Table of Contents
One of the reasons I love Christmas is because it is a time of year when Christians literally rearrange the whole of their lives, what they do, what they eat, what they say, what their schedules look like, for the entire purpose of celebrating the coming of Jesus into the world. The truth of the Word made flesh gets embodied in Christmas carols, hot cocoa, gift-giving, parties, and decor.
What the incarnation (the doctrine that God become flesh) tells us is that ultimate spirituality (i.e. God) did not think it above himself to become physicality (i.e. man). It’s hard to wrap our heads around just how spectacular a truth this is, and what the cosmic as well as day-to-day, mundane implications are. When God does something, everything changes. He’s not like us in that sense. When you take a day off, you get some rest. End of story. But when God takes a day off like He did on the seventh day, he creates a pattern that shapes the whole history of the world. Not only was Israel called to participate in Sabbath rest every seventh day, but Hebrews tells us that Sabbath rest is the destiny to which this world and God’s people are headed. A great glorious, eternal future all because God took a break.
Now think for a moment what that means about the incarnation. The incarnation means that God wore a diaper. God swept the kitchen floor. God hammered and chiseled beside his father. God had friends. God had a family. God ate fish and drank wine. In other words, the physicality of daily chores, of the simple pleasures of life, of dependency on one another has been baptized by ultimate Holiness.
Too often we think that what God wants of us is to make some time to do “spiritual” things. To take a break from the daily, mundane, physical world so that we can be “spiritual” for a little while. But that is not what God calls us to at all. Spirituality and physicality are not exclusive to one another. They are two sides of the same coin. Physicality was made to unite with spirituality. Flesh and matter were made to be filled with Spirit.
Therefore, when we say, “I’m really in the Christmas spirit,” that’s exactly right. We may not be living it perfectly, but what we are saying is that something is inside of me that is being expressed physically in all I do. My table, my house, my words, my clothes, my ears are all bursting with a festive joy, a love, a pleasure, something I can’t even really describe other than to say it is a “spirit.”
It is this idea that the Word became flesh, that spirituality is breathed into physicality, that really drives this newsletter. We believe that being joyfully physical creatures is not contrary to being devoted spiritual worshippers. In fact, we can and do best worship when that worship is coming alive in physical expression. This newsletter is not simply filled with stories, recipes, images, and cultural engagement. It’s filled with spirituality. It’s filled with worship. We want the Word to become flesh.
Christos Kurios,
Danny Strong
Editor in Chief
What the incarnation (the doctrine that God become flesh) tells us is that ultimate spirituality (i.e. God) did not think it above himself to become physicality (i.e. man). It’s hard to wrap our heads around just how spectacular a truth this is, and what the cosmic as well as day-to-day, mundane implications are. When God does something, everything changes. He’s not like us in that sense. When you take a day off, you get some rest. End of story. But when God takes a day off like He did on the seventh day, he creates a pattern that shapes the whole history of the world. Not only was Israel called to participate in Sabbath rest every seventh day, but Hebrews tells us that Sabbath rest is the destiny to which this world and God’s people are headed. A great glorious, eternal future all because God took a break.
Now think for a moment what that means about the incarnation. The incarnation means that God wore a diaper. God swept the kitchen floor. God hammered and chiseled beside his father. God had friends. God had a family. God ate fish and drank wine. In other words, the physicality of daily chores, of the simple pleasures of life, of dependency on one another has been baptized by ultimate Holiness.
Too often we think that what God wants of us is to make some time to do “spiritual” things. To take a break from the daily, mundane, physical world so that we can be “spiritual” for a little while. But that is not what God calls us to at all. Spirituality and physicality are not exclusive to one another. They are two sides of the same coin. Physicality was made to unite with spirituality. Flesh and matter were made to be filled with Spirit.
Therefore, when we say, “I’m really in the Christmas spirit,” that’s exactly right. We may not be living it perfectly, but what we are saying is that something is inside of me that is being expressed physically in all I do. My table, my house, my words, my clothes, my ears are all bursting with a festive joy, a love, a pleasure, something I can’t even really describe other than to say it is a “spirit.”
It is this idea that the Word became flesh, that spirituality is breathed into physicality, that really drives this newsletter. We believe that being joyfully physical creatures is not contrary to being devoted spiritual worshippers. In fact, we can and do best worship when that worship is coming alive in physical expression. This newsletter is not simply filled with stories, recipes, images, and cultural engagement. It’s filled with spirituality. It’s filled with worship. We want the Word to become flesh.
Christos Kurios,
Danny Strong
Editor in Chief
LLB Life
Makelings Night: November
At the November Makelings night Joshua Schrock presented his love of making movies. He shared with us his particular interest in "short story" movies as well the various equipment (some of it homemade!) that he uses to shoot them. He even presented a short story film featuring a riveting performance by Sean Feavel.
Pastor Danny presented the art of fine writing and fine writing instruments. We learned about the art of calligraphy, 100 plus year fountain pens, and why how you write matters.
Ugly Sweater Party 2015
Yum Drops
Yum Drops is our monthly attempt to promote what we feel is really at the heart of our church . . . food. Where there is good food, there is community. In promoting good food, we promote togetherness. Here are a couple of the cookie recipes at this past months Makelings night. Let us know if you tried and enjoyed them.
GLUTEN FREE PEANUT BUTTER COOKIES By Anna Schrock
Peanutbutter- 1 Cup.
Brown Sugar- 1 Cup.
Eggs- 1
Baking Powder- 1 teaspoon.
Vanila- 1 teaspoon.
White Sugar- For dusting cookies.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Roll cookie dough into at least 12 small balls. Once you are done rolling the cookie dough into balls, take the white sugar and pore some into a bowl. Next, take the cookie balls and roll them in the white sugar. After the dough balls are well covered in sugar, place them on a cookie sheet, and using a for press criss-cross pattern onto the top of each cookie. Bake for 10-12 minutes. Once cookies are done baking let them cool for 5 minutes. Remove cookies from cookie sheet with spatula and place on on a cooling rack. Makes 1 dozen cookies.
Peanutbutter- 1 Cup.
Brown Sugar- 1 Cup.
Eggs- 1
Baking Powder- 1 teaspoon.
Vanila- 1 teaspoon.
White Sugar- For dusting cookies.
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Roll cookie dough into at least 12 small balls. Once you are done rolling the cookie dough into balls, take the white sugar and pore some into a bowl. Next, take the cookie balls and roll them in the white sugar. After the dough balls are well covered in sugar, place them on a cookie sheet, and using a for press criss-cross pattern onto the top of each cookie. Bake for 10-12 minutes. Once cookies are done baking let them cool for 5 minutes. Remove cookies from cookie sheet with spatula and place on on a cooling rack. Makes 1 dozen cookies.
SNICKER-DOODLE COOKIES By Hailey Pallard
Preheat oven to 400 degrees
1 c. Shortening 2 tsp. Cream of Tarter
1 1/2 c. Sugar 1 tsp. Baking soda
2 eggs 1/2 tsp. Salt
2 3/4 c. Flour
2 tbsp. Sugar and 2 tsp. Cinnamon
Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Mix shortening, sugar and eggs. In a separate bowl stir salt, flour, cream of tarter, baking and salt. Gradually add to shortening mixture. Chill dough. Roll dough into balls. Mix sugar and cinnamon in a bowl. Roll dough balls into mixture. Place on ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 8 to 10 minutes. Makes 5 dozen.
Preheat oven to 400 degrees
1 c. Shortening 2 tsp. Cream of Tarter
1 1/2 c. Sugar 1 tsp. Baking soda
2 eggs 1/2 tsp. Salt
2 3/4 c. Flour
2 tbsp. Sugar and 2 tsp. Cinnamon
Preheat oven to 400 degrees. Mix shortening, sugar and eggs. In a separate bowl stir salt, flour, cream of tarter, baking and salt. Gradually add to shortening mixture. Chill dough. Roll dough into balls. Mix sugar and cinnamon in a bowl. Roll dough balls into mixture. Place on ungreased cookie sheet. Bake 8 to 10 minutes. Makes 5 dozen.
Church Calendar
Dec 24th- Christmas Eve Service 7pm
Dec 25th- CHRISTMAS!!!!!!
Dec 31st- NEW YEARS EVE!!!!!
Jan 1st- NEW YEARS DAY!!!!!!
Jan 2nd-Parkwood Nursing Home 9:30am
Jan 3rd- Agape Feast 12pm
Jan 8th- Family Fun Night 7pm
Kairos Productions: Christmas
Culture Making
vs_story_chp._2.docx | |
File Size: | 497 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Theology Corner - Is Infant Baptism Legit?
A Debate by Danny Strong & Tom Reynolds
In this article, we are going to tackle the long disputed Christian practice of baptism, and in particular whether or not baptizing babies is legit. So why should you care about this? Well, because like with all theological issues, baptism is about much more than just baptism. It’s about salvation, life, parenting, the church, discipleship, and so much more.
But there is an even bigger issue here. At LBBC we highly value unity, but NOT a unity that comes by excluding everyone we disagree with. Now this is a big deal because the Church of Christ is heading into some serious resistance by an increasingly secular culture. More than ever we need to think seriously about casting aside our lesser disagreements so that we can unite in the common worship of Jesus Christ. The fact is that many Christians today and for a very, very long time have practiced infant baptism. If we wish to just wash our hands of them, then we are rejecting the vast majority of the Christian Church in history. Younger generations of Christians are beginning to see this, thankfully, but too often their response is just to avoid controversial issues. But that is just as unhealthy a response, for in doing so you must pretend that the Christ ordained, precious practice of baptism isn't really a big deal. Thus, this very core practice of the Church becomes a hot button topic no one wants to think or talk about.
A better stance would be to talk these things out so that, although we my never come to agreement, we can at least understand where we are coming from. No one, after all, is wholly right. When two sincere, thoughtful Christians disagree about a particular issue, there is usually a good reason to consider BOTH positions, and there is usually some problems or difficulties with BOTH positions. In expressing our opinions and hearing each other out, we actually shave off the errors of our beliefs. And thus if done right, theological debate can help us grow stronger and not more divided. And that is our hope. We wish to understand each other better, but in doing so we believe we will learn to appreciate even more baptism itself.
In this article, I, Dan Strong, as a Baptist pastor and thus a believer in a baptism of immersion for those who have expressed faith in Christ will be interacting with Tom Reynolds who holds to the belief that infants of Christian parents should be baptized. These two positions are often called credo-baptism and paedo-baptism. “Credo" is the Latin word for creed. “Paedo" is from the Latin word for infant, and so obviously credo-baptists believe in a baptism for those who express faith in the creed of Christianity (i.e. believers) and paedo-baptist believe in the baptism of infants.
Enough of the preliminaries, it is time to hear some thoughts from Tom.
Tom:I guess we should start by studying a little history. Like how in the world did we get to this point where sincere Christians differ in their understanding of baptism, and why does it matter?
I'm going to attempt to write this in a way that is as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the story. I'm a kind of guy who likes to start at the beginning. So I will start at the beginning of the story. Not really the beginning. Kind of halfway through the story, but I trust that you know the first part. When Christ came to earth as the Incarnate Son of God, he came to more than die on the cross and raise again, although that is supremely important. He also came to establish his reign here on earth. He established a beachhead so to speak, in enemy occupied territory. This beachhead was the Church itself. He began this Church with His twelve Apostles and a few others and then slowly spread out from them to now encompass over 2 billion people spread across the globe who call themselves Christians. During His time on earth He spent at least three years not only teaching with his words, but teaching by the example of His life for his close friends. He lived, ate and slept with them. Not all of this was recorded within the pages of Scripture.“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written”(John 21:25). The Church is also supremely important. It was to be His body. Each member of the Church was to be incorporated into a larger whole, but each would have a role to play subject to their various gifts. The Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It was to be the pillar and ground of the Truth. Christ's bride, whom He would never leave nor forsake. The community of the Church was to be a visible, tangible entity and infused with real authority.
The first leaders of the Church, the Apostles and early followers lived and evangelized and built this Church for years, until there came a time when there were pockets of Christianity in most of the major cities in the Roman Empire. These local congregations were not isolated from one another. They conversed with each other and with the Apostles through visits and by letter. They did so because the each local church was assailed from both within and without by persecution and false teachings. The Apostles sometimes spent years with a particular congregation training and teaching them everything they had received from Jesus. The letters of the Apostles themselves were treated with extra special care, and they were copied and passed around to other congregations. As many in the congregation were not literate, they were not used for personal devotions but mainly read along with the Jewish Scriptures when the community of the Church gathered in corporate worship. These letters were not only letters of correction, but also a brief history of the story of Jesus' ministry among the Apostles told from the perspective of a particular Apostle, and one writing was a highlighted history of the first few decades of the Church. Not everything that they taught or did was written down was written down. In fact Paul on at least one occasion stated that he was only writing a letter because he could not visit in person.
Even after the Apostles died, the Church continued on much as it had before. Leaders rose in the various congregations and were appointed as successors to the Apostles. The Church has always looked upon these men in high regard calling them Early Church Fathers much like we call Jefferson and Washington etc. our Founding Fathers. Many of them were also martyred for the Faith. Much like the Apostles, they lived and taught among the various local congregations, and also wrote letters to other congregations. They also wrote letters to other groups that had formed outside of the Church combating their false teachings. The early Church, while they held these men in the highest regard, did not look on their writings like the Apostles' writings. They believed that it was possible that they could err in their teaching. Most Christians in the past and today read these Fathers' writing for one of four reasons:
1) To be inspired. There is much that can be learned for day to day life in the writings of these men, and their stories for the individual Christian.
2) To understand the development of the Church's theology. In many ways the Church is constantly growing in its understanding of the Faith. For example, I doubt that the Apostles would have articulated the Trinity during their lifetime in the exact same way that it is done in the Nicene Creed, but I also believe that had they been walked through the thought process of the early Church, they would have come to the exact same conclusions. In this sense the Apostles' teaching was the foundation for these later developments much like addition and subtraction is the foundation for higher algebra.
3) To figure out what actually happened in the early history of church, and
4) To more fully understand what the Apostles taught. Most Christians believe that Christ and the Apostles taught more than what is written down in the Scriptures. That there is such a thing as “Apostolic Tradition” which underlays the writings of the New Testament Scripture and helps give it context. So they look at the writings of the early Church to get a glimpse of this overarching oral Apostolic Tradition that might not have been written down, but was nevertheless passed down to the next generation. Much like the New Testament Scriptures, this Apostolic Tradition itself cannot be in error as it also comes directly from Christ and the Apostles, but it could have been erroneously relayed by the Early Church Fathers in their writings. And believe it or not every Christian believes and trusts in elements of this Apostolic Tradition regardless of whether they realize it or not.
Danny: So some might be wondering why you are starting with church history and not, say, the Bible, and I think it’s an important point. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, because you actually are starting with the Bible, or at least the New Testament. The New Testament is what the early church agreed upon was the Apostolic Tradition. The books of the NT became canonized as Scripture precisely because they were either written by or influenced by the teaching of the Apostles. Tom’s point is simply that there is more to that teaching than was ever recorded. In fact, there is probably even more recorded that was lost over the course of time. How many of Paul’s writings were lost in shipwreck, or how much of Peter or John’s words were confiscated by Roman authorities and burned upon their various arrests? Now this is not to say that the New Testament is somehow lacking. Far from it. God obviously preserved what he wished. Everything that is essential to the doctrine and life of the church is in the NT, but that doesn’t mean that there are some important things that were never discussed in the NT but were addressed by the Apostles in their lifetime.
The second reason for beginning with church history is that infant baptism is never really discussed in the NT. Now some would say that is because it did not exist in the Apostles lifetime, which of course is a real possibility. Others, however, would argue that it’s not explicitly there simply because the NT is focused upon the conversion of adults. The NT period of the Church is the one in which all coming into the Church are first generation Christians. None of them grew up in Christian homes with Christian parents. Therefore, some say, you wouldn’t expect infant baptism to become common until there were second and third generation Christians. Furthermore, we have to face the reality that if something is never discussed, then, well, it’s never discussed. That means it is never commended, but it also means that it is never rejected either. It is a poor use of the Bible when we say that if the Bible does not commend something, then we should assume it’s condemned. Democracy is never commended in the Bible. Nor are pants. Slavery is never explicitly rejected either. Should we then conclude that Democracy is evil, pants are of Satan, and God approves of slavery? And this is what makes early Church history such an important aspect to this whole discussion because by at least the middle of the third century and even perhaps as early as 200 AD or so, it is clear that the Church is at least pretty universally accepting of infant baptism. So the question becomes “If it wasn’t the practice of the Apostles, how did it become so broadly accepted in a 100-150 years?” This fact is by far, at least in my opinion, the strongest argument for the practice of infant baptism, and anyone who rejects the practice, such as myself, must take it into account.
The real question in church history is when did infant baptism finally start being explicitly rejected? Actually, that does not happen until over a thousand years later in the famous period of church history known as the Reformation. Martin Luther famously lit the fire of the Reformation by essentially questioning whether the Roman Catholic Church, of whom every Christian not in the Eastern Orthodox Church was a part of, was without error in their interpretation of Biblical and Apostolic teaching. He went so far as to point out that through history Church councils actually gave contradictory answers to the same questions, and Luther particularly took issue with the Roman Catholic view of personal salvation through adherence to the practices of the Church. He said that when he read the Scriptures it was clear that salvation came through faith in Christ and not the works of the Church. For many reasons, both social, spiritual, and intellectual, his challenges immediately gained support. The result was a radical reshaping of what Christianity and Church life looked like. For one, the seven essential sacraments of the Church were whittled down to just two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But even more than that, the doctrine of these practices were radically altered as well.
Luther did not reject infant baptism, but rather, and somewhat oddly, suggested that at the moment of baptism an infant was given saving faith in Christ. John Calvin, another very influential Reformer, rejected the idea that baptism was a saving ordinance and instead suggested that baptism was much like Old Testament circumcision that served as a sign of participation in the covenant community of God. Thus, baptism did not “save” babies. It merely marked them out as “spiritual Israelites” who received the blessings of Christ’s work in and through his Church. But the reshaping of baptism went even further still. There were even more radical reformers who became known as Anabaptists, and they argued that baptism was for adult converts only. About a hundred years after the beginning of the Reformation, some Englishmen whose theology was more in the line of Luther and Calvin than the Anabaptists were nevertheless swayed by some of the Anabaptist arguments that infant baptism was indeed an unbiblical practice. These men began what became the Baptist movement.
So here is the real crux of the matter. Everyone agrees that the baptism of adult converts to Christianity is the biblical and Apostolic practice. Everyone, then, is really a credo baptist. The real question is whether Christians should add to this practice the baptism of the infant children of Christian parents. Those who practice paedo baptism, then, do not reject credo baptism as a practice. They simply argue that paedo baptism is also acceptable or even essential. Credo-baptists, at the same time, are also very much practitioners of the historical ordinance of baptism. They simply disagree that infant baptism should be added to the baptism of believers.
Whose right? Well, I am of course. Ha! Unfortunately, though we have said a lot, we haven’t really started disagreeing! Sigh. We’re chomping at the bit, but for now that will have to wait until the next issue. Nevertheless, we hope that we have at least set the stage and whet your appetite.
But there is an even bigger issue here. At LBBC we highly value unity, but NOT a unity that comes by excluding everyone we disagree with. Now this is a big deal because the Church of Christ is heading into some serious resistance by an increasingly secular culture. More than ever we need to think seriously about casting aside our lesser disagreements so that we can unite in the common worship of Jesus Christ. The fact is that many Christians today and for a very, very long time have practiced infant baptism. If we wish to just wash our hands of them, then we are rejecting the vast majority of the Christian Church in history. Younger generations of Christians are beginning to see this, thankfully, but too often their response is just to avoid controversial issues. But that is just as unhealthy a response, for in doing so you must pretend that the Christ ordained, precious practice of baptism isn't really a big deal. Thus, this very core practice of the Church becomes a hot button topic no one wants to think or talk about.
A better stance would be to talk these things out so that, although we my never come to agreement, we can at least understand where we are coming from. No one, after all, is wholly right. When two sincere, thoughtful Christians disagree about a particular issue, there is usually a good reason to consider BOTH positions, and there is usually some problems or difficulties with BOTH positions. In expressing our opinions and hearing each other out, we actually shave off the errors of our beliefs. And thus if done right, theological debate can help us grow stronger and not more divided. And that is our hope. We wish to understand each other better, but in doing so we believe we will learn to appreciate even more baptism itself.
In this article, I, Dan Strong, as a Baptist pastor and thus a believer in a baptism of immersion for those who have expressed faith in Christ will be interacting with Tom Reynolds who holds to the belief that infants of Christian parents should be baptized. These two positions are often called credo-baptism and paedo-baptism. “Credo" is the Latin word for creed. “Paedo" is from the Latin word for infant, and so obviously credo-baptists believe in a baptism for those who express faith in the creed of Christianity (i.e. believers) and paedo-baptist believe in the baptism of infants.
Enough of the preliminaries, it is time to hear some thoughts from Tom.
Tom:I guess we should start by studying a little history. Like how in the world did we get to this point where sincere Christians differ in their understanding of baptism, and why does it matter?
I'm going to attempt to write this in a way that is as neutral as possible, giving both sides of the story. I'm a kind of guy who likes to start at the beginning. So I will start at the beginning of the story. Not really the beginning. Kind of halfway through the story, but I trust that you know the first part. When Christ came to earth as the Incarnate Son of God, he came to more than die on the cross and raise again, although that is supremely important. He also came to establish his reign here on earth. He established a beachhead so to speak, in enemy occupied territory. This beachhead was the Church itself. He began this Church with His twelve Apostles and a few others and then slowly spread out from them to now encompass over 2 billion people spread across the globe who call themselves Christians. During His time on earth He spent at least three years not only teaching with his words, but teaching by the example of His life for his close friends. He lived, ate and slept with them. Not all of this was recorded within the pages of Scripture.“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written”(John 21:25). The Church is also supremely important. It was to be His body. Each member of the Church was to be incorporated into a larger whole, but each would have a role to play subject to their various gifts. The Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit, so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It was to be the pillar and ground of the Truth. Christ's bride, whom He would never leave nor forsake. The community of the Church was to be a visible, tangible entity and infused with real authority.
The first leaders of the Church, the Apostles and early followers lived and evangelized and built this Church for years, until there came a time when there were pockets of Christianity in most of the major cities in the Roman Empire. These local congregations were not isolated from one another. They conversed with each other and with the Apostles through visits and by letter. They did so because the each local church was assailed from both within and without by persecution and false teachings. The Apostles sometimes spent years with a particular congregation training and teaching them everything they had received from Jesus. The letters of the Apostles themselves were treated with extra special care, and they were copied and passed around to other congregations. As many in the congregation were not literate, they were not used for personal devotions but mainly read along with the Jewish Scriptures when the community of the Church gathered in corporate worship. These letters were not only letters of correction, but also a brief history of the story of Jesus' ministry among the Apostles told from the perspective of a particular Apostle, and one writing was a highlighted history of the first few decades of the Church. Not everything that they taught or did was written down was written down. In fact Paul on at least one occasion stated that he was only writing a letter because he could not visit in person.
Even after the Apostles died, the Church continued on much as it had before. Leaders rose in the various congregations and were appointed as successors to the Apostles. The Church has always looked upon these men in high regard calling them Early Church Fathers much like we call Jefferson and Washington etc. our Founding Fathers. Many of them were also martyred for the Faith. Much like the Apostles, they lived and taught among the various local congregations, and also wrote letters to other congregations. They also wrote letters to other groups that had formed outside of the Church combating their false teachings. The early Church, while they held these men in the highest regard, did not look on their writings like the Apostles' writings. They believed that it was possible that they could err in their teaching. Most Christians in the past and today read these Fathers' writing for one of four reasons:
1) To be inspired. There is much that can be learned for day to day life in the writings of these men, and their stories for the individual Christian.
2) To understand the development of the Church's theology. In many ways the Church is constantly growing in its understanding of the Faith. For example, I doubt that the Apostles would have articulated the Trinity during their lifetime in the exact same way that it is done in the Nicene Creed, but I also believe that had they been walked through the thought process of the early Church, they would have come to the exact same conclusions. In this sense the Apostles' teaching was the foundation for these later developments much like addition and subtraction is the foundation for higher algebra.
3) To figure out what actually happened in the early history of church, and
4) To more fully understand what the Apostles taught. Most Christians believe that Christ and the Apostles taught more than what is written down in the Scriptures. That there is such a thing as “Apostolic Tradition” which underlays the writings of the New Testament Scripture and helps give it context. So they look at the writings of the early Church to get a glimpse of this overarching oral Apostolic Tradition that might not have been written down, but was nevertheless passed down to the next generation. Much like the New Testament Scriptures, this Apostolic Tradition itself cannot be in error as it also comes directly from Christ and the Apostles, but it could have been erroneously relayed by the Early Church Fathers in their writings. And believe it or not every Christian believes and trusts in elements of this Apostolic Tradition regardless of whether they realize it or not.
Danny: So some might be wondering why you are starting with church history and not, say, the Bible, and I think it’s an important point. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, because you actually are starting with the Bible, or at least the New Testament. The New Testament is what the early church agreed upon was the Apostolic Tradition. The books of the NT became canonized as Scripture precisely because they were either written by or influenced by the teaching of the Apostles. Tom’s point is simply that there is more to that teaching than was ever recorded. In fact, there is probably even more recorded that was lost over the course of time. How many of Paul’s writings were lost in shipwreck, or how much of Peter or John’s words were confiscated by Roman authorities and burned upon their various arrests? Now this is not to say that the New Testament is somehow lacking. Far from it. God obviously preserved what he wished. Everything that is essential to the doctrine and life of the church is in the NT, but that doesn’t mean that there are some important things that were never discussed in the NT but were addressed by the Apostles in their lifetime.
The second reason for beginning with church history is that infant baptism is never really discussed in the NT. Now some would say that is because it did not exist in the Apostles lifetime, which of course is a real possibility. Others, however, would argue that it’s not explicitly there simply because the NT is focused upon the conversion of adults. The NT period of the Church is the one in which all coming into the Church are first generation Christians. None of them grew up in Christian homes with Christian parents. Therefore, some say, you wouldn’t expect infant baptism to become common until there were second and third generation Christians. Furthermore, we have to face the reality that if something is never discussed, then, well, it’s never discussed. That means it is never commended, but it also means that it is never rejected either. It is a poor use of the Bible when we say that if the Bible does not commend something, then we should assume it’s condemned. Democracy is never commended in the Bible. Nor are pants. Slavery is never explicitly rejected either. Should we then conclude that Democracy is evil, pants are of Satan, and God approves of slavery? And this is what makes early Church history such an important aspect to this whole discussion because by at least the middle of the third century and even perhaps as early as 200 AD or so, it is clear that the Church is at least pretty universally accepting of infant baptism. So the question becomes “If it wasn’t the practice of the Apostles, how did it become so broadly accepted in a 100-150 years?” This fact is by far, at least in my opinion, the strongest argument for the practice of infant baptism, and anyone who rejects the practice, such as myself, must take it into account.
The real question in church history is when did infant baptism finally start being explicitly rejected? Actually, that does not happen until over a thousand years later in the famous period of church history known as the Reformation. Martin Luther famously lit the fire of the Reformation by essentially questioning whether the Roman Catholic Church, of whom every Christian not in the Eastern Orthodox Church was a part of, was without error in their interpretation of Biblical and Apostolic teaching. He went so far as to point out that through history Church councils actually gave contradictory answers to the same questions, and Luther particularly took issue with the Roman Catholic view of personal salvation through adherence to the practices of the Church. He said that when he read the Scriptures it was clear that salvation came through faith in Christ and not the works of the Church. For many reasons, both social, spiritual, and intellectual, his challenges immediately gained support. The result was a radical reshaping of what Christianity and Church life looked like. For one, the seven essential sacraments of the Church were whittled down to just two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But even more than that, the doctrine of these practices were radically altered as well.
Luther did not reject infant baptism, but rather, and somewhat oddly, suggested that at the moment of baptism an infant was given saving faith in Christ. John Calvin, another very influential Reformer, rejected the idea that baptism was a saving ordinance and instead suggested that baptism was much like Old Testament circumcision that served as a sign of participation in the covenant community of God. Thus, baptism did not “save” babies. It merely marked them out as “spiritual Israelites” who received the blessings of Christ’s work in and through his Church. But the reshaping of baptism went even further still. There were even more radical reformers who became known as Anabaptists, and they argued that baptism was for adult converts only. About a hundred years after the beginning of the Reformation, some Englishmen whose theology was more in the line of Luther and Calvin than the Anabaptists were nevertheless swayed by some of the Anabaptist arguments that infant baptism was indeed an unbiblical practice. These men began what became the Baptist movement.
So here is the real crux of the matter. Everyone agrees that the baptism of adult converts to Christianity is the biblical and Apostolic practice. Everyone, then, is really a credo baptist. The real question is whether Christians should add to this practice the baptism of the infant children of Christian parents. Those who practice paedo baptism, then, do not reject credo baptism as a practice. They simply argue that paedo baptism is also acceptable or even essential. Credo-baptists, at the same time, are also very much practitioners of the historical ordinance of baptism. They simply disagree that infant baptism should be added to the baptism of believers.
Whose right? Well, I am of course. Ha! Unfortunately, though we have said a lot, we haven’t really started disagreeing! Sigh. We’re chomping at the bit, but for now that will have to wait until the next issue. Nevertheless, we hope that we have at least set the stage and whet your appetite.
The Alex Rider series is about a teenager who becomes a spy after a tragic accident kills his uncle. Alex is sent on missions for an intelligence agency in London. During an undercover mission he meets an assassin named Yassen, who changed his life forever.
Alex Rider: Russian Roulette tells the story of Yassen Gregorovich’s life leading up to meeting Alex. Yassen is a young teenager whose life is turned upside down by the Russian government. After friends and family are lost, he is forced to grow up on his own in the backstreets of Moscow, which is a dirty and crime filled life. Yassen is very cunning and after four years of hardship finds himself with an organization of criminals who shape him into an assassin.
This book gives a picture of what life was like on the streets of Moscow after World War 2. Anthony Horowitz, the author, is very thorough in details of the people, buildings, and places in Moscow. Through this he shows how the rich and powerful were separated from the poor and homeless.
Alex Rider: Russian Roulette is an excellent example of a bildungsroman, or a story showing someone changing through their lives due to key decisions in their childhood or early years. Yassen changes slowly as he makes harder and more important choices at a young age. Through his life time he changed from an innocent boy living in the middle of nowhere, to a merciless contract killer with all the money he could want.
Yassen’s life after Moscow mostly revolves around revenge for the deaths of his friends and family. He devotes his time to finding the people responsible and kill them. He wants to finally be able know that the people who destroyed his whole life in the blink of an eye are dead.
Anthony Horowitz shows that even in Yassen merciless life he is not completely bad. He chooses not to kill Alex Rider when he has the chance. Even the most evil people like contract killers and mercenaries are not always completely without mercy.
The book is actually pretty realistic, though it sounds far from it. Yassen sees more gore and violence in a month than most people see in a life time, and how does he deal with it? Like most anyone would; he shuts out the world and focuses on a single thing, survival, in order to forget his pain. This changes him, and he does things that his old self would never thought morally right. In real life people change like this more than most people think.
Although the book was very good, I would not suggest it for children. It does contain a lot of violence and gore.
Alex Rider: Russian Roulette tells the story of Yassen Gregorovich’s life leading up to meeting Alex. Yassen is a young teenager whose life is turned upside down by the Russian government. After friends and family are lost, he is forced to grow up on his own in the backstreets of Moscow, which is a dirty and crime filled life. Yassen is very cunning and after four years of hardship finds himself with an organization of criminals who shape him into an assassin.
This book gives a picture of what life was like on the streets of Moscow after World War 2. Anthony Horowitz, the author, is very thorough in details of the people, buildings, and places in Moscow. Through this he shows how the rich and powerful were separated from the poor and homeless.
Alex Rider: Russian Roulette is an excellent example of a bildungsroman, or a story showing someone changing through their lives due to key decisions in their childhood or early years. Yassen changes slowly as he makes harder and more important choices at a young age. Through his life time he changed from an innocent boy living in the middle of nowhere, to a merciless contract killer with all the money he could want.
Yassen’s life after Moscow mostly revolves around revenge for the deaths of his friends and family. He devotes his time to finding the people responsible and kill them. He wants to finally be able know that the people who destroyed his whole life in the blink of an eye are dead.
Anthony Horowitz shows that even in Yassen merciless life he is not completely bad. He chooses not to kill Alex Rider when he has the chance. Even the most evil people like contract killers and mercenaries are not always completely without mercy.
The book is actually pretty realistic, though it sounds far from it. Yassen sees more gore and violence in a month than most people see in a life time, and how does he deal with it? Like most anyone would; he shuts out the world and focuses on a single thing, survival, in order to forget his pain. This changes him, and he does things that his old self would never thought morally right. In real life people change like this more than most people think.
Although the book was very good, I would not suggest it for children. It does contain a lot of violence and gore.
Recently the new movie Inside Out came out on DVD. Inside Out is about a little girls emotions and how the emotions effect how the girl feels and what she does. It has great quality, the animation was amazing! I didn’t find it very predictable at all. It wasn’t crude and it expressed great values. Inside Out tries to show just how important family and communication are. Throughout the whole movie the little girl, whose emotions the movie is about, has to deal with her family moving and trying to stay positive.
Inside out seemed like a true story. There were several occasions where the emotions have to make the girl react to real life situations, and they did a great job making her react in such a way someone would in real life. Inside Out didn’t just “paint over” the pain and sorrow in the movie. The main emotion, Joy, tries to just keep sorrow out of the movie but she realizes that she was wrong to do that and deals with it later. I didn’t notice that Inside Out pointed towards Christ but it definitely did not undermine the Christian faith. If you looking for a good movie to watch with your family, I would highly recommend Inside Out.
Inside out seemed like a true story. There were several occasions where the emotions have to make the girl react to real life situations, and they did a great job making her react in such a way someone would in real life. Inside Out didn’t just “paint over” the pain and sorrow in the movie. The main emotion, Joy, tries to just keep sorrow out of the movie but she realizes that she was wrong to do that and deals with it later. I didn’t notice that Inside Out pointed towards Christ but it definitely did not undermine the Christian faith. If you looking for a good movie to watch with your family, I would highly recommend Inside Out.