I'm very vocal about my distaste for abortion. I even hate the word "abortion". It dehumanizes the act that is taking place. I get a lot of criticism for my view. "A fetus isn't a human so it's not murder" I get told all the time. I even get told by a lot of people who are pro-life that I should leave it alone. It doesn't affect me so I should just let it be. If I'm pro-life that's all well and good, but I shouldn't be telling anyone else that abortion is wrong for them.
I can't. I won't. I want to tell you why.
In the 1940's, there was an uprising in Europe, specifically in Germany. A man, Adolf Hitler, along with many other influences, was convinced that humanity could reach a state of perfection by eliminating imperfect genes from the human race. If people who possessed these lesser genes were eliminated, then their genes could not be spread. Eventually we would be left with nothing but perfect genes, creating a sort of super human race. Members of the Nazi regime would round up these carriers of imperfect genes under false guises. Some were told they were being moved to better places. Some were told their skills were needed elsewhere. Others were simply ripped from their homes. All were placed in cramped box cars on trains or in small buses and trucks, packed in like animals, and transported like cargo hundreds of miles from their homes.
When they arrived at their destination, most found that what they were told was simply not true. They were taken to camps where they were forced to work in factories for seemingly endless hours with little food or water. The women were separated from their husbands and children. Many were beaten and raped. Most were merely herded into warehouses like sheep, stripped of their clothes and their dignity, and gassed. Some were yanked from their families in broad daylight in the middle of busy towns, dragged into the street, and shot right their in front of their children, their neighbors, their friends. In most cases, no one tried to stop it from happening. "No one is trying to kill me" they were say to themselves. "It's none of my business."
Imagine their surprise when, one day, the Nazi army marched into their town, and into their homes, and took them from their families. And imagine their horror when they begged for someone to do something to help them, and no one came, justifying it because "No one is trying to kill me. It's none of my business. I don't believe someone should be dragged out into the street and killed, so I won't do it. But I'm no position to tell someone else they can't do it."
"But, Patrick, abortion is the termination of a cluster of cells. A fetus isn't a human. The Nazis were killing humans." The Nazis didn't believe they were killing humans. Jews, were viewed by the Nazi regime in the same way we as Americans once viewed black slaves. They looked like humans. They could do things that were human like. But they were somehow lesser than we were, and therefore, their life was not of any real value. And yet, even though the Nazis declared the Jews as a lesser form of human, we knew better. We knew that it was murder! And, until the Japanese decided it would be a good idea to mess with us, we let it happen! We watched over here, an entire ocean away from it, and watched as Nazi Germany rounded up "lesser" people and killed them! In camps! In their churches! In their homes! In front of their children! In front of their neighbors! And we watched it happen all because it wasn't our problem, and all because just because we believe something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong for everyone.
Today, the exact same thing is happening! Only this time, the people being rounded up are incapable of defending themselves. They're incapable of speaking up; incapable of asking that someone put a stop to it! And we're letting it happen, all because we think that it's none of our business.
I wrote that we as American's citizens lost our right to life in the case of Roe vs Wade. Someone told me that because no one is trying to abort me that I still have my right to live. That's how those folks that watched the people around them get taken from their homes felt. "It's not affecting me so it's nothing for me to worry about." Let us forget for just a moment that whether or not they ever come for me or you is not the issue, but that standing up for others is just the right thing to do. Set that aside. Everyone always says that it's not their problem. And then one day, they do come for you. One day a person who believes that an unborn baby isn't a viable life decides that an elderly person who needs an oxygen tank isn't a viable life. It's not that far-fetched. One day a person decides that an under educated man who isn't contributing to society by his definition decides that that person should be eliminated for the betterment of the community. One day a person who believes that an unborn child is not a person uses that same logical pathway to come to the conclusion that a perfectly healthy newborn child is not a person because he does not posses it in himself to be self aware or self sustaining, and that "abortion rights" should be extended to parents of already birthed children.
If you don't believe that standing up for the defenseless is just the right thing to do, your moral compass is a little off. If you think the idea of murdering babies simply because they are an inconvenience to the parents is something that you should be indifferent about because it doesn't affect you, you're just plain ignorant and maybe even stupid. As a Jew; as a member of a bloodline that has been under attack for as long as human history has been recorded I ask of you this one thing: don't wait for someone to find a reason to justify eliminating your family, or your neighbor, or you before you wake up and say something.
9/15/12
A Study on Baptism: Part Deux - 2
Nerd points for whoever read that title and thought of the ridiculousness of SqaureEnix's naming convention for recent Final Fantasy entries.
The following is a direct evolution of the previous entry in my search. I said I was going to touch on how baptism and circumcision are related, and I still plan to do so, but I have to take a quick detour. You'll find myself repeating things I wrote in the last entry, but it's worth repeating because the language I use and point I want to make is much stronger this time around.
Before I take that detour, let me clarify something that probably troubled a few of you have been reading this. I've been saying repeatedly that I do not believe that baptism is strictly a sign that I am saved, nor do I believe this idea is supported Biblically. What I haven't made clear is that I DO believe that baptism is a sign that I am connected to the family of God in some way here on Earth, whether that be through my personal salvation or through the sign that my parents gave to me that I am part of their family and they are part of God's family. It does not have anything to with my salvation.
Anyway, I'm going to say something here that is going to be incredibly unpopular but it needs to be said.
Baptism by dunking is in no way Biblically supported.
I'll let you gather the pieces of your exploded brain and calm yourself down by playing a few levels of Super Mario 3D Land. Let me know when you're ready to continue.
Good. Now, then, hear me out. The most popular defense of dunking baptism is the supposed meaning of the Greek word baptismo. I'm not a Greek scholar. I don't speak Greek. I don't have the luxury of knowing someone who is Greek so that I can just ask them. I have to go by the same tools that most English speaking Americans have to them: the Google. Now, simply using the Google command define: X where X is baptismo yields a whole bunch of worthless links. Luckily, I don't need to do that much work to define this word.
Baptismo as defined by John Piper and a lot of other people who are knowledgeable in this area means to immerse where the meaning for immerse means to dunk or to place beneath the surface of liquid. Just for ease of typing and reading, I will use dunk to mean place beneath the surface of liquid, even though that word does not strictly mean that either. Now, looking up the definition of English words may seem silly for a person who's first language is English, but you'd be amazed how many English words the average person actually does not know the true meaning of. I want to know if to immerse really means to dunk. So, lets use that command I mentioned above where X is immerse. The first definition is "Dip or submerge in a liquid". There's two words we need to look at now: dip and submerge. To dip means "Put or let something down quickly or briefly into liquid". I can dip my leg into water without my entire leg being paced beneath the surface of the water. Let's try the other word, submerge. The second definition of submerge is "to cover or overflow with water: immerse". Now, just because it's the second definition used does not mean it's less a definition than the first, just one of multiple possibilities and happens to be listed second by Websters (one of the sources for Google's results). When I'm in the shower, the water coming from the shower head has covered my body, yet I am not beneath the surface of a pool of liquid. So, by the very English definition that is given to the word baptismo by people who believe that dunking is the preferred or only proper way to be baptized, baptismo does not exclusively mean to dunk.
"But that's just you playing with words", you might be saying. "Everything in the Bible points to baptismo meaning to dunk." Wrong. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) Here, the Greek writing author of the book of Hebrews uses the word baptismo to mean a Hebrew word found in Numbers that means to sprinkle. Here, we have the only instance I can find where baptismo is translated into English as anything other than baptize, which means that baptize does, in fact, mean to sprinkle.
Every single ritual that God ordered the nation of Israel to do, the passover feast, the cleansing process before entering the Holy Place, all of it paints a picture of something that God fulfills in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, cleansing is always done by sprinkling. I can't find any example at all in the Old Testament where it was done any other way. And then Jesus shows up, starts giving us new pictures that point directly back to Old Testament customs, but he takes the cleansing ritual and throws it in the trash and starts over? It makes no sense at all.
When you consider that, it also makes no sense at all that John would have dunked anyone. The picture he was given of cleansing, passed down from generations of Hebrews and Jews (keep in mind his father was a priest who would have no doubt seen to it that his son was well versed in the customs of their people), is a picture of sprinkling, Why would he suddenly start dunking without giving a reason to those he was serving? Why would the people around him, who grew up with the same traditions, so easily cast them aside for this ritual that would be so foreign to them?
There are no pictures of God dunking people in the Spirit. Acts 2:17 says "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people." Christ cleanses us by the pouring of His blood. In Matthew 26:28, while giving the Lord's Supper, Christ says "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." I realize this isn't necessarily Biblical, but our own Christian language when talking about being cleansed by the blood of Christ is centered around the idea that it is poured out over us. There are literally zero metaphors of our salvation involving anything that resembles dunking until we start talking about what we think baptism looks like.
This last one isn't a Biblical example but it is a common sense example. When you mature into an adult and start bathing, or cleansing, yourself, do you sit in a pool of water, soap, and your own filth, or do you pour water over yourself so that the filth can be washed away down the drain? How can you expect to be cleansed by wading around in standing water? We take showers because baths do not get you clean.
The following is a direct evolution of the previous entry in my search. I said I was going to touch on how baptism and circumcision are related, and I still plan to do so, but I have to take a quick detour. You'll find myself repeating things I wrote in the last entry, but it's worth repeating because the language I use and point I want to make is much stronger this time around.
Before I take that detour, let me clarify something that probably troubled a few of you have been reading this. I've been saying repeatedly that I do not believe that baptism is strictly a sign that I am saved, nor do I believe this idea is supported Biblically. What I haven't made clear is that I DO believe that baptism is a sign that I am connected to the family of God in some way here on Earth, whether that be through my personal salvation or through the sign that my parents gave to me that I am part of their family and they are part of God's family. It does not have anything to with my salvation.
Anyway, I'm going to say something here that is going to be incredibly unpopular but it needs to be said.
Baptism by dunking is in no way Biblically supported.
I'll let you gather the pieces of your exploded brain and calm yourself down by playing a few levels of Super Mario 3D Land. Let me know when you're ready to continue.
Good. Now, then, hear me out. The most popular defense of dunking baptism is the supposed meaning of the Greek word baptismo. I'm not a Greek scholar. I don't speak Greek. I don't have the luxury of knowing someone who is Greek so that I can just ask them. I have to go by the same tools that most English speaking Americans have to them: the Google. Now, simply using the Google command define: X where X is baptismo yields a whole bunch of worthless links. Luckily, I don't need to do that much work to define this word.
Baptismo as defined by John Piper and a lot of other people who are knowledgeable in this area means to immerse where the meaning for immerse means to dunk or to place beneath the surface of liquid. Just for ease of typing and reading, I will use dunk to mean place beneath the surface of liquid, even though that word does not strictly mean that either. Now, looking up the definition of English words may seem silly for a person who's first language is English, but you'd be amazed how many English words the average person actually does not know the true meaning of. I want to know if to immerse really means to dunk. So, lets use that command I mentioned above where X is immerse. The first definition is "Dip or submerge in a liquid". There's two words we need to look at now: dip and submerge. To dip means "Put or let something down quickly or briefly into liquid". I can dip my leg into water without my entire leg being paced beneath the surface of the water. Let's try the other word, submerge. The second definition of submerge is "to cover or overflow with water: immerse". Now, just because it's the second definition used does not mean it's less a definition than the first, just one of multiple possibilities and happens to be listed second by Websters (one of the sources for Google's results). When I'm in the shower, the water coming from the shower head has covered my body, yet I am not beneath the surface of a pool of liquid. So, by the very English definition that is given to the word baptismo by people who believe that dunking is the preferred or only proper way to be baptized, baptismo does not exclusively mean to dunk.
"But that's just you playing with words", you might be saying. "Everything in the Bible points to baptismo meaning to dunk." Wrong. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) Here, the Greek writing author of the book of Hebrews uses the word baptismo to mean a Hebrew word found in Numbers that means to sprinkle. Here, we have the only instance I can find where baptismo is translated into English as anything other than baptize, which means that baptize does, in fact, mean to sprinkle.
Let us move onto the next most popular defense of dunking baptism being the only proper or the preferred mode of baptism. Paul says in Romans 6:4 "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." So if we are buried with Christ in baptism, we have to be dunked because that is the best picture of a burial. But this assumes that Jesus was buried in the same manner that we are when we die. In American culture, when you die, a hole is dug, you are placed in it, and the hole is then filled again with the same ground that was dug up to form the hole in the first place. But, Jesus was not buried in this manner. According to Jewish custom, Jesus' body would have been wrapped in linens and then placed inside of a cave. A large stone would then be placed in front of the entrance to the cave. John 19:38-42 verifies that this is indeed what was done to the body of Christ once He was removed from the cross. So, Christ was not buried in a hole below the surface of the Earth and then had the ground placed back on top of Him, which the picture of dunking would resemble, but was, in fact, placed inside of cave. How does being dunked looked anything like that?
Most people would then move onto the passages where Scripture says that the one who was baptized went down into the water. I'm going to sound a little harsh but it must be said. This argument is just plain stupid and I'm embarrassed for those who insist on using this as "proof" of anything. The argument is stupid because each of those passages also says that the one performing the baptism went down into the water. Acts 8:38 says "Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." So unless you're going to argue that the baptizer as well as the baptizee should be dunked, you're picking and choosing portions of those passages to defend your position instead of looking at the entire passage and it's context.
I believe I've made a sufficient case for why baptize does not exclusively mean to dunk. Now I'm going to argue why to dunk isn't even an accurate possible interpretation of what the ritual was in the Bible.
When you consider that, it also makes no sense at all that John would have dunked anyone. The picture he was given of cleansing, passed down from generations of Hebrews and Jews (keep in mind his father was a priest who would have no doubt seen to it that his son was well versed in the customs of their people), is a picture of sprinkling, Why would he suddenly start dunking without giving a reason to those he was serving? Why would the people around him, who grew up with the same traditions, so easily cast them aside for this ritual that would be so foreign to them?
There are no pictures of God dunking people in the Spirit. Acts 2:17 says "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people." Christ cleanses us by the pouring of His blood. In Matthew 26:28, while giving the Lord's Supper, Christ says "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." I realize this isn't necessarily Biblical, but our own Christian language when talking about being cleansed by the blood of Christ is centered around the idea that it is poured out over us. There are literally zero metaphors of our salvation involving anything that resembles dunking until we start talking about what we think baptism looks like.
This last one isn't a Biblical example but it is a common sense example. When you mature into an adult and start bathing, or cleansing, yourself, do you sit in a pool of water, soap, and your own filth, or do you pour water over yourself so that the filth can be washed away down the drain? How can you expect to be cleansed by wading around in standing water? We take showers because baths do not get you clean.
To recap, baptismo does not exclusively mean to dunk, the Bible itself uses baptismo to mean to sprinkle, the metaphor of burial to dunking does not make any sense in the context of the Jewish custom of caring for a dead body, Jewish cleansing rituals recorded in the Bible and ordered by God are performed through sprinkling, and all of God's metaphors for how he grants us the Spirit or the cleansing blood of Christ are through pouring.
If you disagree, I would appreciate your CIVIL input backed up with Scripture. I've put a lot of thought, research, and prayerful consideration into this and I expect you to do that same.
8/30/12
A Study on Baptism: Part Duex
UPDATE: 09/01/12
I was mistaken when I said Piper helped translate the ESV. He endorses it and has released a study Bible with notes written by him, but he had nothing to do with the translation of the Biblical texts.
OK. I was supposed to do this once a day from Saturday onward. It's Thursday. This is my second post. I failed. Moving on.
I decided to start out by reading two authorities on this subject. The first, John Piper, who disagrees with the idea of infant baptism and that the mode really does not matter. The second, Donald A Dunkerly, a guy you'e probably never heard of (he was the pastor of Mcllwain Presbyterian Church in Pensacola, FL) who does believe in infant baptism and that the mode does not matter all that much.
Now, allow me to explain something. I hate when people start a conversation off with "John Piper said X". This happens with the other famous ministers, I'm sure, but in my circle of friends, John Piper says X is used far more often than even "The Bible says X" and it makes me want to punch people in the face. John Piper did not write a book of the Bible to my knowledge. So why do I appear to be doing the same thing? Using the work of wise men who have already done a lot of the heavy lifting is not wrong or even a bad idea. But, after you've heard what they have to say about it, you should be able to then say "I heard or read that John Piper had X to say about X subject or passage, and I tested that against the Bible, and the Bible says X". If you can't say that but instead have to say "John Piper says X", you should really be asking yourself why you defaulted to Piper (or your chosen respected guy of choice) instead of saying "The Bible says X". Perhaps you did this because Piper is wrong. Or perhaps you value Piper's word over God's Word. Either way, there's something wrong with it. All that is to say, even though I read them, you probably won't hear their names mentioned very often past this point, unless I am pointing out that one of them said something that doesn't pass the Scripture test.
I'm going to first talk about the mode and definition of baptism. If the mode and definition of baptism are indeed of dunking and being buried and raised again with Christ, then my whole position falls to pieces. We don't dunk babies. I'm pretty sure the authorities would take issue with that.
Dunking Christians immediately point to the Greek word for baptize, baptizo, which is usually translated to immerse. I'll explain the usually in a moment. Immerse means to submerge. Definition #2 of submerge is to be covered or overflown with water. If you've ever taken a shower before, you know that you can be covered or overflown with water without being dunked into a pool of water.
Dunking Christians also point to a verse in Colossians 2 that says that through baptism we were buried with Christ, who were also raised with through our faith. So, dunking is a better picture of our salvation, in which Jesus is buried and then raised again. This, of course, assumes that baptism is supposed to be a sign of our faith, which I see no evidence of. This verse explicitly says that we were buried with Christ through baptism, but our resurrection is through our faith. The baptism picture only points to one part of this process.
Dunking Christians also forget to mention that they use the same word "baptize" to express what happens when we receive the Holy Spirit, but they will also describe this as having Spirit poured out onto you. So which is it? Does baptize mean to dunk the subject, or to have something poured out onto the subject. By your strict definition of that word, it can't be both.
Now you might be saying to yourself that this, at the very least, eliminates sprinkling. Wrong again. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) I would like to point out that John Piper makes the argument about the definition of the English word baptize as to dunk, yet a Bible translation he personally approves as being the best translates the word to washing, which, in this context, clearly speaks of a practice of sprinkling.
Many dunkers also point to the fact that the Bible constantly says "went down into the water" or "came up from the water" as proof that dunking was the method performed by the people in the New Testament. To that, I want to point out that it also says that the baptizer as well as the baptizee went down into and came up out of the water. So, why don't we dunk the one who performs the ceremony?
So what does water baptism mean or represent? Honestly, I'm not sure. I know what it doesn't represent. It doesn't represent that I'm a Christian. It's not there. Sorry. It also doesn't represent some sort of picture of the burial and resurrection of Christ at least not exclusively. If that were the case, what the heck did John the Baptist think it meant while he was baptizing people PRE the death and resurrection of Christ? Also, since John's baptism was a baptism of cleansing, and Jews cleanse through sprinkling and pouring, as shown in the Old Testament, it's very likely that John did the same thing, though I don't really have any proof of that, so take that as you wish.
I believe that baptism is simply New Testament circumcision. The Lord's Supper, another ritual we participate in that I have yet to find a command that we do so (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't see where anyone in the Bible says I have to do it), replaces Passover. The Lord's Supper takes a bloody practice and turns it into a non-bloody practice. Circumcision was also a bloody practice. Water baptism takes that practice and makes it's non-bloody.
Now, I have a Biblical reason for thinking this way. But I'll touch on that in my next entry. I need to study it more and I do believe that my study of it will alter my thinking from what I stated in my first post just a little.
Thanks for reading and joining me in this struggle over this topic. Again, I appreciate your respectful comments and ideas.
I decided to start out by reading two authorities on this subject. The first, John Piper, who disagrees with the idea of infant baptism and that the mode really does not matter. The second, Donald A Dunkerly, a guy you'e probably never heard of (he was the pastor of Mcllwain Presbyterian Church in Pensacola, FL) who does believe in infant baptism and that the mode does not matter all that much.
Now, allow me to explain something. I hate when people start a conversation off with "John Piper said X". This happens with the other famous ministers, I'm sure, but in my circle of friends, John Piper says X is used far more often than even "The Bible says X" and it makes me want to punch people in the face. John Piper did not write a book of the Bible to my knowledge. So why do I appear to be doing the same thing? Using the work of wise men who have already done a lot of the heavy lifting is not wrong or even a bad idea. But, after you've heard what they have to say about it, you should be able to then say "I heard or read that John Piper had X to say about X subject or passage, and I tested that against the Bible, and the Bible says X". If you can't say that but instead have to say "John Piper says X", you should really be asking yourself why you defaulted to Piper (or your chosen respected guy of choice) instead of saying "The Bible says X". Perhaps you did this because Piper is wrong. Or perhaps you value Piper's word over God's Word. Either way, there's something wrong with it. All that is to say, even though I read them, you probably won't hear their names mentioned very often past this point, unless I am pointing out that one of them said something that doesn't pass the Scripture test.
I'm going to first talk about the mode and definition of baptism. If the mode and definition of baptism are indeed of dunking and being buried and raised again with Christ, then my whole position falls to pieces. We don't dunk babies. I'm pretty sure the authorities would take issue with that.
Dunking Christians immediately point to the Greek word for baptize, baptizo, which is usually translated to immerse. I'll explain the usually in a moment. Immerse means to submerge. Definition #2 of submerge is to be covered or overflown with water. If you've ever taken a shower before, you know that you can be covered or overflown with water without being dunked into a pool of water.
Dunking Christians also point to a verse in Colossians 2 that says that through baptism we were buried with Christ, who were also raised with through our faith. So, dunking is a better picture of our salvation, in which Jesus is buried and then raised again. This, of course, assumes that baptism is supposed to be a sign of our faith, which I see no evidence of. This verse explicitly says that we were buried with Christ through baptism, but our resurrection is through our faith. The baptism picture only points to one part of this process.
Dunking Christians also forget to mention that they use the same word "baptize" to express what happens when we receive the Holy Spirit, but they will also describe this as having Spirit poured out onto you. So which is it? Does baptize mean to dunk the subject, or to have something poured out onto the subject. By your strict definition of that word, it can't be both.
Now you might be saying to yourself that this, at the very least, eliminates sprinkling. Wrong again. If you look at Hebrews 9:10, the author is discussing a process of cleansing that the priest performed before entering the inner room. According to Strong's, the most widely used authority on definitions of Bibilical terms and language including translations, the English word that appears here, washing, is the Greek word baptismo. If you look at Numbers 8:7, which is where the process Hebrews is talking about is recorded, it says "Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves." (ESV) I would like to point out that John Piper makes the argument about the definition of the English word baptize as to dunk, yet a Bible translation he personally approves as being the best translates the word to washing, which, in this context, clearly speaks of a practice of sprinkling.
Many dunkers also point to the fact that the Bible constantly says "went down into the water" or "came up from the water" as proof that dunking was the method performed by the people in the New Testament. To that, I want to point out that it also says that the baptizer as well as the baptizee went down into and came up out of the water. So, why don't we dunk the one who performs the ceremony?
So what does water baptism mean or represent? Honestly, I'm not sure. I know what it doesn't represent. It doesn't represent that I'm a Christian. It's not there. Sorry. It also doesn't represent some sort of picture of the burial and resurrection of Christ at least not exclusively. If that were the case, what the heck did John the Baptist think it meant while he was baptizing people PRE the death and resurrection of Christ? Also, since John's baptism was a baptism of cleansing, and Jews cleanse through sprinkling and pouring, as shown in the Old Testament, it's very likely that John did the same thing, though I don't really have any proof of that, so take that as you wish.
I believe that baptism is simply New Testament circumcision. The Lord's Supper, another ritual we participate in that I have yet to find a command that we do so (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't see where anyone in the Bible says I have to do it), replaces Passover. The Lord's Supper takes a bloody practice and turns it into a non-bloody practice. Circumcision was also a bloody practice. Water baptism takes that practice and makes it's non-bloody.
Now, I have a Biblical reason for thinking this way. But I'll touch on that in my next entry. I need to study it more and I do believe that my study of it will alter my thinking from what I stated in my first post just a little.
Thanks for reading and joining me in this struggle over this topic. Again, I appreciate your respectful comments and ideas.
8/25/12
A Study on Baptism
I plan to write a little about my findings on this subject matter once a day for the next week. Below, you will find a summary of what I already believe going into this study. I have done countless hours of study prior to today on this subject which has lead me to the following conclusions. It is always possible that, over the course of my study, my opinion on this subject will change. If you agree or disagree and can express so respectfully, I encourage you to throw in your input. Obviously, I want you to stick with Biblical text, but historical accounts not recorded in the Bible are also valuable when tested against scripture.
Let me, first, explain my position. I was baptized as an infant. I had no choice in that matter. I did not receive the Holy Spirit at that point. If you've ever been to a baby dedication, you've been to what I call an infant baptism, though oil was likely used in place of water. Otherwise, they're exactly the same thing. Had I been able to find someone who would perform one, I would have had my son, Caspian, baptized as an infant as well.
I do not believe that anyone who has been baptized as an infant must be re-baptized of water. Likewise, I don't believe that someone who was not baptized as an infant must get baptized of water after being saved. I do not believe that baptism of water is a proclamation of one who is a Christian. No one can possibly be aware of one's baptism unless they were present for it, so what good does it do as a sign of one's salvation? In fact, my church leadership wasn't even aware that I had not been baptized as an adult Christian until I made them aware of it, yet none of them had once questioned my salvation. I don't suddenly become permanently drenched as a sign that I am set apart for Christ. There is no scripture supporting this idea that baptism is a sign of my salvation.
I believe that the baptism that Christ speaks of in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) is a baptism of the Holy Spirit. No command to use water is mentioned in His last words to His disciples. Jesus' own disciples did not rush out and receive a water baptism post receiving the Holy Spirit, and if they did, God could not be bothered to divinely inspire Luke to record that in Acts 2, so it must not have been all that important. The disciples received a baptism of the Holy Spirit, and I believe that that is what Christ was speaking of. I believe that every instance where Peter declares "Repent and be baptized!" that Peter is speaking of being baptized of the Holy Spirit. If he's not, then everyone who has not been baptized of water is in for a real shocker when Jesus tells them "I do not know you" and the casts them into the lake of fire.
I believe that baptism and circumcision are related, though I may not understand how exactly. Paul (Colossians 2) certainly thought so. I also want to point out Acts 2, where Peter specifically mentions that "the promise is you and your children". I don't fully understand what he meant by that, but the fact that Hebrews circumcised their infants as a sign that they were of God's chosen people probably ties up in all of that somehow.
In order to join CenterPoint Church as a member, I was required to be baptized post salvation. I did so out of respect and submission to the authority of my church leadership. No one that was present at my second water baptism had questioned my salvation prior to witnessing this. If my second water baptism was a sign to those people of my salvation but they already knew me to be saved, what the heck did I do it for? This makes as much sense to me as printing "t-shirt" on my t-shirt as a sign to others that it is, indeed, a t-shirt.
These are the things I believe prior to engaging in my umpteenth study of this subject matter, as requested by one of my church elders.
So, I decided I will concede that my view of baptism is wrong if I can find evidence that Jesus' disciples were baptized AFTER His death and resurrection (John's baptism of forgiveness does not count, which, by the way, the Bible never says they received either). I have, thus far, found no evidence of it, though I have been told it is safe to assume they were, in which case it is also safe to assume that each instance of someone and "all of his household were baptized" means that there were children and other people who did not believe who were present but were also baptized, which is, of course, ridiculous.
I also decided that finding an example of someone commanding that someone be baptized of water after receiving the Holy Spirit would also mean I'm wrong. There are many instances of it happening, as well as many instances of the disciples saying that there is no reason for someone not to be, but no command that it must happen.
Other points of interest:
Phillip does not command the Eunuch to be baptized, of water or otherwise. The Eunuch asks why he should not be and then Phillip baptizes him. Acts 8
Jesus does not command people to be baptized. The command is for the disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Also, there is no mention of water being used in this command. Matthew 28
Baptism, post Christ, is not defined in the Bible. The only definition of baptism in the Bible is for John's baptism, which is a baptism of repentance and was likely modeled after the practice that the Jewish priest had of cleansing themselves (not by immersion, just to throw that out there) before entering the Holy place. I have no proof of this though, so feel free to treat this like the argument that the disciples were baptized and that infants were present in the household examples.
Baptism is not merely a New Testament idea. 1 Peter 3, 1 Corinthians 10, and various other passages explicitly point to baptism's Old Testaments roots.
All that is to say, if you believe far one way (infant baptism is a Biblical practice that we should all practice today) or the other (baptism is strictly post salvation and we are commanded by the Word to be baptized), you're probably reading something into it that just isn't there.
Your input is greatly appreciated. I will be struggling with this over the next seven days, longer if need be. No one likes struggling alone. As I said, if you can be respectful, please feel free to share with me and others in the comments section.
8/2/12
The Nonsense
I saw the this post and had to respond. Read the post or you won't be able to follow along. What follows was taken directly from another thread that I posted it too, so if the tense and nouns sound like I'm speaking to someone specific, I apologize for having missed it. I made every effort to edit it in a way that is appropriate for this forum.
This has got to be the most ignorant take on what happened yesterday that I've ever read, and I've read a lot of ignorant things in the last 24 hours.
7/19/12
My Letter to Mitt
The RNC/Mitt Romney Campaign sent me a solicitation for a donation. They included a postage paid envelope. I hate waste, so I wrote a letter and used the envelope. Below is what I wrote. Enjoy.
5/28/12
Jesus said "When you sin, look around you and find someone to blame for it."
You're absolutely right, Jesus never said that. I've never met a Christian who would ever make such a claim. I have, however, met many Christians, both man and woman, who almost certainly believe this. Why you ask? Because of a few verses that warn against causing your brother to stumble. The two most famous instances of this idea are Luke 17:1-3 and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. There are others, and they all basically say the same thing, it's just that these are the two you'll here the most. Go ahead and read that. I'll wait.
4/21/12
Three Things That Make Me More Free Than You
I've learned that there are three things one needs in order to experience total freedom in this life. I'd like to share them with you.
The first thing is Jesus. This seems obvious to me, but it's not obvious to everyone out there. I don't want this to get all preachy. You can get that elsewhere online or even on this blog. So, I'll just touch on the subject. You can't possibly be free without knowing that once your life here has ended there's something better waiting for you. More than that, though, is knowing that you won't be punished for all the dumb crap you did while you were alive. That's not an excuse to do dumb crap. It's just nice to know that eternal damnation isn't waiting for you when you die because of that dumb crap.
The next two things are far less obvious to most people, especially Christians, and are the two things I want to focus on here.
I'll continue with realizing you are no better than the worst person to ever grace Earth with his presence. This is a lot easier to do if you have the first thing down, which is why it puzzles me that more Christians don't get this. Think of the worst person you can think of. Being a Jew, my go to terrible person is Adolf Hitler. He killed lots of Jews, like, more Jews (as well as other peoples, I'm sure) than I could even begin to count. Anyway, this might sound weird to most of you, but, we're no better than he was.
*GASP!* What?! Did he just compare me to Hitler?! How dare he!
Hold up, peoples. I'm actually not the one who said it. James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." That's pretty serious stuff. If I break any one part of the law, it's like I broke every part of the law. I've actually told this to people before and they look me like I just kicked them in the testicles, and some of those people didn't even have testicles. They think it's awful that I, or God, would say they're no better than Hitler. They're completely missing how freeing this is.
Think about it. If you're no better than Hitler, the standard for how you should behave is pretty low. Again, this isn't an excuse to open up your own line of custom gas chambers. It does mean that when you screw up, even royally, no one should have expected any different. When someone wrongs you, you can more easily forgive them, because they're dirty, rotten sinners. Of course they wronged you. Why wouldn't they? Realizing this is so liberating. I don't know how anyone survives trying to live up to some standard that they will never ever reach.
The next thing, and this goes hand in hand with the other, is realizing that it does not matter one bit what anyone else thinks of you. I can say and do whatever I like and it doesn't matter if you don't like it. I can tell you exactly what I think about some political issue or a doctrinal issue and not care one bit if you don't like it. In fact, I'm going to try it right now, just because it makes me feel so free and awesome when I do so.
The Obama administration is a disaster.
Abortion is murder.
Homosexuality is a sin.
iOS is an fantastic example of lazy design.
Cats are only slightly more useful than a sober Kanye West.
I just offended 5 groups of people (unless they've taken my advice and don't care what I think), and I don't care. It's not my problem. If you think the direction our country is headed is a good one, I think you're wrong and probably an idiot. You probably think I'm a racist and should be shot. I don't care!
There are only three opinions of me that matter to me: God's, my wife's, and my own. To be fair, my wife's opinion of me matters only a little. If God's happy with me and I can look myself in the mirror without throwing up, I'm good. And it feels awesome.
If I ever get to be interviewed by Piers Morgan, I'll tell him that homosexuality is a sin, he'll take to twitter and raise up a mob of twits, and I'll make the rounds on the morning show circuit, not to apologize like some people who care way to much have done, but to say it again, and again, and again. If you don't like it, I know a guy with a short pier you can take long walk off of. This is my worldview. I don't care what you think of it. I would like for you to agree with me, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it if you decide to call me a homophobe (which, lets be honest, isn't even the proper use of that combination of prefix and suffix).
Let me reiterate that none of these things are to be used as excuses to just go out and be a giant pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass (Oh! Here's an excellent example. Some of you read the word "ass" and about fell out of your chair, and I don't care!). Use your liberation from caring what others think of you responsibly. Jesus still expects us to be on our best behavior. Not caring what others think of you doesn't mean you randomly point at people and call them names, even if you really do think that about them. What I want you to take from this is that you shouldn't fear speaking your mind. Ideas and opinions are how innovations are born. Ideas and opinions are how positive change is found. Don't hold it all in just becasue someone might not like it. That's their problem, not yours.
Besides, Jesus didn't give flying piece of crap if you're offended by what He says and the message He brought us. If the most powerful being in existence doesn't care what you think of Him, why should I care what you think of me?
The first thing is Jesus. This seems obvious to me, but it's not obvious to everyone out there. I don't want this to get all preachy. You can get that elsewhere online or even on this blog. So, I'll just touch on the subject. You can't possibly be free without knowing that once your life here has ended there's something better waiting for you. More than that, though, is knowing that you won't be punished for all the dumb crap you did while you were alive. That's not an excuse to do dumb crap. It's just nice to know that eternal damnation isn't waiting for you when you die because of that dumb crap.
The next two things are far less obvious to most people, especially Christians, and are the two things I want to focus on here.
I'll continue with realizing you are no better than the worst person to ever grace Earth with his presence. This is a lot easier to do if you have the first thing down, which is why it puzzles me that more Christians don't get this. Think of the worst person you can think of. Being a Jew, my go to terrible person is Adolf Hitler. He killed lots of Jews, like, more Jews (as well as other peoples, I'm sure) than I could even begin to count. Anyway, this might sound weird to most of you, but, we're no better than he was.
*GASP!* What?! Did he just compare me to Hitler?! How dare he!
Hold up, peoples. I'm actually not the one who said it. James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." That's pretty serious stuff. If I break any one part of the law, it's like I broke every part of the law. I've actually told this to people before and they look me like I just kicked them in the testicles, and some of those people didn't even have testicles. They think it's awful that I, or God, would say they're no better than Hitler. They're completely missing how freeing this is.
Think about it. If you're no better than Hitler, the standard for how you should behave is pretty low. Again, this isn't an excuse to open up your own line of custom gas chambers. It does mean that when you screw up, even royally, no one should have expected any different. When someone wrongs you, you can more easily forgive them, because they're dirty, rotten sinners. Of course they wronged you. Why wouldn't they? Realizing this is so liberating. I don't know how anyone survives trying to live up to some standard that they will never ever reach.
The next thing, and this goes hand in hand with the other, is realizing that it does not matter one bit what anyone else thinks of you. I can say and do whatever I like and it doesn't matter if you don't like it. I can tell you exactly what I think about some political issue or a doctrinal issue and not care one bit if you don't like it. In fact, I'm going to try it right now, just because it makes me feel so free and awesome when I do so.
The Obama administration is a disaster.
Abortion is murder.
Homosexuality is a sin.
iOS is an fantastic example of lazy design.
Cats are only slightly more useful than a sober Kanye West.
I just offended 5 groups of people (unless they've taken my advice and don't care what I think), and I don't care. It's not my problem. If you think the direction our country is headed is a good one, I think you're wrong and probably an idiot. You probably think I'm a racist and should be shot. I don't care!
There are only three opinions of me that matter to me: God's, my wife's, and my own. To be fair, my wife's opinion of me matters only a little. If God's happy with me and I can look myself in the mirror without throwing up, I'm good. And it feels awesome.
If I ever get to be interviewed by Piers Morgan, I'll tell him that homosexuality is a sin, he'll take to twitter and raise up a mob of twits, and I'll make the rounds on the morning show circuit, not to apologize like some people who care way to much have done, but to say it again, and again, and again. If you don't like it, I know a guy with a short pier you can take long walk off of. This is my worldview. I don't care what you think of it. I would like for you to agree with me, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it if you decide to call me a homophobe (which, lets be honest, isn't even the proper use of that combination of prefix and suffix).
Let me reiterate that none of these things are to be used as excuses to just go out and be a giant pain in the ass for the sake of being a pain in the ass (Oh! Here's an excellent example. Some of you read the word "ass" and about fell out of your chair, and I don't care!). Use your liberation from caring what others think of you responsibly. Jesus still expects us to be on our best behavior. Not caring what others think of you doesn't mean you randomly point at people and call them names, even if you really do think that about them. What I want you to take from this is that you shouldn't fear speaking your mind. Ideas and opinions are how innovations are born. Ideas and opinions are how positive change is found. Don't hold it all in just becasue someone might not like it. That's their problem, not yours.
Besides, Jesus didn't give flying piece of crap if you're offended by what He says and the message He brought us. If the most powerful being in existence doesn't care what you think of Him, why should I care what you think of me?
4/3/12
Why I Wrote a Children's Book
UPDATE 04/21/2012: Kyra has agreed to do the illustrations and has been busy working on it for the better part of week now. I've seen a little of it and it looks fantastic.
I've also finally decided on a tentative title. I know that doesn't sound like a decision, but it's more than what I had before, which was nothing.
I'm really excited to be doing this and appreciate any prayers and support you can offer me. I'm looking at a couple of printers right now. I believe I'm on track to have my first run ready to be sold and begin promoting the book locally and in places where I have friends who can support my efforts by this summer.
ORIGINAL POST:
Most of you read that title and clicked the link just so you could have a few laughs. I'm okay with that. The idea of me writing a book, especially a children's book, sounded rather absurd to me when the thought was first placed into my head. Now let me tell you why it might not be as far out as it seems.
I told my wife a few months ago that I wanted to make money giving other people's money away. What that looked like, I had no idea. I just knew it was what I was called to do and I was going to find a way to do it. Since then, I've been in contact with someone who does just that and am learning a lot about how to go about it.
He's not my only resource though. Recently, I've discovered Jon Acuff. He's a hilarious blogger who writes commentary on quirky things Christians do. It's a great way to pull back and have a good laugh at yourself. He wrote a book called Quitter, which I am about half way through. It's about doing your dream job and it's fantastic. But the book is not what lead me to this.
Acuff wrote about a friend of his who decided he wanted to do exactly what I want to do. Apparently that's called being a philanthropist. I've heard the word before but never knew what it meant. It sounds weird and rich and I don't like it, but it is what it is. This friend of his knew he wanted to make a lot of money very quickly and then give it all away. He knew kids books make a butt ton of money very quickly (Eric Carle has sold 29 million+ copies of Hungry Caterpillar). So, he wrote one. Now he's a philanthropist. He gives 100% of his earnings from The Boy and His Kite to charity.
I wrote the book already. It was a lot easier than I ever imagined it would be. I just put myself into the shoes of a little kid (which is pretty easy for someone as childish as myself) and started writing. I was terrified when it came out so quickly. I knew it had to be the worst thing ever written into Google Docs. But I let my wife read it and she really liked it.
So, I'm going to put myself out there and possibly embarrass the holy heck (as Louis would say) out of myself. I'd like a few of you to read it and give me some feedback, sort of like a focus group. I'll be in touch with you about it. If you'd like to volunteer, I'm open to it.
I've asked my sister in-law, Kyra, to illustrate. She's a very talented artist and I think she'll do a wonderful job, if she agrees to do it, and I hope she does.
After that, it's on to steps 3-6.
Self publish
Get on Ellen and other talk shows (Live at 9 to start)
Sell a truckload of books
Become a philanthropist
Here goes nothing.
Changes
I've been thinking about the direction of The Open Forum for a while. As you've likely noticed over my past few entries, God's been really working in my life and further shaping what I'm to be doing on this planet. I've recently taken up a few causes and made them my burden to bear. I want to use what is currently called the Open Forum as a place discuss these causes and my involvement in them. I'm not sure if that means the end of the Open Forum, or if I start a new blog, copy over posts from here that are relevant, and continue to post here when I want to spark discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)