I think this would be an interesting topic for another thread. Thanks in advance.
That’s a fundamental split between Calvinism (in which omnipotence and omniscience are foremost over free will) and Lutheranism, Catholicism or Orthodox churches to name a few (in which God chooses of his own free will to let us choose of our own free will). In the Calvinist view, the outcome is both known and decided by God; in the non-Calvinist view, the outcome is known by God (basically the dude can’t avoid giving himself spoilers) but decided by each of us.
Your first sentence basically describes Arminianism, which is the other main theological camp within Protestantism. Arminians (not to be confused with the ethnic group Armenians) believe that God uses His omniscience to look forward through time and see in advance the people who will choose, of their own free will, to get saved. Calvinists believe that God chooses salvation for them, instead of letting them choose. This is called Predestination.
There are indications in the Bible that perhaps as many as 50% of all people who are truly saved will lose salvation, either through actively rejecting it (for whatever reason), or else by being careless and letting it slip out of their grasp.
Why would a believer change his mind? Because Satan is a very predatory, deceitful, vengeful entity who tries hard (and sometimes succeeds) in persuading people to change their minds.
I find the image of an atheist hounding a priest to baptize his kids to be a really strange image - sort of like a person picketing their local supermarket for not selling unicorn food. It’s not that the “lack of belief” is strong; it’s that without the belief, the action in question is insane. It doesn’t take strength of will to resist the lure of religion - until you already believe the religion, there’s no lure. (Interest in non-liturgical aspects of the church community aside.)
Not to mention there’s the issue of Pascal’s Wager. To a theist there’s their way, or the highway. To an atheist they’re standing in the center of an intersection with a thousand roads emerging from it, none of them more correct than the other. There’s no particular reason the atheist should think that a Lutheran baptism has any more eternal impact than a catholic baptism or a mormon baptism or whatever Pastafarians do to their babies. (A tomato sauce baptism?) So picture how effective dipping a baby in tomato sauce would be, and that’s how much an atheist seeks baptisms.
I guess what I was trying to get at, and apparently failed, was if the atheist had some doubts, foxhole-like, he may have hounded the pastor to do something about it. In this case, Adam steered clear of the interactions between the pastor and his sister.
For a weak analogy, if I put my kids on a plane, I know that it’s safer than just about any other form of travel, but I’d still have them call me when they land safely on the other side. Here, the downside is eternal damnation, which is much worse than dying in a plane crash, so if Adam had any doubts, maybe he would ask the pastor to help out.
Believe me, I understand the Pascal’s wager thing – I can’t believe that’s ever trotted out. Homer Simpson destroyed that argument.
Regarding the strength of will, at least in America, you’re surrounded by religiosity all the time. Someone might thing, hey, it’s weird that all of these people could be wrong about this, what if it’s me that’s wrong? Anyway, that’s not the case with me, so I get where you’re coming from. I literally cannot come up with something that would turn me towards faith. If God wants me, he should just use his powers to make me believe. He did it with Thomas, with the Israelites and Egyptians, even with Jesus’s contemporaries, performing miracles left and right.
Well, it didn’t quite work with the Egyptians and Pharisees, seeing as they only got angrier the more miracles they saw. Even the Israelites, after having witnessed the Ten Plagues and the Parting of the Red Sea, still decided to build a golden calf and worship it.
He’d have to be having extremely specific, Lutheran-centered doubts, because the core problem of the Wager is that if an atheist were to “have doubts”, he’d have no particular reason to think that Lutheranism is the solution that he’s looking for. There are hundreds of different sects in Christianity alone, and half of them say that if you pick any of the others you’re damned. If an atheist was plagued with fears that some unidentified, undefined, and unspecified supernatural entity had designs upon hunting his child down and torturing them forever, some random Lutheran offering baths is no salve - there are still hundreds of other possible demons out there, and providing protections against the Lutheran flavor doesn’t do a thing about the others.
An atheist who’s even slightly well-read has little choice but to fear none of them, since to fear any of them is to fear all of them. Without some sort of established belief that one demon can protect you from the others there’s no protection in belief.
There are a few different ways to approach atheism, including claiming to be one when you’re really not and are just disaffected with your sect. But if you’re truly an atheist you don’t have a secret lean towards one sect or another, and that homogenous wall of theists suddenly fragments into a bunch of disparate sects that all say the other is wrong. It’s not a matter of saying “what if they’re right” - you know for a fact that the vast majority are wrong, because they can’t all be right!
You’re, uh, preaching to the choir here.
I really liked South Park’s take – there’s a scene in Hell and all these people yelling and screaming that they were a faithful x or a devout y, why am I here?? This assistant type comes out, checks his board and says, “The correct answer was…the Mormons!”
Here: The Mormons Were Correct (South Park) - YouTube
Also, here, for the Simpsons devastating Pascal:
Well, you seemed to be entertaining the idea that a ‘foxhole’ atheist might leap for Lutheranism in his sudden terror about death/afterlife/whichever. I suppose if the atheist was deeply steeped in a local culture where Lutheranism was the only clear alternative to atheism then that could be a probable outcome, but I find it hard to imagine that that would be the case.
This part is effectively a restatement of Pascal’s Wager, and fails the same way.
The idea of the Wager is that because the consequences of a lack of religion are so bad, even if they have a very small chance of occurring, the wise choice is to go along.
The problem is that it only considers two possible cases: There is no God, and There is a God and he basically operates the way that <insert religion X> claims. But those aren’t the only options. There are an infinite number of possible belief systems, and they can easily cancel out.
If I additionally consider the possible existence of Flurnghr, who devours baptized kids and digests them in his stomach for eternity, but ignores unbaptized kids because they are dirty (come on, who wants to eat the spiritually unwashed), then I should not baptize my kids or I could be damning them to eternal digestive acid!
You could point out that I just made up Flurnghr while I was writing this, so He obviously doesn’t exist, but as far as this atheist is concerned, someone made up Yahwey too, just a long time ago.
So I will return to my default of not caring at all if my kids are baptized, except for the very minor consideration of not wanting to spend my Sunday afternoon on it.
I have some doubts 
Heretic! How dare you insult Flurnghr, blessed be he!
Weird. OK.
Not sure I understand this response, but I was being a bit cheeky, and maybe you are too and we’re missing each other’s humor.
To spell it out: you mentioned that you understand Pascal’s wager, but you basically argued a form of it. Do you understand now why expecting the atheist to be concerned over his children’s lack of baptism is just a restatement of the wager?
I have seen some data somewhere in the past that only about half of the Christians in the US (who are about 75-80% of the population) believe in an actual hell.
Also, many define hell as eternal separation from God, and not eternal conscious torment.
But yeah, if you believe all that stuff, it would be the logical thing to pull an Andrea Yates.
+1. I came here to post this, but I forgot her name.
Ok, right there Pete fell off the bus and condemned himself.
refusing to accept the kids into his religion, because of the religion/behavior of their parents?
That’s straight-up bigotry!
You mean he SHOULD HAVE baptized them.
By refusing to do so, he has violated his own religion and several oaths of service as a pastor.
I don’t understand those who say baptism is for the infant’s parents. It’s just not true. Here’s what theLutheran Church Missouri Synod says:
That doesn’t sound like a ritual done primarily to reassure parents.
As for Pastor Pete, his insistence that Eve find (and presumably register in) a Lutheran church near her residence is well beyond what the Lutheran Church requires, namely that
Note that it says Christian, not specifically Lutheran, and that “nurturing” is a broad term.
[Bolding mine.]
So unless Eve or Adam said, “Heck no! No Christian nurturing of THIS kid!” the baby (Cain? Abel?) would typically be baptized.
Uh, “devastating” seems an overstatement for that clip.
Well, it’s a one-liner, but he puts it to bed pretty well.
Now there are two claims that baptism is pretty magical to Lutherans and one that it isn’t. Is there a way to get this settled? If it’s just a formality for the parent’s sake, then Pete’s refusal doesn’t mean much, but if it confers some specialness to the kids’ souls, then it seems more serious.
If you’re referring to what I wrote in post #3, I would say baptism is still extremely important to them. I was dispelling two ideas: that it is always necessary for salvation as has been noted elsewhere, and that it is like a valve that guarantees salvation up to an age that it can be rejected. I have an old Catechism book with me so I’ll type out some main points.
-
Natural or plain water is used in Baptism.
-
Baptizing does not consist in just applying water.
-
Baptizing is a holy act commanded by God.
-
God’s Word is used in baptizing.
-
In Baptism God forgives sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation.
-
The Word of God offers great blessings in Baptism. The blessings of Baptism are received through faith.
**- Baptizing with water means that we drown our sinful desires with daily repentance.
- Baptizing with water means that we are made new people who live to please God.**
This last part is important to understand. The lack of a parent or authority figure to train a child in the faith could presumably weaken the power of baptism to save.
Baptism is one of two sacraments, the other being Holy Communion/Lord’s Supper/The Eucharist, which is usually received weekly or every other week by active believers who have been confirmed in order to receive forgiveness. Confession of sins, well, is recommended daily although the Bible doesn’t offer specific commanding guidelines for either. These are constant cycles and going a long time without repenting and receiving forgiveness jeopardizes souls. Baptism within the accepted church only happens once regardless of anything.