I’m not sure that I know how to build off of yesterday’s post and explain what’s going through my mind. I’ll try.
When we go out to teach people about the Bible, we are also teaching them a philosophical approach to the Bible. Part of conversion has to do with them accepting our theoretical framework.
People who present commands, examples and necessary inference as a hermeneutic framework need to find people who accept that framework. When they do, they have a much better chance of convincing them via their syllogisms. If not, people won’t be moved to change their lives based on arguments they don’t understand or don’t agree with.
Once you find such people, you can then continue to shape them using arguments based on the same framework. In the same way, any challenge to that approach to the Bible is a major threat, for it removes the way these teachers know how to instruct and motivate. If I accept that 1 Corinthians 16 is not laying out the universal mechanism for churches to take weekly collection, then how am I going to get people to give money to the church, if I only know how to work off of the commands, examples, inferences framework?
Going way back to the discussion that started all of this (instrumental music), it’s easy to see why our approach to the Bible is so important. If we can’t agree on the process, it’s going to be hard to agree on the outcomes.
I’ve been thinking about the proof text framework and its use in general Bible study. If, when teaching someone who doesn’t know the Bible, I’m constantly referring to other scriptures, am I conveying the message that the only way to understand any part of the Bible is to know the rest of the Bible first? If a novice thinks s/he has to be able to run cross references in order to figure out what a passage means, won’t that tend to discourage the person from studying on their own?
Perhaps, when we start teaching people how to study the Bible, and when we’re starting out teaching babes in Christ, we should focus on the big picture and one book at a time. To use your example, in context, 1 Corinthians 16 shows us that one part of our life as a body is taking care of the needs of others and that, pragmatically, it makes sense to provide those needs in a planned, orderly manner. Once someone understands why we give (to help others), I don’t think it’s all that hard for them to contribute. Of course, it helps if 90% of the budget is dedicated to something other than building and staff, but that’s for another thread.
I think about the command, example, and necessary inference, and I wonder, if this is a true approach, then where in the world did “authority” for the wine in the Passover come from. Clearly Exodus 12 doesn’t mention it. Yet by the time one comes to the New Testament (if the Bible is all one ever reads), at least two cups of wine are present at that celebration (Luke 22:17, 20). Those who may read other information will know that there were probably FOUR cups of wine at the Passover. Why do I mention this. Well, many look for an “example” of how to approach Christian conventions on the basis of how the Bible establishes authority (or at least their perception of the same). Yet here is an example where something is added to a major Jewish celebration (1) without “authority; and (2) without condemnation by God. I wonder why? Is it because God doesn’t see adding wine to the “command” and “example” of Exodus 12 as being a breach of his intention for that celebration? In the same light, does instrumental music CHANGE God’s “command” to sing joyfully to him any more than wine CHANGES the Passover. Perhaps not.
We also tend to be VERY inconsistent, sometimes, in the way we determine what is and what isn’t an “example” or a “necessary inference.” For instance, take the term “breaking bread.” We could look at it several different ways:
1. A meal between Jesus and a couple guys, Luke 24:13-35, esp. v. 30, which puts it in a natural common meal context. The early church did this, shared meals with one another, in Acts 2:46: “EVERY DAY they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.”
2. Of course there is the institution of the Lord’s last supper with his disciples, which takes on ritual and commemorative significance. Let’s just stay in Luke 22:7-23, esp. vv. 17-23; Acts 2:42, “THE breaking of bread . . .”
3. Then we turn to Acts 20:1-7, esp. v. 7. For some unexplained reason, we assume that this was “THE Lord’s supper of Acts 2:42 rather than a fellowship meal between the believers that is like Acts 2:46.” Oh it’s easy enough, if you decide in advance that it is going to be the Lord’s commemorative supper, to make Acts 20:7 to be the ritual act. On the other hand, if you have no commitment to following a tradition, it is just as easy to say that Paul wanted to stay over and eat with the believers before he went on his way (everybody shows up for the food anyway, right?), and it is like Acts 2:46.
As far as that is concerned, we can require that the EXAMPLE is to share meals every day, rather than make it an example to have the Lord’s Supper every first day of the week.
Bottom line, there is no PATTERN. Paul quotes Jesus as saying that it’s just a matter of WHAT you’re thinking WHEN you decide to “break bread” as the commemorative act: Jesus says, Paul reports, “‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, WHENEVER you drink it, in remembrance of me.'” And Paul comments, “For WHENEVER you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:25-26).
WHENEVER is WHENEVER. I think it would be quite appropriate to keep some matzos and grape juice (or wine) ready. And when you happen to be with believers, then break out the bread and the fruit of the vine and remember the Lord, on Tuesday in the summer when you are driving to summer vacation and you happen to meet fellow believers on the way. And don’t just have a little piece. Give EVERYBODY a big MATZO and a big cup of Welch’s. And remember the Lord, and recognize the body, his and the fact that you and others with you also constitute “the body” (1 Corinthians 10:14-17).
It might freak you out, at first, but keep it up from time to time – WHENEVER! You’ll form new habits and traditions, and learn to enjoy one another and the Lord in the activity as well.
Danny Andre’ Dixon
Why is the New Testament silent on Infant Baptism?
Baptist/evangelical response:
The reason there is no mention of infant baptism in the New Testament is because this practice is a Catholic invention that developed two to three centuries after the Apostles. The Bible states that sinners must believe and repent before being baptized. Infants do not have the mental maturity to believe or to make a decision to repent. If God had wanted infants to be baptized he would have specifically mentioned it in Scripture. Infant baptism is NOT scriptural.
Lutheran response:
When God made his covenant with Abraham, God included everyone in Abraham’s household in the covenant:
1. Abraham, the head of the household.
2. His wife.
3. His children: teens, toddlers, and infants
4. His servants and their wives and children.
5. His slaves and their wives and children.
Genesis records that it was not just Abraham who God required to be circumcised. His son, his male servants, and his male slaves were all circumcised; more than 300 men and boys.
Did the act of circumcision save all these people and give them an automatic ticket into heaven? No. Just as in the New Covenant, it is not the sign that saves, it is God’s declaration that saves, received in faith. If these men and boys grew in faith in God, they would be saved. If they later rejected God by living a life of willful sin, they would perish.
This pattern of including the children of believers in God’s covenant continued for several thousand years until Christ’s resurrection. There is no mention in the OT that the children of the Hebrews were left out of the covenant until they reached an Age of Accountability, at which time they were required to make a decision: Do I want to be a member of the covenant or not? And only if they made an affirmative decision were they then included into God’s covenant. Hebrew/Jewish infants and toddlers have ALWAYS been included in the covenant. There is zero evidence from the OT that says otherwise.
Infants WERE part of the covenant. If a Hebrew infant died, he was considered “saved”.
However, circumcision did NOT “save” the male Hebrew child. It was the responsibility of the Hebrew parents to bring up their child in the faith, so that when he was older “he would not depart from it”. The child was born a member of the covenant. Then, as he grew up, he would have the choice: do I want to continue placing my faith in God, or do I want to live in willful sin? If he chose to live by faith, he would be saved. If he chose to live a life of willful sin and never repented, and then died, he would perish.
When Christ established the New Covenant, he said nothing explicit in the New Testament about the salvation of infants and small children; neither do the Apostles nor any of the writers of the New Testament. Isn’t that odd? If the new Covenant no longer automatically included the children of believers, why didn’t Christ, one of the Apostles, or one of the writers of the NT mention this profound change?
Why is there no mention in the NT of any adult convert asking this question: “But what about my little children? Are you saying that I have to wait until my children grow up and make a decision for themselves, before I will know if they will be a part of the new faith? What happens if my child dies before he has the opportunity to make this decision?” But no, there is no record in Scripture that any of these questions are made by new converts to the new faith. Isn’t that really, really odd??? As a parent of small children, the FIRST question I would ask would be, “What about my little children?”
But the New Testament is completely silent on the issue of the salvation or safety of the infants and toddlers of believers. Another interesting point is this: why is there no mention of any child of believers “accepting Christ” when he is an older child (8-12 years old) or as a teenager and then, being baptized? Not one single instance and the writing of the New Testament occurred over a period of 30 years, approximately thirty years after Christ’s death: So over a period of 60 years, not one example of a believer’s child being saved as a teenager and then receiving “Believers Baptism”. Why???
So isn’t it quite likely that the reason God does not explicitly state in the NT that infants should be baptized, is because everyone in first century Palestine would know that infants and toddlers are included in a household conversion. That fact that Christ and the Apostles did NOT forbid infant baptism was understood to indicate that the pattern of household conversion had not changed: the infants and toddlers of believers are still included in this new and better covenant.
Circumcision nor Baptism was considered a “Get-into-heaven-free” card. It was understood under both Covenants that the child must be raised in the faith, and that when he was older, he would need to decide for himself whether to continue in the faith and receive everlasting life, or choose a life of sin, breaking the covenant relationship with God, and forfeiting the gift of salvation.
Which of these two belief systems/Biblical interpretations seems to be most in harmony with Scripture and the writings of the Early Christians?
Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
Thanks Gary for presenting the Lutheran point of view. It’s not always easy for someone to present things in the way that others would see them. Still, I’m very curious as to why you posted this comment here. Are you going around the Internet sharing this information at random? I can’t see the connection with what is actually being discussed.
Your topic of discussion was the Biblical interpretation. Baptism, and specifically, infant baptism, is the BIGGEST issue that divides Christianity. I believe that the Lutheran position on this issue is the correct one. I believe it is my duty as a Christian to share the true Good News of Jesus Christ. Everyone is coming up with the “proper” method of interpreting the Bible, when the Bible, the NT, specifically, was written almost 2,000 years ago! Why not go back to the historical writings of the Early Christians to properly interpret the Bible. If you would do so you will see this:
In Baptism, God forgives/washes away sins and saves sinners.
The Lutheran Church is the restoration of the Early Church, the Early Christian/Early Catholic (universal) Church.
I see. Thanks Gary.