While reading this article, I noticed that it was nothing more than rhetoric and contained nothing scientific about global warming or climate change. I am undecided on the debate of global warming and do like to keep abreast of the latest developments in this field of study. While this article did not increase my knowledge in the area of climate change, the benefit I found in this article was a chance to exercise my critical reading and practice finding fallacious reasoning.

The thing I love about scientism is the appeal, the authority that is often claimed by “overwhelming scientific consensus”; we all agree, therefore, it is true. Which, in my opinion, does not count for much given the “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that nothing can travel faster than light. Given the speed of light theory might have recently been shattered. We await confirmation that the speed of light can be broken so let me use a different example. 60 years ago the “overwhelming scientific consensus” was that the sound barrier could not be broken. So much for the overwhelming scientific consensus, as it turns out, they were all wrong. The number of scientific claims that have been destroyed over the years is countless. Is global warming immune to such mistakes? Are we still so arrogant to think that we have all the answers in spite of constant new discoveries and paradigm shifts?

I also wonder how a consensus is a scientific methodology; it sounds more like a philosophy to me. Truth is truth no matter what the “consensus” came up with. I do grant that if the consensus is made up of qualified people, the likelihood that they are correct is greater, however, it is not a guarantee they are correct. In addition, knowing that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” may have been built on some facts which are now known to have been misrepresented at best and outright fraudulent at worst, statistically lowers the probability their premise is correct. If CO₂ emissions is really the cause of climate change, they have done the greatest disservice to us all by their skullduggery.

If you deny the “overwhelming scientific consensus,” then you are a victim of the “well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.” Seriously, a conspiracy? The conspiracy card can be played for or against climate change and each side could produce enough damning evidence. Poison the well and fling mud, don’t worry about the facts. The facts should be able to stand by themselves. Mudslinging is the recourse for a weak argument.

Notice this article does not address any claims or counter-claims that are relevant to the scientific discussion. It is nothing more than intellectual bullying and vitriolic attacks. Notice that most comments are nothing more than emotionally loaded rhetoric. Even if I was on the side of climate change, I would want well-reasoned arguments and not rhetoric.

Where has reason and logic gone that we must now accept rhetoric as golden truth?

Related Reading Update:

• Climategate (Phil Jones and Climate Research Unit scandal)
  
• Charles Monnett scandal
  
• Solar activity the real cause of climate change (Jan 2012)
  
• Pro Global Warming report (Oct 2011)
  

Book Review:

The Water That Divides (Mentor Imprint), by Donald Bridge and David Phypers

I have to say, this is an excellent book. It gives you the history of baptism and chronologically follows the changes of views on baptism throughout Christian history. Not only that, it gives you the context of the situations that played a role in the changes throughout the centuries.

For example, I did not know that the controversy between infant baptism and adult-only baptism goes back to the very earliest church fathers. The controversy is, by no means, a recent issue of contention.

I was also surprised to learn that the controversy between submersion and sprinkling is also not a recent debate; it goes back to the early church fathers as well. It is documented that they did both. For some early churches, baptism would often include exorcism as well as anointing with oil. You get the impression that baptism may have been unique to each group, maybe, based on their culture. You could make the case it is that way today.

This information has changed my point of view. Not that I have changed my view on baptism, but it has made me less dogmatic about my position. Many theologians, such as C S Lewis, G K Chesterton & James Packer, feel the different views should be held on creative tension and not destructive competition. I think that might be the answer. I mean, what about letting other explore the issue for themselves? Maybe a person’s baptism is part of their story, part of their relationship with God, and part of their unique journey and revelation.

"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas." "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity." - Attributed to St. Augustine.

One of the important points brought out in the book was the use of the word sacrament in conjunction with baptism with the early church fathers. Because the term has very specific and legal connotations in ancient Latin, it may help us understand how the early church fathers viewed baptism.

The word sacrament comes from the Latin word sacramentumj which in ancient times, it was a deposit of money for a legal case held in escrow at a temple or it was also an oath of allegiance for soldiers. In either case, the word sacramentum involved a religious ceremony in a sacred place. Augustine defined sacramentum as 'a sign of a sacred reality'. By the second century, baptism was called a sacramentum. This is an import fact in understanding the early Churches view and understanding of Baptism.

This early understanding of the word flows through even to today. In the sacrament of Baptism in the Church of England, the ceremony follows like a Roman soldier's oath of allegiance. The person performing the Baptism will say:

"Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified."

In reply the person being baptized will say:

"Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil, and continue his faithful soldiers and servants to the end of your lives."

This understanding of the word sacramentum supports the case that baptism is a response to faith in Christ and is a way people can signify their belief or pledge allegiance to Christ.

Does baptism have anything to do with a person’s salvation? If faith is most important why baptize?

To answer why we baptize is easy, because Jesus said too. (see Matthew 28:19) End of case on that question. However, it leaves behind an issue that many people feel strongly about. Mainly, that baptism, in some way, plays an important role in a person’s salvation. If the original meaning for baptism was that it was a sign or pledge, where did the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation come from?

Think of it this way, if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and savior and He says to go and make disciples by baptizing them, why wouldn't you? Baptism, then, is the obedience of faith so closely linked that you almost can't have one without the other. (Almost) Not that baptism bestows salvation, but that it is an evidence for salvation.

This intimacy between baptism and faith leads to some confusion. In the 12th century, sacraments, because they were so closely linked with faith, began to be described as a means of grace. This is often described as 'ex opere operato' or 'by the work being worked' or 'baptism saves you,’ which means that baptism automatically saves you. People often say that this is what Catholics believe. However, from the Middle Ages on, the Catholic Church has not held to this view. For Catholics today, belief in the doctrine 'non ponentibus obicem' (in case of those who place no impediment). This basically means that baptism brings God's grace so long as there is nothing to stop it, such as a lack of faith.

Thus, calling baptism a sacrament, gives us some insight into the intended meaning of those who used the word so long ago.

Investigation Baptismal Regeneration in Mark 16:16

I am going to look at a number of passages in their immediate context and then later in a broader context. I have to make a comment upfront and acknowledge that the authenticity of the longer ending or Mark (Mark 16:9-20) is questioned by many scholars. I do not intend to address this issue, rather, for argument sake, I will make the assumption that this longer ending is authentic. However, if we did find any significant meaning in a disputed section of scripture, we must be extremely cautious in building doctrine on questionable scripture.

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται. (Mark 16:16) [Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition]

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” - Mark 16:16 HCSB

Let’s take a look at this passage logically and see what we can determine.

1. According to Mark 16:16 who will be saved?
2. According to Mark 16:16 who will be condemned?

When you read this passage, you will note that the passage talks about those that are saved and those that are not (condemned) and that there is an imbalance in the statement.¹  The question is, did the author of Mark imply that both belief and baptism are required to be saved and not condemned or did the author imply that only belief was needed to be saved and not condemned. This, then, raises the question as to why baptism was mentioned. Many possible explanations can be given from baptism being our response to our salvation to a work out of faith. However, this passage does not address this issue and anything we propose is speculation.

When we take the passage and balance the statement in order to determine the intent of the author, we have one of two possible meanings:

• Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned
• Whoever believes will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned

Because the statement is ambiguous, we must infer the intent of the author from one of two possible meanings. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration (the need of baptism for salvation) will insist that inference A is the correct meaning. While those who support sola fida (salvation by faith alone) will insist that inference B is the correct meaning.

Because the author of Mark gives no indication in this portion of the discourse, we cannot assume either possible meaning. If we infer either possible meaning, we run the danger of putting meaning into the text or taking meaning out of the text.²  With that in mind, this passage by itself is neutral to either possible meaning. It neither supports baptismal generation nor rejects it.

To understand what God has for us, we will need to take the scriptures as a whole.³

1. This is sometimes referred to as a negative inference.

2. The general exhortation in Revelation 22:18-19 and the command in Deuteronomy 4:1-2 warns us not to add or subtract anything from God’s Word.

3. With the assumption that the Bible is God inspired we have the principle of non-contradiction. Meaning that God inspired the words in the Bible and as such there is a logical consistency across 66 books with over 30 different authors.