Holy (PhD Edit)

Morguefile.com

Concerning the idea of God being holy, Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling (1999) write the term holy is a Biblical idea, generally meaning to be set apart. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60). It is described of God who is set apart from his creation, pure from any of the evil within it. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 60).

Mennonite Old Testament scholar Elmer A. Martens (1990) suggests holiness is concerned with the idea of separation, not separation from something, but separation to something. Martens (1990: 94). Biblically this type of holiness has to do with separation of a person to God. Martens (1990: 94).

Augustine writes that God is holy and the sovereign divine governor of the universe who is completely just in punishing evildoers, and God is not the cause of their wrong actions. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3). God can rightly judge people because each evil person is the cause of his/her rebellion against God. Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).

I would suggest, from a Reformed perspective, what God allows as an omnipotent being, he therefore wills, but remains moral and holy in nature. This is a compatibilistic, yet Biblical model. Divine motivation remains holy and perfectly good. Theologically, the death of Christ leading to the atonement and resurrection, imputed to believers, is probably the best biblical example of God using the evil within his creation, most notably sinful thoughts and actions of humanity and demonic beings, for the good of his Kingdom.

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.knight.org/advent

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

MARTENS, ELMER A. (1990) God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

All cats are selfish?

All cats are selfish?

The existential fallacy

November 24, 2016 article edited for an entry on academia.edu on January 8, 2023

Photo

cat_hiding_in_the_sofa-700x560 anything.net 2016

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Note

A formal fallacy is concerned with presenting a logical form to avoid being fallacious, and an informal fallacy occurs when there are errors in reasoning with a premise (s) and conclusion.

Existential Fallacy 

Logically fallacious website referencing...

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA.

Cited 

'Description: A formal logical fallacy, which is committed when a categorical syllogism employs two universal premises (“all”) to arrive at a particular (“some”) conclusion. In a valid categorical syllogism, if the two premises are universal, then the conclusion must be universal, as well. The reasoning behind this fallacy becomes clear when you use classes without any members, and the conclusion states that there are members of this class -- which is wrong.'

Cited

'Logical Form: 

All X are Y. 

All Z are X. 

Therefore, some Z are Y. '

Cited 

'Just because the conclusion might be true, does not mean the logic used to produce it, was valid.'

This website is discussing a formal fallacy as problematic. Pirie too documents this as a formal fallacy (219).

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London. 

It is a curious feature of logic that statements that refer to a whole of a class do not actually tell us whether there are members of that class.' (100).

'All cats are selfish.' (100).

Pirie explains that this documents that there are creatures known as cats. Being cats in themselves does not imply that they are selfish. (100). Rather the statement explains that some cats are selfish. It is a statement about a class and not necessarily each member of that class. (100).

It is a fallacy, according to Pirie to draw universal conclusions (100) in making that statement:

'All cats are selfish'. Rather, a more careful statement would be to state that some cats may demonstrate that they are selfish.

This fallacy brings me back to my United Kingdom academic training and the use of assertions versus arguments which would be premise (s) and conclusions. It would be a mere unproven, unsubstantiated assertion to state that 'All cats are selfish'. Instead a reasonable and sound argument is required.

This fallacy consists of placing something into a conclusion, which was not significantly offered as evidence in a premise (s). (100).

Admittedly, in academia, even in a PhD, at times assertions are used as each and every point in a dissertation cannot be argued in a limited space; but key ideas and points needs to be presented in valid argumentation.

Using the Langer text:

∃!=There exists
K=creatures
c=cats
$=selfishness

Below are more reasonable statements than 'All cats are selfish.' These are more reasonable assertions:

∃!=K (Creatures exist)
∃!=c (Cats exist)
∃!=$ (Selfishness exists)

Selfish creatures do exist, but not necessarily, universally cats.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

GOODMAN, M. F. (1983) First Logic, University Press of America, USA. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PAPINEAU, DAVID (Gen. Ed) (2016) Philosophy: Theories and Great Thinkers (2016), New York, Shelter Harbour Press.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SZUDEK, ANDY & TORSLEY, SARAH (2018) The Little Book of Philosophy, Landau Cecile (Ed), London, DK Publishing.

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Travel Destinations on Twitter

Theodicy: Origin in brief

Bachelor Christmas tree: Is that a red rooster (red bird) on the top?

From: Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint, David.

The term theodicy arose from G.W. Leibniz’ book in 1710 entitled Theodicy.

Robert M. Adams (1996) notes that the word theodicy is from the Greek, as theos is God and dike is justice. Adams (1996: 794). Theodicy is a defence of the justice of God in the face of objections arising from the problem of evil in the world. Adams (1996: 794).

The Eighteenth century was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy, Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998) was published and this era of history was when much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began.

David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion explains that geniuses over the ages have continued to look for proofs and arguments concerning God. Hume (1779)(2004: 2). Theodicy would involve demonstrating that God exists and is good even as the problem of evil exists.

ADAMS, ROBERT. M. (1996) ‘Theodicy’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas.

LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.

Star upside down for more light

This is exclusive

The fallacy of exclusive premises

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Pirie

'The standard three-line argument called a syllogism has two premises and a conclusion, the premises are the evidence and the conclusion is deduced from them.

If both of the premises are negative, no conclusion can be validly drawn from them and the fallacy is called the fallacy of exclusive premises.' (98).

Pirie's example of this fallacy:

'No handymen are bakers, and no bakers are fishermen, so no handymen are fisherman'. (98).

This fallacy incorrectly excludes one category of persons from another category of persons, without sufficient evidence to do so. Pire explains: "...some people genuinely believe that if a group is excluded from something, and that group is excluded from something else, than the first group is also excluded from it.' (99).

In the religious studies context, no baptist is charismatic, no charismatic is Reformed, therefore no baptist is Reformed, should be the type of reasoning strictly avoided!

Lander University: Philosophy

Greenwood, South Carolina

Cited 

[The Fallacy of Two Negative Premisses or Exclusive Premisses[ 

"No internal combustion engines are nonpolluting power plants, and no nonpolluting power plants are safe devices. Therefore, no internal combustion engines are safe devices."

Cited 

'This information is of no use to see how the terms in the conclusion are related.'

In other words, the claims are shown as invalid as the connection between them is not clearly presented by the claims provided. Further, I was taught at British, PhD level to avoid the use of negative premises and conclusions, (especially when preparing survey questionnaires) and I attempt to follow this on my website. This approach does assist with both clarity and in avoiding potentially fallacious presentations.

Lander University is helpful here from the link provided: 

Cited 

'Note also that both premisses are negative. As most people are intuitively aware, knowledge about what a thing is not, does not carry much information about what that thing is.' 

Agreed.

Lander in agreement with Pirie:

Cited

'Our Rule of Quality states that no standard form syllogism with two negative premisses is valid.'

Within a valid syllogism argument, a negative conclusion requires a negative premise, to avoid a formal fallacy. But again, I attempt to avoid the use of negative premises.

Langer

Using symbolic logic with positive statements:

Key

∃! is There exists

h is handyman

b is bakers

f is fisherman

(∃!) h=b (There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers)

(∃!) b=f  (There exists bakers that are fisherman)

(∃!) h=f  (There exists handymen that are fishermen)

There exists (∃!)  handyman that are bakers. There exists bakers that are fisherman. There exists handymen that are fishermen. This is reasonable, think Alaska, small rural America, Northern Canada, Northern Russia, Northern China, as hypothetical examples.

I managed to slip in a review of both philosophy texts, under review from cover to cover, on this website, in one entry...

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

LANDER UNIVERSITY (1997-2020)  Syllogistic Fallacies Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic Syllogistic Fallacies: Exclusive Premisses 

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/exclusive_fall.html 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

November 19, 2016 article edited for an entry on academia.edu on July 15, 2023

This entails to stay in the system

Google+ Richard Wanderman

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

Briefly, back to the Langer, philosophical text in Symbolic Logic, which I am slowly, due to other projects, reviewing from cover to cover:

A statement of a system in entirely specific terms requires a particular statement and equation for each assertion. In a general account, it requires fewer statements and equations. (101). Therefore, 'K (L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S) fm2'
K=interpreted as "creatures".
fm=interpreted as "fellowman of" (101). Or as I explain, in fellowship with. Langer explains, that 'of every two creatures it is either true or false that one is the other's fellowman.' (101).

Some key symbols from the text

˜ = not

⊃ = means the same as

∃ = there exists

∃! = there exists

⊨ = entails (new for my review)

Therefore

(a)˜ (a fm a)=A is not the fellowman of a. One is not the fellowman of self. (101).

(a fm b) ⊃ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b means the same as b is the fellowman of a. (101).

John is the fellowman of James, means the same as James is the fellowman of John.

(a fm b) ⊨ (b fm a) =A is the fellowman of b, entails b is the fellowman of a.

Langer writes it is not explained in this system anything beyond that these elements have been documented as creatures. Elements may even be one and the same creature. (102). If, within a different system, two of the creatures were the same, even as represented by two different elements; for example (a, b) were the same creature:

˜ (a fm b)=A is not the fellowman of b, as they are one and the same creature. (102).

This is mental gymnastics, but what can be reasoned is the need for an understanding of a philosophical system in context. A review is required that does not reasonably go beyond the information provided.

The exception that proves the rule

Instagram Vancouver

The exception that proves the rule

A 2016 article, edited for an academia.edu entry on August 13, 2022.

This is part of the Pirie text review.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'Exceptions of course, disprove rules. Despite this, many people confronted by a counter example to their claim will dismiss it as 'the exception that proves the rule'. This fallacy consists in the dismissal of a valid objection to the argument.' (96)

Pirie reasons:

'Even in the specialized case, the exception disproves the universal rule. The trouble with sweeping statements is that it really does take only one exception to negate them. (97). The exception that proves the rule fallacy for Pirie is for those with intellectual and philosophical neat and tidy categories, that do not want exceptions that disprove the universality of their views, disturbing their worldview. This would be a fallacy used at times by those that are not interested in working through theological and philosophical tension within their worldview.

Jesus Christ stated in John 14: 6, the theological claim of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ for any human being to know the Father, to know God. This is an exclusive claim with no exceptions, as with central biblical, gospel, doctrines. But this does not mean that all Christian doctrine therefore has no exceptions. This would have to be examined contextually and objectively. For example, do all speak in tongues? (1 Corinthians 12). Rhetorically no. Yet, tongues is such a controversial topic, the extremes ranging from every Christian should speak in tongues via the Holy Spirit, to no one should speak in tongues as the New Testament, apostolic era is over.

Pirie example:

'Medical advances are made by painstaking research, not by chance. I know there was penicillin, but everyone knows that was a chance in a million.' (97).

Pirie, claims therefore the rule is not universal in regard to medical research. (97).

There could be other medical and scientific breakthroughs, made more so through trial and error than by directed painstaking research, although most of the time, painstaking research is required for significant findings.

My example:

Only countries with a large population and large base of players can win the FIFA World Cup; Uruguay winning the championship twice was many decades ago and was an exception to the rule.

Admittedly, this type of reasoning can be very easy to fall into.

I would suggest when required, replacing universal claims with general claims, with exceptions, in order to avoid fallacious reasoning such as Pirie names: 'The exception that proves the rule.'

---

To answer the graphic. There is not an exception to every rule.

Memegenerator.net

The exception proves the rule

Source

MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN IDIOMS AND PHRASAL VERBS (2002) by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

'Something that does not follow a rule shows that the rule exists. (Often used facetiously, to justify some rule you have proposed but which someone else has listed exceptions. From a Latin phrase meaning that an exception tests a rule.) Ellen: Men are always rude. Jane: But Alan's always polite. And Larry and Ted are polite, too. Ellen: They're just the exceptions that prove the rule. Bill: All the shows on TV are aimed at people with low intelligence. Alan: What about that news program you like to watch? Bill: The exception proves the rule.'

In these cases, there are no real, absolute, rules. Again, I would suggest when required, replacing universal claims with general claims, with exceptions, in order to avoid fallacious reasoning such as Pirie names: 'The exception that proves the rule.'

---

BAUER, WALTER (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

ELLIS, DAVID J. (1986) 'John' in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books. 

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan. 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MCGRAW-HILL DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN IDIOMS AND PHRASAL VERBS (2002) by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+exception+proves+the+rule

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press. 

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1999) ‘Perseverance’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.

THE ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE, NEW TESTAMEN AND PSALMS (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Peace (PhD Edit)

Highlighted key excerpts mentioning peace within my PhD. Theodicy and Practical Theology, The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter (2010).

Brightman the finite God and peace

Brightman reasons that God is not fixed but is still growing and expanding. God is therefore finite for Brightman. Brightman (1930: 94). He questions traditional concepts that God is a metaphysical unity that is perfectly at peace with self, as in no struggle, instead God may not be so separate from the physical world and the struggles that go with it. Brightman (1930: 94). Brightman reasons there are struggles within the divine being and God has genuine problems to deal with in the physical realm as a finite and limited God. Brightman (1930: 94). The expansion of God means he must lack some knowledge and power, and this view contradicts those within theology that place a strong emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as does Calvinism and Reformed theology.

The infinite biblical God

I view the finite God as logically possible but would still leave the need for the infinite first cause. Ultimately, I reason that even if human beings were created by a finite God, the ultimate first cause is the one that human beings should ultimately appeal to as this being could overrule the lesser deity. I would make any appeal for everlasting life to the most powerful good being in existence. The infinite God is a more reasonable and certain source of peace than a finite one.

Weber explains that only God could bring peace to God and humanity, and this takes place through Christ. Weber (1955)(1981: 383). Christ stood completely with human beings and yet was God. Weber (1955)(1981: 383). Bonhoeffer deduces that Christ transforms the mortal agony of his martyrs by granting them peace in his assured presence. Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 101). This type of sacrifice, to Bonhoeffer, is how those who follow Christ overcome suffering as Christ did. Bonhoeffer (1937)(1963: 101).

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1931)(1996) Act and Being, Translated from the German Edition, Hans-Richard Reuter (ed.), English Edition, Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr., (ed.), Translated by H. Martin Rumscheidt, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH (1937)(1963) The Cost of Discipleship, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1930) The Problem of God, New York, The Abingdon Press. 

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1940) A Philosophy of Religion, New York, Prentice-Hall. 

BRIGHTMAN, EDGAR SHEFFIELD (1958) Person and Reality, New York, Ronald Press.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Baptism Revisited

Immaculate Conception Parish, Delta, BC

Infant Baptism August 2007

Saturday Part One

It was a busy weekend for me. I officially signed as a member of Northview Community Church on Sunday.

On Saturday, I attended the wedding of a Mennonite friend that also attends my former Presbyterian church.

An interesting discussion arose with myself and two leaders from my former Reformed Presbyterian church which is paedobaptist (infant baptism) in theology, in regard to my new Anabaptist church, which takes the believer's baptism stance.

Therefore, not to reinvent the wheel, I will rework my excerpts from my 2007 article and as usual in these contexts, add new material.

On a personal note, I was baptized/christened as an infant in the United Church of Canada, and as an adult in the Mennonite Brethren Church with full immersion. I view the United Church as very liberal and my initial experience as questionable, although I admit I was taught the gospel as a child at the United Church. Particularly in Sunday school. This is credit where credit is due.

While I was a member at the Presbyterian church, I had friendly discussions with leaders, and I accept their claim appears true that at least two of the Church Fathers, 'disciples of disciples' to quote a lead Pastor, practiced infant baptism.

Bromiley

G.W. Bromiley, who as of 1996 was Senior Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, explains that in early church history those such as Irenaeus and Origen, who were close to the apostles, were involved in baptizing children of professing believers. Bromiley (1996: 116). Infant Baptism was performed somewhat on Scriptural grounds, although there is no direct Biblical command to baptize infants. Bromiley (1996: 116).

Bromiley reasons that although in Acts there were household baptisms, there are no clear-cut instances of child baptism. Bromiley (1996: 116). He thinks Biblically and theologically that there is evidence that infant baptism should be the normal practice in families where the gospel has taken hold, although there is no guarantee that children shall be believers. Bromiley (1996: 116).

He writes that many view believer’s baptism as the only legitimate New Testament form of baptism, although not necessarily immersion. Bromiley (1996: 114). Many tie in Christ’s call to baptize with the idea of making disciples, and nothing was said about infants. Bromiley (1996: 114). The question arises if infants are disciples, and I would think not, although they certainly can be disciples in waiting, again quoting one of my former lead Presbyterian pastors.

Bromiley notes that from Paul’s writings that tie belief and repentance with baptism it does not make sense to baptize infants that cannot hear the gospel or make a response of belief. Christ’s love for children is evident, but there is no direct Biblical command to include them in the baptism process, and there is no Biblical warrant to suppose that baptism should definitely precede belief and repentance. Bromiley (1996: 115).

Bromiley admits that the households in Acts may have included infants, but even if there were, there is no indication that they were baptized and states that it would be hazardous inference to use these verses to support infant baptism. Bromiley (1996: 115). He writes that the need for faith is correctly found in infant baptism, but that the personal confession found in Believer’s baptism is stronger. Bromiley (1996: 115). Reading Bromiley, it seems he reasons that it is good for infants within a Christian family to receive baptism, but that it would be even better for them to have believer’s baptism at a later date.

A Reasonable Position That Will Not Please Everyone

My reasoning is that believer's baptism appears the standard biblical theology. One believes and confesses as an adult, or at least a young person with adult responsibility granted and is baptized.

However, I cannot, because of lack of conclusive evidence, deny that entire households baptized in the New Testament, may have included infants.

Church Fathers, Irenaeus and Origen were reported to baptize infants. It is therefore at least theologically possible that the Apostles, with divine permission from Jesus Christ and the triune, God, allowed infant baptism. This may have been done while the Church accepted the standard biblical mandate for believer's baptism. The Baptist and Anabaptist can argue that the Church Fathers were in biblical error where infant baptism was practiced. The practices and theology of Church Fathers, not equal to documented inerrant, inspired, biblical doctrine of New Testament authors.

It is possible that more that one mode of baptism serves as a sign of being within the new covenant of Jesus Christ. Pastor Jon Courson has stated in his online sermons (paraphrased) that in the New Testament when there is theological conflicts with two different views, that they in a sense may both be correct.

From my academic theological perspective, this could be the case with the baptism issue. I am not dogmatic. This is not an attempt at wishy-washy theology, whatsoever. Anyone reading my work will realize I take dogmatic stances when there are greater cumulative evidence. Especially, with my PhD-MPhil studies. My work is a theological and philosophical attempt at balance.

For me, I therefore, was re-baptized years ago in a Mennonite Brethren church in what I believe is the stronger biblical model. But I have Presbyterian and mainline denomination friends that as adults are walking in the faith hoped for them in the new covenant through the infant baptism they received via parents. If these baptized children as adults stay within that tradition, I personally reason that this paedobaptism is sufficient as a sign of their personal obedient gospel walk. If they wished to join many Baptist or Mennonite churches, they would be required to take full immersion baptism.

As I pointed out in the discussion at the wedding reception, which was accepted; God chooses those in Christ (Ephesians 1, Romans 8), not based on infant baptism, or any baptism for that matter. Baptism is a sign of obedience in the gospel.

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Baptism, Infant', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
---

Saturday Part Two

The Dean Mennonite Birthday

Paraphrased:

Sophia his daughter, eight years old: Play hide and go seek with my friend and I!

Me: I am way too big and 'monstery' to hide. We will not fit under things!

Chuck: Yea, we are way too big!

Sophia's eight year old friend: (Pondering) Yea, I guess so, I did not think of that...

Me: But we can play Hide and go freak! Where we chase you!

Little girls: Yay!

Brief: 1 Timothy 3: 6

NBC

In regard to qualifications for an overseer:

1 Timothy 3: 6

New American Standard Bible

6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation [d]incurred by the devil.

English Standard Version

6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.

King James Version

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

The new Christian believer is biblically disqualified from the office of overseer, due to the risk of pride. I reason the novice also lacks spiritual, biblical and theological experience; not the only relevant issues, but these are central. This standard does not measure up to the biblical standard of overseer.

Alan G. Nute:

'Recent converts are deemed unsuitable for the task; it has its perils for which they would be ill-equipped.' (1478).

NUTE, ALAN G. (1986) in '1 Timothy', The International Bible Commentary,  F.F. Bruce, General Editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan/Marshall Pickering.

Jon Courson:

'Why was the devil-Lucifer-initially condemned? Because of pride (Isaiah 14: 12-15).'

(Verse 13 from Isaiah 13, my add):

New American Standard Version

“But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly
In the recesses of the north.

'Thus Paul warns Timothy not to place a novice in a position of leadership because novices tend to think that if anything good happens through them it is because they're a skilled speaker or a clever person. Only someone who has walked with the Lord awhile understands that if anything good happens through him it's not because of him, but rather in spite of him!' (1378).

COURSON, JON (2003) Jon Courson's Application Commentary, Nashville, Thomas Nelson.

It is biblically clear that a new convert, new believer and novice should not be an overseer.

However, I think Pastor Courson's use of the term 'leadership' is useful in developing an overall ministry principle.

A new Christian or Christian that is relatively inexperienced with spiritual matters, bible, theology and related, should not only be prohibited from the office as overseer; but this person should not have any leadership position in the universal 'catholic' Church, which would require experience and maturity in regard to spiritual matters, bible, theology and related.

By Church, I am not meeting, just or only formal professional Church work, but also parachurch ministry,  fellowships and studies.

The biblical principle remains the same.