Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by rlvaughn, Feb 11, 2006.

?

Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius

  1. I agree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He excludes every o

    45.0%
  2. I disagree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He does not excl

    20.0%
  3. I sometimes agree with "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius". When God specifies one thing, He someti

    15.0%
  4. This is not a proper way to express or discuss God's commands.

    20.0%
  5. No opinion/doesn't matter

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    "Inclusio unius, exclusio alterius" is a legal code at least as old as the civil law of the Romans. It means "inclusion of one is exclusion of others". I was brought up generally with this as true as a religious concept, sans Latin -- the specification or inclusion of one thing is the prohibition or exclusion of every other thing. For example, if Jesus commanded His disciples to immerse professed believers, the specification of that excludes the sprinkling of professed believers, or the immersion of professed unbelievers, etc., etc. Do you agree with "Inclusio unius exclusio alterius"? I hope comments will follow.
     
  2. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    P.S., I realize there is a "Forum for Polls", but I wanted the question to be here in the "Baptist Only" section in order to get opinions of professed Baptists.
     
  3. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I hope some will discuss why they have voted as such -- 1 agree, 1 disagree, and 1 this is not a proper way to discuss it.

    If God commanded Noah to use "gopher wood" to build the ark, would that exclude the use of some other kind of wood? If not, why not? Does this differ substantially from New Testament commands? Why or why not?
     
  4. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'm posting to bring this back up to the top so someone might notice this poll and vote (and/or comment on the thread).
     
  5. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, I'll jump in. If God specified gopher wood then that precludes using non gopher wood.
     
  6. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. God specificly commanded it.

    With the original sinario of baptisem, although I believe imersion is what is intended. I have wondered what if somebody was on their death bed hooked up to tubes and such. If they wanted to be baptised would not one of the other modes serve the purpose. Beings baptisem is not what saves.

    In this case I would have to say that even though imersion is what was intended other modes are not excluded for people who can not be imersed.
     
  7. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strange fire is fire but it is still strange.

    If immersion is not possible then nothing else is baptism, it is just getting wet. It is the intention of the heart that matters. If it is the intention of our heart to substitue our opinion for his directions I do not think that is acceptable.
     
  8. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont want to start a big thing.

    BUT, if it is the intention of the heart that matters and the intention is "I want to be baptized by immersion" but this is not possable would not the intention be just the same for another mode.

    Now if the person just does not want to be immersed but is able. I would say his heart is disobediante. But is the heart is will and wants to be immersed but it is impossable. Then what?

    In other words if you were a pastor that was called to a house where a person was hooked up to tubes and you led them to the Lord and they truly wanted to be baptized. What would you do?

    What about a prisioner, life sentence, and the institution would not allow immersion. What would you do?

    Is it the mode that makes it a baptisem or the intention of the heart.
     
  9. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    Since baptism (immersion of a believer in water) is a positive institution that finds its validity in the authority of the one who commanded it, rather than in a moral precept, it would seem to me that it is only valid when performed as commanded. Baptism is an obligation because God has made it so. If someone actually cannot perform what God has commanded, wouldn't it make sense to just not do it rather than try to substitute something that God has not commanded?
     
  10. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is a good point. However it strkes me that every thing we do for our Lord is imperfict and not up to his standards. It seems that he wants us to try our best. Now dont get me wrong I believe in imersion but sometimes I like to think about the little detales of things and what ifs. It seems to me that beings the point of baptisem is obediance of the heart, if truly the best a person could do was an imperfict mode of baptisem the Lord would be happy for the attempt at obediance.

    Please explain what happens in an invalid baptisem? What do you mean by valid?

    One more question why would the Lord be happier with no baptisem then he would be with an imperfict mode of baptisem where the person truly tried to be obedient?
     
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,210
    Likes Received:
    192
    Very interesting poll, rlvaughn.

    If God's way does not preclude all other ways, than Jesus died in vain, did He not? There is only one way of salvation, one Lord, one faith, one baptism!
     
  12. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    Hi, DeeJay. If we are to consider the what ifs, then what if a person could not even be sprinkled with water? Perhaps he is dieing and professes faith in Christ in a desert place where there is no water. Then do we substitute sand for water and sprinkling for immersion? If we leave the institution as God gave it and go for the what ifs, it seems there will be no end of what we could substitute for baptism.

    When I said valid there, I meant a baptism that is acceptable to God -- one that ultimately will be upheld in God's court. I think anything other than immersion of a believer would be invalid -- not acceptable to God.
    This is my opinion based on the nature of the command. I have come to a conclusion which may not suit friends either to the right or to the left. Since baptism is a "positive institution", I had rather not perform it at all than perform it incorrectly. I am convinced that God will accept the will of the heart to perform that which a person is literally unable to perform. If Jesus was of the mindset to render an imperfect mode of baptism when immersion was not possible, He could have had some of the disciples sling some water up on the thief on the cross in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But He didn't. The thief was unable, and it seems to me that is sufficient in such a case.
     
  13. Humblesmith

    Humblesmith
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the fundamental laws of all thought are the basic laws of logic. They are fundamental to all thought, because if you try to disagree with them, you end up affirming them. They are therefore non-deniable, and apply to every statement that anyone has ever made.

    One of the first three laws of all thought is one that is dealt with here with this question. If one thing is true, then the contradiction of that cannot also be true at the same time and in the same sense.

    So if God said use gopher wood, then non-gopher wood is unacceptable. However, the statement "honor your father and mother, and your days will be long upon the land" says nothing about other things that will cause your days to be long. It also says nothing about what will happen if you don't honor your father....God could still be gracious and give long days for some other reason.
     
  14. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting you would use this analogy. I remember a story a pastor told me about a man who was in ICU hooked up to tubes, ivs and such. He was dieing and asked to be baptized. His family called this pastor and asked if he could do anything. This pastor took a sheet and imersed the man under the sheet then removed the sheet. The symbology of being buried in Christ and raised was there. And the attitude of the heart was there also. The only thing missing was H2O. If the persons heart was right then he did not need to be baptized to be saved, but he wanted to be as obedient as possable. It seems to me that that is something.

    I have kids and sometimes they are not able to do what I ask them to do, but I am always happy when they make a full effort to do what I ask and come up a little short. On the other hand, it furstrates me when they just wine "I cant do it dad" and dont even try.

    Exactly, But it seems to me that if the heart is in the right place you would want to obey the best you can even if it is not perfict. It seems the other option would lead to things like; if I can not be perfict then I will not even try to not sin.

    Interesting, but like you said the will of the heart is sufficent. And going to this extream was not nessesary. I guess he could have made it rain also. You make good points, I will think about them.

    It probably comes down to, and I think we both agree, If your heart is in the right place then all of our imperfict actions will be forgiven they are all as dirty rags anyway. We also agree the if you have the oppertunity and ability to be baptized properly and you do not then you are willfully disobediant.
     
  15. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    I suppose that we agree on the heart matter, but not the execution. If the attitude of the heart is there and the absolute physical inability to be baptized exists also, why would God require it? And why would we substitute something God does not require? Baptism is not a "self act"; there is someone who is there to perform it. So, the person wants to be obedient. Should not the baptizer just explain that is enough? In the end, we are talking about rare cases. Most people who won't be immersed do so for other reasons. Speaking for myself, I would not be willing to cover someone with a sheet and call it baptism.
    It would be a sin to refuse to be baptized. I cannot see that it is a sin to be physically unable to be baptized.
     

Share This Page

Loading...