing I would like to add to his is the following: If x+y=z, then it is also possible that x+v=z only if v=y Now, lets call each term what they are suppose to be: x=faith y=baptism z=saved This means that faith + baptism = saved. If this is true, then the only way baptism could be substituted if faith would also be substituted by something else. This again points out how absurd, and in fact how illogical this way of thinking is. It still amaze me how gullible we can be by accepting some flimsy arguement, if it will somehow support what we believe in. It is comparable to the victims of a money fraud. Many who fall in prey are doing it because they want to believe the fact that they will get rich. They are willing victims. I find it interesting that many who holds the Bible up high as the direct word of God spends so much time talking away some of the things which are written. So far I have herd the following arguements against Mark 16:16: 1. It is not in the earliest manuscript. I assume that this means that it is not scripture. What an ugly thought. Something in the Bible which doesn't belong there (this is not a translation issue). May be there are things which are missing? 2. Logical arguement that baptism is not part of the equation for salvation because it could be substituted with something else (which in fact was shown above to be false logic). I am now waiting for someone to quote a scripture which will in fact cancel out Mark 16:16. With brotherly love, Frank