|
 "On
the road" one meets all kinds of quibbles that are supposed
to pass for arguments. And occasionally they come from one who
fancies himself a brilliant logician — like the lawyer who
remarked, "You preachers know the answers to the ordinary,
but what can you do when you meet a smart man?" He then
proceeded to demonstrate. "The Catholic Church established
the canon of the Scriptures, and you accept that. But when this
same authority says sprinkling will do for baptism, you
illogically reject that."
In
the first place, truth existed prior to the "church"
and was proclaimed by inspired men (Jn. 16:12-f., Acts 2:) so
that men who heard, believed and obeyed might become the
"called-out" (ones) belonging to the Lord. The ways,
paths, law and word of the Lord went forth from Jerusalem (Isa.
2:2-3), by inspiration, NOT by "authority" of some
human council. It was passed to following generations by word as
well as by epistle (2 Thes. 2:15), and the writings were
regarded as "scriptures" before any council so
declared (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
Brethren
sought to preserve, and to distinguish genuine from spurious
material from the beginning-- even as they do now — but God
did not appoint "the church" (as an organized
society) to "authorize" anything. This aspect of early
"church business" was something they assumed for
themselves. We do not accept today's "canon" on that
basis — in fact, we reject some of the material they
accepted.
Second:
even if the "church" was the "authority" for
the canon (meaning those books accepted as belonging in our
Bible) it
| |
would not follow that they could alter
the meaning of Greek words found in those books. A
"smart" lawyer should know the difference in
validating a document and interpreting its content. Baptism by
immersion stands on the authority of the original language of
the text.
And
third: lexicographers, both Catholic and Protestant, agree that baptidzo
does not authorize sprinkling. The Catholic Church claims the
authority to accept sprinkling — it is one of many
things offered on the "authority of the church" rather
than on Bible authority. If the lawyer thinks the Roman church
gives Bible authority for all it teaches or practices, he is far
behind in his study. He had better do much more "leg"
work before he goes to court with this case. And he might review
his undergraduate studies of the fallacy of non-sequitur
("it does not follow").
Baptidzo
means, "to immerse, plunge under, dip, wash." Naaman
was told to "wash in the Jordan" (louo-
bathe completely), and he "dipped himself" (baptidzo-
immersed) (LXX, 2 Kng. 5:). We are "buried with him by
baptism into death" (Rom. 6:4). John baptized in Enon near
to Salim, "because there was much water there" (Jn.
3:23). Philip and the eunuch "went down both into the water
... and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). The
"baptism" of suffering (Matt. 20:22) refers to an
overwhelming of suffering; and the same idea inheres in
"baptism" of Spirit. It took "cloud and sea"
to "baptize" the exodus march (1 Cor. 10:1-2). The
lawyer's case (?) must be "Dismissed!"
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
