Dave Adamson, you are wrong. Dead wrong.
Then again, you're not a pastor, either.
On March 11, 2019, Fox News posted an opinion article titled "Church as we know it is over. Here's what's next." (If you are curious what was in the article, you can read it here.)
(pardon me while I beat my head against the desk for a moment, until I forget about the dumb for a while)
Now, at the top, he does rightly call out churches that focus on attempting to increase attendance numbers, as if that is the goal of the Church. But he then claims that this also means that the "traditional" church model, namely that there is a physical building where worship takes place is like the dinosaurs: dead.
No, Dave. The Church does not die. She thrives. But, then again, you wouldn't know. You're not a pastor.
What you are is a has-been sports announcer who now works for a Bible-denying heretic at a place of business that looks more like Facebook and Instagram than the countryside of Galilee, or Rome, or Wittenburg. It doesn't even look like what Billy Graham was doing.
Some churches and "churches" will try to implement the sort of stupidity. Now, I'm not saying it is bad to have the ability to navigate modern social media and use it as the tool which it can become. No. I'm saying that thinking foolishly that you can replace church with a Facebook chat session.
Yes. That is what he suggested. He just probably has no idea that's what he suggested. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
Why do I say that? Because if he knew what "church" was he wouldn't have made such a suggestion.
The word we now know as Church comes from the Greek word ἐκκλησία. Quite literally meaning "assembly" or "communion," though whenever it is used in the New Testament it does clearly mean the Church. And the Church only exists as a group. As Jesus says in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”
That is one of the primary marks of the Church: fellowship. And not just being "together" in some vague way, but legitimately being in the same space worshiping together, reading the words of Scripture, partaking in the Sacraments, and praying. If you are not together, physically, you are not the Church. You cannot have baptism and communion without being physically together.
Yes, having the ability to watch a service, or listen to the audio, when it is physically impossible to physically attend service, can be beneficial, especially for some members, such as the elderly. But this cannot replace worship. And to claim that, not only will it, but it is beneficial for the church in such an age of post-modernistic fluff, is foolish. I'd even go so far as to say treasonous. To not only think this might happen, but to wish for it, to look forward to it, to think it will be the next step in the progressing of the Church from archaic to modern is disgusting.
According to Dave "If the Church is going to make an impact in the modern world, we need to take the swim lanes out and let people explore our church and our content in their own time and in their own way. We need to understand that digital channels do not compete with physical attendance, they partner with it. And if the marketplace is an indicator, doing digital engagement well will lead to increased physical attendance."
What it should say is "If the Church is going to make an impact in the modern world, we need to quit trying to be what the world wants and be the Church. We need to understand that digital channels do not replace with physical attendance, but they can support it. And if the marketplace is an indicator, living in such a disconnected and digital engagement means we need to be promoting the value of physical and routinely attending a confessional and Scriptural community."
Yeah, I know that isn't what he said. But it is what he should have said. Not "oh, look, let's abandon our heritage and identity as the Church as we try to emotionally manipulate people into attending through callous and secular methods based on psychology and advertising."
If he was really a pastor, he would call out his boss Andy Stanley, the leader of North Point Ministries in Atlanta. Stanley is a known and intentional heretic who has gone on record stating that the Old Testament is of no use to Christians. This would make Stanley a Marcionite.
Marcion and his followers rejected the "Hebrew Bible" (which we call the Old Testament), since they saw the Hebrew God was vengeful. According to them the one true God sent Jesus to be the savior, and Paul was the chief apostle. If that sounds familiar to another religious mantra... I'll let you figure that out yourself. Because gnosticism never goes out of style, unfortunately.
So, Dave, like I said. Dead wrong.
The church is not about being "popular" and neglecting to mention Christ in nearly everything we say and do. The Church has always been about preaching Christ crucified and risen for sinners, which includes me and you. Everything a pastor says should be about or connect back to that central most fact of Christianity.
Maybe you should go back to talking about sports. At least there if you are wrong it is only your opinion, and not heresy.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Friday, November 23, 2018
If You Don't Like That I Baptize My Infant, Stop Being Christian (or) You Say "Believer's Baptism" But Clearly Don't Know What Either Word Means
Ah, a favorite target of the radical reformed protestant: infant baptism.
Much like with the words of institution ("this is my body... this is my blood..."), members of churches that aren't labeled Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican tend to like attacking clear Biblical teachings. (There are some in those groups that attack as well, but official stance precludes such stupidity.)
(And I'm looking at you, ELCA, when I say that.)
A while back I read an article posted about how Christians should give up Lent for Lent. Overall, its clear the author didn't get why people do give up something in the first place. But I'm focusing on how they used the historic practice of infant baptism as a reason why people should reject giving up something for Lent.
(And, no, I'm not going to provide the link. Mostly because the article was dumb.)
I'll admit, I don't give up stuff for Lent. Mostly because I don't have the willpower and stamina to see it through, and I probably won't give up something substantial anyway. Besides, it's not something "necessary," unlike how Christ died for our sins, which is the point of Lent.
What does that have to do with infant baptism? Nothing. At all.
Except for the undeniable fact that through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and that this baptism is for all people of all races and all ages - including infants.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that baptism is an outward sign of one's faith. Or a symbol. Or an act of obedience. Or that there are different versions. Or that you, the dead man, can choose it.
What Scripture does teach, with clear and understandable words, is that baptism saves you, regardless of your age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, job, tax bracket, hair style, language, music preference, or shoe size. An infant being brought to baptism in the Triune name of God receives the exact same baptism received by the people at Pentecost, by the Ethiopian eunuch, and by Cornelius.
If you are one of those who find yourself antagonistic to this historic and undeniably biblical practice and currently find yourself feeling a bit more like an irate Dr. Bruce Banner, I'm not sorry.
And why should I be? Why should I be sorry for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ? Why should I be sorry for reading Scripture and believing it means exactly what it says? Why should I be sorry for wanting to provide my children with the same saving faith I was raised in? Why should I be sorry for not rejecting my Lord's command but following it to the letter?
It's the antagonists to this time-honored and biblical practice that should be sorry***.
Don't believe me? That's fine. I'll stop using my words, and simply use the words of God. Here are some passages about baptism. (And, in reality, opponents of this using the line "you have your passages that support you're belief and we have ours" are dumb. Because we Lutherans have all the passages supporting us. This is just the quick list for those who do not have the time for a full-bore exegetical study.)
(And before anyone gets their big kid skivvies in a twist, I did not say "Roman Catholic Church." The RCC is a specific denomination within the Church Catholic. The word "catholic" means "universal." Its a descriptor for how the Church transcends human labels and organizations. Call it the "True Church" or "Unified Church" if you'd rather.)
I don't get why people are so opposed to the practice of baptizing infants. (Okay, so that's a lie, I do get it, hence why I'm writing about it.) Especially groups like the Anabaptists and the Baptists. For crying out loud, guys, the term "baptism" is in your groups' names. How is it you don't get it?
I'm assuming the people who oppose it "don't get it" instead of "reject it" under the assumption found in Walther's XX thesis, which basically says "don't assume heresy when ignorance is an option." Basically, I'm calling y'all just dumb enough to not see what's obvious.
And in this sort of apologetic duel, that's being mighty generous. (Especially since a fair number of those who don't "get it" are, in fact, flat out rejecting it because it doesn't fit in their narrow, twisted, egotistical view of what the Bible means.)
Enough munching on appetizers, how about the main course? Where to start, though? Remaining consistently with my standard operating procedure, I'll start with as a foundation and standard the words of my Lord, so as to not inadvertently call Him a moron.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20
*mic drop
Seriously, what more do we need?
How about some context? Both Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are describing the last commands of Jesus to the disciples before His ascension. Jesus commands us to baptize "all nation." The implication here is "everyone," meaning from the littlest babies to cantankerous old dudes.
I've heard it argued that the word order is important. "Think about it. In Mark it clearly says 'believes and is baptized.' You've gotta believe first, then be baptized."
Sure. If word order mattered then in the same way it does now.
It didn't in the original Greek. And even more damning, notice that in Matthew it says to baptize before teaching the newly baptized believer to observe all Jesus taught. Which totally blows out of the water the notion that you have to choose to be baptized after coming to faith.
Don't get mad at me. Those are the words of Jesus Christ blowing holes in the notion of the believer's "baptism."
So word order doesn't matter (unless context supports it), since both verses describe the exact same event in history. Jesus was instructing His disciples on how to grow the church. The Mark text explains what baptism does, while Matthew prescribes what to do as part of evangelism.
And it should be noted that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest of manuscripts. The earliest we see this section referenced is in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid second century. That doesn't mean it wasn't written by Mark, or that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it isn't Scripture. What that presents is an interesting conundrum for the proponent of the believer's "baptism." Justin Martyr notes it in a work dating from around the AD 160. Assuming Mark was first written no later than AD 70, that's 100 years without a Scriptural reference telling the Church that people are supposed to believe before they are baptized.
(I think I need a second mic to drop.)
Let's move on, then, to the next in line, chronologically. And the one that most synergists prefer.
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Acts 2:38-39
Isn't it great to see an oaf become eloquent?
A few verses later Luke notes that around 3000 are added to the faith. He specifically says "souls." Not "men," not "people," not "adults." Souls. A word that is feminine, and in the plural form in this usage. No age denoted, nor any other qualifier. So, using an argument from silence, how do we know that there weren't children included in that initial 3000 addition?
And, yes, St. Peter says "repent and be baptized" in response to the question of "what should we do." Which makes sense. He's speaking to adults, specifically the heads of households who would have brought their families with them to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the major holy days. And who are the heads of households back in the day? Men. So we could argue that only 3000 men were baptized. Only later verses make it clear that when the head of the household was baptized, the whole house (women, children, servants) was with him. And Luke would have noted it, just as it is noted at the mass feeding. "5000 men, not counting women and children."
It makes sense to say "repent and be baptized" to an adult, who has been brought to contrition by the preaching of the Law. That's SOP. Peter just noted how everyone's gonna die and go to hell, and they killed Jesus, the Messiah. Their reaction makes sense.
Don't miss the last sentence, though. "For the promise is for you and for your children..." The Greek word there for children is τεκνον ("teknon" plural form). Its the generic word for "kids," from newborn to teenager; basically anyone who isn't an adult. This promise, which either means baptism, the forgiveness of sins, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, (or, more accurately, both) is for everyone.
If the promise St. Peter notes is baptisms, why is anyone opposing infant baptism?
If the promise St. Peter notes is the forgiveness of sins, then we're assuming children are sinless, which contradicts clear passages of Scripture that make it painfully obvious that all have sinned, due to being tainted by Original Sin.
If the promise St. Peter notes is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for faith in Christ, then why bother teaching children about Jesus at all?
I'm gonna stick in Acts for a moment, before tackling the words of Peter himself. But, first, a note of caution to any who are not of an exegetical background. The book of Acts is not a prescriptive book. That is, Acts was not written to give us instructions on how to do, but rather an account of what was done. It is descriptive. "This happened, and then this happened, and then..." Much like the books of history in the Old Testament, Acts tells us the history of the faithful.
The next two passages are in Acts and therefore descriptive. After that, all the rest on the list are prescriptive.
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Acts 19:5-6
In chapter 22, Paul is recounting his own conversion, citing the words of Ananias. According to this, the early Believers thought that baptism washed away sins. It wasn't seen as some symbol of dedication, but as an action that accomplished something.
In chapter 19, St. Paul baptized a group who had not yet been baptized. Now, if you read just a few verses earlier, you'll see that they were baptized in the manner of John. Which Paul basically says is nothing but a confession and absolution. It doesn't count as an actual baptism - a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that St. Paul and the rest of the early Church did not use immersion in baptism?
I bet they didn't, since Luke does not note the seeking of a large enough water supply to dunk 3000 people. Nor does it say anything about the size of the water supply available to Philip. Just that there was water. And if they were on a desert road, I'm willing to bet it was an oasis or a well, which means it was extremely valuable, and neither man would have dared to contaminate it by standing waist deep in the water.
Before we get to the descriptive texts, I'm going to do a "drive-by" word study on the term "baptism." Because usually after a statement like the previous paragraph, the proponent of the believer's "baptism" will say something like "the word 'baptism' means washing by immersion in Greek." Perhaps in ancient Greek, like what Leonidas spoke. But in Koine Greek the verb βαπτιζω ("baptizo") does not imply immersion. Especially in the context of Jewish ritual washing. Now, consider, the ritual washing required flowing water. Water doesn't flow if it is sitting in a bowl or basin for something to be dipped in. Water must be poured over. The word baptism in Koine Greek is the same as the word "wash" in English today. I wash my hands, I wash my car, I wash my clothes. Same verb, very different methods.
Now, on to St. Peter.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Sounds like Pete was remembering his "Psalms by David" album growing up. "Appeal to God for a good conscience" sounds like an echo of "create in me a clean heart."
Most of us who use this as a proof text simply focus on the phrase "now saves you." And it is true that it's the operative part of the sentence. Remember, Peter's comparing the action of baptism to the account of Noah and the flood. We are saved from death through water. Its not a ritual washing, like what the Jews would do, which only cleans the outside of a person, "white washing" the tomb they are, but a "renewal of a right spirit within." This only matters in connection to the resurrection of Christ.
But St. Peter isn't the heavyweight writer of the New Testament, that would be St. Paul. A man who was without parallel in the early Church leadership. This guy was a leading official in the Jewish religion. He had entire books of the Bible memorized. That's why he was so well equipped for ministry, and for writing. All that symbolism, all that history. All for us to understand.
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Colossians 2:11-13
Paul knew his symbolisms well. He knew that circumcision was a mark of God's salvation, both as an outward (if momentarily painful and embarrassing) sign and as a marking of a covenant with God. And like a good teacher, he started with what his students already were familiar with and built from there.
Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel, marking them as set apart to be a sojourning holy nation among the pagans. Likewise, baptism sets us apart as the people of God, a priesthood of all believers sojourning among the nations. However, circumcision was only a mere sign. It was a type and shadow of a greater thing to come. That thing was death. Specifically the death of Christ, which paid for our sins. St. Paul notes that via the waters and the Word of baptism we are connected to the atoning sacrifice. And not just that, but the resurrection as well. That what baptism does.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Paul also connected the act of baptism with the ritual washings that Jews, or even Gentiles, would have known. Remember the washing of the disciple's feet? That sort of thing is what St. Paul was using as imagery. Read through what Jesus says to Peter when our favorite oaf objects to his Lord stooping to wash his muddy feet. See the parallel with baptism? This verse is what baptism does. It washes, sanctifies (makes us holy), and justifies (makes us righteous) through the name of our Triune God.
Is there any question that baptism saves? Sanctified and justified are the operative words, and while they go together, they are different. Sanctification is being made holy, while justification is being made right according to the law. You can't have one without the other. Think of it this way: Sanctification makes us right with God, justification with our neighbor. There is more to it than that, but thats the soundbite version.
But this is extremely straight forward. We were baptized into Christ.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29
"Aha! See, 'there is no male and female.' That means-"
I'm not tackling the can-o'-worms that is women's ordination. Some other day.
But the naysayers would love to use Galatians as a "gotcha." And at face value that makes sense. Paul listed a bunch of stuff that we are not. His list makes it seem like there isn't a requirement for what it takes to be a Christian.
Oh, wait, don't the opponents of infant baptism say that there are requirements a believer must achieve before being baptized? Like being able to make a public profession of their faith during the "altar call?"
(Running out of mics here.)
The Galatians text is the "proof" that baptism is a means of grace, a Sacrament. We are, through baptism, connected to Christ's death and resurrection. And what does it take to be baptized?
Only men? Nope, women get baptized too.
Gotta be Jewish first? Nope, Gentiles welcome too.
Only free men? Tell that to Onesimus.
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22
Oh, look, a "bazinga" text. "With our hearts sprinkled clean..." Yep, that's right, it says sprinkled.
No, not that kind of sprinkles. The word in Greek is from ραντιζω (rhantizo), which means to sprinkle, to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse [definitions are from Blue Letter Bible website, though my Nestle-Aland lexicon agrees].
This word is used to describe the sprinkling of blood from a sacrifice on the altar. So the author to the Hebrews used that term, insufficient as the shadow was, to describe baptism. Not pour, not dunk, sprinkle. Does that mean one is preferred? Not really. Though sprinkling does require the least amount of water. Efficiency for the win.
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Okay, back to St. Paul (unless you hold to the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews). Paul's not even trying to be sneaky here. He's straight up saying that the parting of the Red Sea was baptism. And incredibly, there's a reference to the Lord's Supper in this passage too. Hmm, sacraments go hand-in-hand. Who would have thought?
Regardless of what symbol is being used, it should be clear what they are all connected to: Christ. Without Christ, there is no baptism. All theology is christology, after all.
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
How 'bout I drop the other shoe first, just for variety. We are not saved by works.
Psst! Infant baptism naysayers... the "believer's baptism" would be a work.
And here's another convoluted discussion that, while very worthwhile, there is not time for at the moment. Especially since works are not "pointless," nor are they "necessary." This, along with passages from James and Ephesians, leads to some contention (<- understatement), especially regarding a minor squabble during the 1500s in Germany.
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that He has borne concerning His Son. 1 John 5:7-9
It's not just mere water, this baptism, as some who oppose it claim. They even go so far as to claim infant baptism is a "work of man" not in the Bible. If we are honest, the argument is which teaching is Biblical and which is an invention of man. Often this is where people appeal to various early Church teachers. Though, if we're honest, not a single Church Father prior to the Councils was opposed to infant baptism. And the few who seem to be were not orthodox. The only reason their position is noted is because they were heretics being written against, not a majority position.
But the vast majority of teachings against infant baptism originate from the time period between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. "Testimony of men," indeed. Everything in the Scriptures has pointed to baptism connecting to Christ's death. So what is to be believed? The Scriptures, or a testimony of men?
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:1-4
This is more of "what baptism does" than "who is to be baptized." But it is something to be contended with. If we believe that the Bible is to be taken "at its word," then isn't the phrase "baptized into His death" literal?
Most who oppose infant baptism do so by making baptism nothing more than a "symbol of obedience." They claim it hasn't any "special power" or is even necessary for salvation.
And, yet, clearly St. Paul thinks that the act of baptism directly connects a believer to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Logically, it would follow, that without baptism, we cannot be raised from the dead.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 36:25-27
God, speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, is making it clear that He uses water to cleans people from their sin. The Children of Israel experienced this when they crossed the Red Sea and the Jordan River. Notice, the word used is "sprinkle." Not "dunk," not "immerse." Does that prove that sprinkling is the only way? No. But it is interesting.
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17
Revelation is full of symbol and metaphor, but most of the verbiage used has some connection back to something previously said. When else have we heard of the "water of life?"
Back in John chapter 4, when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. The Messiah is described as the "water of life." If baptism is what we believe it is (a means of grace for the forgiveness of sins), then we are literally receiving Christ through it.
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6
There are some who think that there are "different baptisms." And, in a way, there is. There is a true baptism, and a false baptism. Many who claim to be theologians will say that if a believer hasn't had a "baptism of the spirit" or if they were baptized by a Catholic/Lutheran/Orthodox/(anything not Non-demon) has not had a "proper baptism."
St. Paul would disagree.
So long as the baptism performed is the same baptism taught by Christ to the Apostles, then it is a baptism. If the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken, it is a true baptism. Anything else is not a gift of God, but an attempted work of self-righteousness.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:25-27
The operative words when baptism is "by the washing of water and the word." You have to have both. Not because the water is anything special, other than it was the material Christ chose. But you must have both.
Without the water, it is not a baptism.
Without the words of Christ, it is not a baptism.
You cannot be baptized only in the name of Christ, or in the name of the "mother, daughter, and the spirit," or some other nonsense.
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8
And last, but never least, is the most well known word on baptism. Straight from the Savior's mouth. Nicodemus is right to question how someone can be born again. It is physically impossible. And since it is physically impossible, the God of the Universe established an alternative method.
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Taken at face value, it is clear that Jesus is saying that without baptism it is impossible for anyone to be in Heaven. You must be baptized, it is a requirement.
"But what about the thief on the cross," you may ask. Again, notice "born of water and the Spirit." What is the "water?" Mere dihydrogen monoxide (or, more scientifically, H2O)? Or is it the Living Water? Both? Because the thief on the cross received a direct promise from the Word of God Himself that he would be in paradise that very day.
And that is probably why some in Lutheran circles consider the "thief on the cross" argument to be a red herring. Not because it isn't a worthwhile discussion, but because it questions the majesty of God. How? Simply, the person who is saying that the thief on the cross is proof that infant baptism is not where faith starts is saying, ultimately, that God cannot do something.
Let that sink in. People who deny infant baptism are placing limits on God. We used to call that heresy.
Does that mean that God cannot save someone without baptism? Not at all. Because God is all-powerful. If He wills it, it is. And none of us are in position to question His will. However, we are bound by what has been revealed. He has told us that the manner of conversion is through baptism. Why they do we say "oh, that's not how it works, we can do it this way instead."
Baptism has always been understood as grace. Why would you deny anyone grace? Think of it like a seat belt in a car. If you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, why wouldn't you wear it? And if you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, and you are wearing one, why are you saying children should not wear one? Not just "they don't need to wear one," but "it is unethical for a child to wear one."
Let the truth behind the metaphor sink in a moment.
...
For those of you who are opposed to infant baptism, yes, I'm unapologetically calling you heretics and unchristian. Why? Because you are unilaterally declaring by authority you do not possess that some are to be barred from a gift of grace promised by God. And this declaration has no basis in Scripture, reason, or even common sense.
In the words of Lutheran Satire, the position of the anabaptists, arminians, and others who deny children the gift of God are "incredibly stupid."
I'll leave you with the words of Jesus on the matter, as encouragement for those who believe in the promise of God, and as a rebuke for those who deny the words of the Savior. (Please note, it was commonly thought of in the ancient world to consider the sea to be the gateway to hell.)
People were also bringing babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:15-17
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:5-6
(Following clear passages of Scripture is sooooo cool!)
Much like with the words of institution ("this is my body... this is my blood..."), members of churches that aren't labeled Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, or Anglican tend to like attacking clear Biblical teachings. (There are some in those groups that attack as well, but official stance precludes such stupidity.)
(And I'm looking at you, ELCA, when I say that.)
A while back I read an article posted about how Christians should give up Lent for Lent. Overall, its clear the author didn't get why people do give up something in the first place. But I'm focusing on how they used the historic practice of infant baptism as a reason why people should reject giving up something for Lent.
(And, no, I'm not going to provide the link. Mostly because the article was dumb.)
I'll admit, I don't give up stuff for Lent. Mostly because I don't have the willpower and stamina to see it through, and I probably won't give up something substantial anyway. Besides, it's not something "necessary," unlike how Christ died for our sins, which is the point of Lent.
What does that have to do with infant baptism? Nothing. At all.
Except for the undeniable fact that through baptism we are joined to Christ's death, and that this baptism is for all people of all races and all ages - including infants.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that baptism is an outward sign of one's faith. Or a symbol. Or an act of obedience. Or that there are different versions. Or that you, the dead man, can choose it.
(Warning! This blog post, and this blog in general, is dangerous to the followers of the heterodox teachings of Arminius and Calvin.)
What Scripture does teach, with clear and understandable words, is that baptism saves you, regardless of your age, gender, race, nationality, political affiliation, job, tax bracket, hair style, language, music preference, or shoe size. An infant being brought to baptism in the Triune name of God receives the exact same baptism received by the people at Pentecost, by the Ethiopian eunuch, and by Cornelius.
If you are one of those who find yourself antagonistic to this historic and undeniably biblical practice and currently find yourself feeling a bit more like an irate Dr. Bruce Banner, I'm not sorry.
And why should I be? Why should I be sorry for proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ? Why should I be sorry for reading Scripture and believing it means exactly what it says? Why should I be sorry for wanting to provide my children with the same saving faith I was raised in? Why should I be sorry for not rejecting my Lord's command but following it to the letter?
It's the antagonists to this time-honored and biblical practice that should be sorry***.
Don't believe me? That's fine. I'll stop using my words, and simply use the words of God. Here are some passages about baptism. (And, in reality, opponents of this using the line "you have your passages that support you're belief and we have ours" are dumb. Because we Lutherans have all the passages supporting us. This is just the quick list for those who do not have the time for a full-bore exegetical study.)
To be honest, this list alone should be enough, without any explanation, context, or defense. And yet, there are "Christians" who make it necessary to stand up for the biblical and historic practices of the Church Catholic.Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Acts 2:38-39In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Colossians 2:11-13There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:25-27And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Acts 19:5-6The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 36:25-27Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:1-4For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 1 John 5:7-9For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
(And before anyone gets their big kid skivvies in a twist, I did not say "Roman Catholic Church." The RCC is a specific denomination within the Church Catholic. The word "catholic" means "universal." Its a descriptor for how the Church transcends human labels and organizations. Call it the "True Church" or "Unified Church" if you'd rather.)
I don't get why people are so opposed to the practice of baptizing infants. (Okay, so that's a lie, I do get it, hence why I'm writing about it.) Especially groups like the Anabaptists and the Baptists. For crying out loud, guys, the term "baptism" is in your groups' names. How is it you don't get it?
(On the left we have the "believer's baptism." On the right we have the traditional practice of baptism, including infant baptism.)
I'm assuming the people who oppose it "don't get it" instead of "reject it" under the assumption found in Walther's XX thesis, which basically says "don't assume heresy when ignorance is an option." Basically, I'm calling y'all just dumb enough to not see what's obvious.
And in this sort of apologetic duel, that's being mighty generous. (Especially since a fair number of those who don't "get it" are, in fact, flat out rejecting it because it doesn't fit in their narrow, twisted, egotistical view of what the Bible means.)
Enough munching on appetizers, how about the main course? Where to start, though? Remaining consistently with my standard operating procedure, I'll start with as a foundation and standard the words of my Lord, so as to not inadvertently call Him a moron.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16:16
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20
*mic drop
Seriously, what more do we need?
How about some context? Both Mark 16 and Matthew 28 are describing the last commands of Jesus to the disciples before His ascension. Jesus commands us to baptize "all nation." The implication here is "everyone," meaning from the littlest babies to cantankerous old dudes.
I've heard it argued that the word order is important. "Think about it. In Mark it clearly says 'believes and is baptized.' You've gotta believe first, then be baptized."
Sure. If word order mattered then in the same way it does now.
It didn't in the original Greek. And even more damning, notice that in Matthew it says to baptize before teaching the newly baptized believer to observe all Jesus taught. Which totally blows out of the water the notion that you have to choose to be baptized after coming to faith.
Don't get mad at me. Those are the words of Jesus Christ blowing holes in the notion of the believer's "baptism."
So word order doesn't matter (unless context supports it), since both verses describe the exact same event in history. Jesus was instructing His disciples on how to grow the church. The Mark text explains what baptism does, while Matthew prescribes what to do as part of evangelism.
And it should be noted that Mark 16:9-20 are not in the earliest of manuscripts. The earliest we see this section referenced is in the writings of Justin Martyr in the mid second century. That doesn't mean it wasn't written by Mark, or that it shouldn't be in the Bible, or that it isn't Scripture. What that presents is an interesting conundrum for the proponent of the believer's "baptism." Justin Martyr notes it in a work dating from around the AD 160. Assuming Mark was first written no later than AD 70, that's 100 years without a Scriptural reference telling the Church that people are supposed to believe before they are baptized.
(I think I need a second mic to drop.)
Let's move on, then, to the next in line, chronologically. And the one that most synergists prefer.
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." Acts 2:38-39
Isn't it great to see an oaf become eloquent?
A few verses later Luke notes that around 3000 are added to the faith. He specifically says "souls." Not "men," not "people," not "adults." Souls. A word that is feminine, and in the plural form in this usage. No age denoted, nor any other qualifier. So, using an argument from silence, how do we know that there weren't children included in that initial 3000 addition?
And, yes, St. Peter says "repent and be baptized" in response to the question of "what should we do." Which makes sense. He's speaking to adults, specifically the heads of households who would have brought their families with them to Jerusalem to celebrate one of the major holy days. And who are the heads of households back in the day? Men. So we could argue that only 3000 men were baptized. Only later verses make it clear that when the head of the household was baptized, the whole house (women, children, servants) was with him. And Luke would have noted it, just as it is noted at the mass feeding. "5000 men, not counting women and children."
It makes sense to say "repent and be baptized" to an adult, who has been brought to contrition by the preaching of the Law. That's SOP. Peter just noted how everyone's gonna die and go to hell, and they killed Jesus, the Messiah. Their reaction makes sense.
Don't miss the last sentence, though. "For the promise is for you and for your children..." The Greek word there for children is τεκνον ("teknon" plural form). Its the generic word for "kids," from newborn to teenager; basically anyone who isn't an adult. This promise, which either means baptism, the forgiveness of sins, or the gift of the Holy Spirit, (or, more accurately, both) is for everyone.
If the promise St. Peter notes is baptisms, why is anyone opposing infant baptism?
If the promise St. Peter notes is the forgiveness of sins, then we're assuming children are sinless, which contradicts clear passages of Scripture that make it painfully obvious that all have sinned, due to being tainted by Original Sin.
If the promise St. Peter notes is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is necessary for faith in Christ, then why bother teaching children about Jesus at all?
I'm gonna stick in Acts for a moment, before tackling the words of Peter himself. But, first, a note of caution to any who are not of an exegetical background. The book of Acts is not a prescriptive book. That is, Acts was not written to give us instructions on how to do, but rather an account of what was done. It is descriptive. "This happened, and then this happened, and then..." Much like the books of history in the Old Testament, Acts tells us the history of the faithful.
The next two passages are in Acts and therefore descriptive. After that, all the rest on the list are prescriptive.
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name. Acts 22:16
On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. Acts 19:5-6
In chapter 22, Paul is recounting his own conversion, citing the words of Ananias. According to this, the early Believers thought that baptism washed away sins. It wasn't seen as some symbol of dedication, but as an action that accomplished something.
In chapter 19, St. Paul baptized a group who had not yet been baptized. Now, if you read just a few verses earlier, you'll see that they were baptized in the manner of John. Which Paul basically says is nothing but a confession and absolution. It doesn't count as an actual baptism - a baptism of the Holy Spirit. Does that mean that St. Paul and the rest of the early Church did not use immersion in baptism?
I bet they didn't, since Luke does not note the seeking of a large enough water supply to dunk 3000 people. Nor does it say anything about the size of the water supply available to Philip. Just that there was water. And if they were on a desert road, I'm willing to bet it was an oasis or a well, which means it was extremely valuable, and neither man would have dared to contaminate it by standing waist deep in the water.
Before we get to the descriptive texts, I'm going to do a "drive-by" word study on the term "baptism." Because usually after a statement like the previous paragraph, the proponent of the believer's "baptism" will say something like "the word 'baptism' means washing by immersion in Greek." Perhaps in ancient Greek, like what Leonidas spoke. But in Koine Greek the verb βαπτιζω ("baptizo") does not imply immersion. Especially in the context of Jewish ritual washing. Now, consider, the ritual washing required flowing water. Water doesn't flow if it is sitting in a bowl or basin for something to be dipped in. Water must be poured over. The word baptism in Koine Greek is the same as the word "wash" in English today. I wash my hands, I wash my car, I wash my clothes. Same verb, very different methods.
(Baptism VBS style?)
Now, on to St. Peter.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 3:21
Sounds like Pete was remembering his "Psalms by David" album growing up. "Appeal to God for a good conscience" sounds like an echo of "create in me a clean heart."
Most of us who use this as a proof text simply focus on the phrase "now saves you." And it is true that it's the operative part of the sentence. Remember, Peter's comparing the action of baptism to the account of Noah and the flood. We are saved from death through water. Its not a ritual washing, like what the Jews would do, which only cleans the outside of a person, "white washing" the tomb they are, but a "renewal of a right spirit within." This only matters in connection to the resurrection of Christ.
But St. Peter isn't the heavyweight writer of the New Testament, that would be St. Paul. A man who was without parallel in the early Church leadership. This guy was a leading official in the Jewish religion. He had entire books of the Bible memorized. That's why he was so well equipped for ministry, and for writing. All that symbolism, all that history. All for us to understand.
In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our trespasses. Colossians 2:11-13
Paul knew his symbolisms well. He knew that circumcision was a mark of God's salvation, both as an outward (if momentarily painful and embarrassing) sign and as a marking of a covenant with God. And like a good teacher, he started with what his students already were familiar with and built from there.
Circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with the people of Israel, marking them as set apart to be a sojourning holy nation among the pagans. Likewise, baptism sets us apart as the people of God, a priesthood of all believers sojourning among the nations. However, circumcision was only a mere sign. It was a type and shadow of a greater thing to come. That thing was death. Specifically the death of Christ, which paid for our sins. St. Paul notes that via the waters and the Word of baptism we are connected to the atoning sacrifice. And not just that, but the resurrection as well. That what baptism does.
And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Paul also connected the act of baptism with the ritual washings that Jews, or even Gentiles, would have known. Remember the washing of the disciple's feet? That sort of thing is what St. Paul was using as imagery. Read through what Jesus says to Peter when our favorite oaf objects to his Lord stooping to wash his muddy feet. See the parallel with baptism? This verse is what baptism does. It washes, sanctifies (makes us holy), and justifies (makes us righteous) through the name of our Triune God.
Is there any question that baptism saves? Sanctified and justified are the operative words, and while they go together, they are different. Sanctification is being made holy, while justification is being made right according to the law. You can't have one without the other. Think of it this way: Sanctification makes us right with God, justification with our neighbor. There is more to it than that, but thats the soundbite version.
But this is extremely straight forward. We were baptized into Christ.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:27-29
"Aha! See, 'there is no male and female.' That means-"
I'm not tackling the can-o'-worms that is women's ordination. Some other day.
But the naysayers would love to use Galatians as a "gotcha." And at face value that makes sense. Paul listed a bunch of stuff that we are not. His list makes it seem like there isn't a requirement for what it takes to be a Christian.
Oh, wait, don't the opponents of infant baptism say that there are requirements a believer must achieve before being baptized? Like being able to make a public profession of their faith during the "altar call?"
(Running out of mics here.)
The Galatians text is the "proof" that baptism is a means of grace, a Sacrament. We are, through baptism, connected to Christ's death and resurrection. And what does it take to be baptized?
Only men? Nope, women get baptized too.
Gotta be Jewish first? Nope, Gentiles welcome too.
Only free men? Tell that to Onesimus.
Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:22
Oh, look, a "bazinga" text. "With our hearts sprinkled clean..." Yep, that's right, it says sprinkled.
(Well, too bad, you can't have any.)
No, not that kind of sprinkles. The word in Greek is from ραντιζω (rhantizo), which means to sprinkle, to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse [definitions are from Blue Letter Bible website, though my Nestle-Aland lexicon agrees].
This word is used to describe the sprinkling of blood from a sacrifice on the altar. So the author to the Hebrews used that term, insufficient as the shadow was, to describe baptism. Not pour, not dunk, sprinkle. Does that mean one is preferred? Not really. Though sprinkling does require the least amount of water. Efficiency for the win.
For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4
Okay, back to St. Paul (unless you hold to the idea that Paul wrote Hebrews). Paul's not even trying to be sneaky here. He's straight up saying that the parting of the Red Sea was baptism. And incredibly, there's a reference to the Lord's Supper in this passage too. Hmm, sacraments go hand-in-hand. Who would have thought?
Regardless of what symbol is being used, it should be clear what they are all connected to: Christ. Without Christ, there is no baptism. All theology is christology, after all.
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3:5-7
How 'bout I drop the other shoe first, just for variety. We are not saved by works.
Psst! Infant baptism naysayers... the "believer's baptism" would be a work.
And here's another convoluted discussion that, while very worthwhile, there is not time for at the moment. Especially since works are not "pointless," nor are they "necessary." This, along with passages from James and Ephesians, leads to some contention (<- understatement), especially regarding a minor squabble during the 1500s in Germany.
For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that He has borne concerning His Son. 1 John 5:7-9
But the vast majority of teachings against infant baptism originate from the time period between the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. "Testimony of men," indeed. Everything in the Scriptures has pointed to baptism connecting to Christ's death. So what is to be believed? The Scriptures, or a testimony of men?
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Romans 6:1-4
Most who oppose infant baptism do so by making baptism nothing more than a "symbol of obedience." They claim it hasn't any "special power" or is even necessary for salvation.
And, yet, clearly St. Paul thinks that the act of baptism directly connects a believer to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Logically, it would follow, that without baptism, we cannot be raised from the dead.
I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. Ezekiel 36:25-27
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17
Back in John chapter 4, when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well. The Messiah is described as the "water of life." If baptism is what we believe it is (a means of grace for the forgiveness of sins), then we are literally receiving Christ through it.
There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Ephesians 4:4-6
St. Paul would disagree.
So long as the baptism performed is the same baptism taught by Christ to the Apostles, then it is a baptism. If the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are spoken, it is a true baptism. Anything else is not a gift of God, but an attempted work of self-righteousness.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Ephesians 5:25-27
Without the water, it is not a baptism.
Without the words of Christ, it is not a baptism.
You cannot be baptized only in the name of Christ, or in the name of the "mother, daughter, and the spirit," or some other nonsense.
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:3-8
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Taken at face value, it is clear that Jesus is saying that without baptism it is impossible for anyone to be in Heaven. You must be baptized, it is a requirement.
"But what about the thief on the cross," you may ask. Again, notice "born of water and the Spirit." What is the "water?" Mere dihydrogen monoxide (or, more scientifically, H2O)? Or is it the Living Water? Both? Because the thief on the cross received a direct promise from the Word of God Himself that he would be in paradise that very day.
And that is probably why some in Lutheran circles consider the "thief on the cross" argument to be a red herring. Not because it isn't a worthwhile discussion, but because it questions the majesty of God. How? Simply, the person who is saying that the thief on the cross is proof that infant baptism is not where faith starts is saying, ultimately, that God cannot do something.
Let that sink in. People who deny infant baptism are placing limits on God. We used to call that heresy.
Does that mean that God cannot save someone without baptism? Not at all. Because God is all-powerful. If He wills it, it is. And none of us are in position to question His will. However, we are bound by what has been revealed. He has told us that the manner of conversion is through baptism. Why they do we say "oh, that's not how it works, we can do it this way instead."
Baptism has always been understood as grace. Why would you deny anyone grace? Think of it like a seat belt in a car. If you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, why wouldn't you wear it? And if you know that it will protect you in the event of a crash, and you are wearing one, why are you saying children should not wear one? Not just "they don't need to wear one," but "it is unethical for a child to wear one."
Let the truth behind the metaphor sink in a moment.
...
For those of you who are opposed to infant baptism, yes, I'm unapologetically calling you heretics and unchristian. Why? Because you are unilaterally declaring by authority you do not possess that some are to be barred from a gift of grace promised by God. And this declaration has no basis in Scripture, reason, or even common sense.
In the words of Lutheran Satire, the position of the anabaptists, arminians, and others who deny children the gift of God are "incredibly stupid."
I'll leave you with the words of Jesus on the matter, as encouragement for those who believe in the promise of God, and as a rebuke for those who deny the words of the Savior. (Please note, it was commonly thought of in the ancient world to consider the sea to be the gateway to hell.)
People were also bringing babies to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:15-17
“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Matthew 18:5-6
---
(FYI: I started work on this post early Lent, 2018. My first exegetical paper at Seminary was on the baptism of Christ, and got me digging into the language and grammar of baptism in Scripture. At some point, I'll put together a, hopefully, coherent post with those thoughts. Until then, I'll merely post this, as is. Most of the work was done prior to the move to seminary, so, pardon the dust.)
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Manning the rails
"Manning the rails" is a navy tradition. Usually, we civilians see it when a ship enters port, and all the crew in their starched whites are standing along all the railings. It sure looks impressive.
This version is even more impressive.
That is a picture of the German destroyer Lütjens. On 14 September, 2001, she was steaming near the USS Winston Churchill and USS Gonzolaz. The crew manned the rails, raised a US flag, and displayed a banner.
WE STAND BY YOU
Frequently I've reposted or posted the link to my little poem about Arlington National Cemetery on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks. If you want to find that post, its here: Rest Well. Otherwise, enjoy this bit of nautical brotherhood.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
The Old Girl's Still Got It (or) How To Destroy A Star Destroyer Without Any Jedi, Proton Torpedoes, Or Ewoks
So, if the real USS Enterprise can (hypothetically) curb stomp the ships of Star Trek, how about the ones from the galaxy far, far away?
Buckle up, nerds.
Now, this will be more fun, and more complicated, than the Star Trek one. Why? Because Star Wars has equivalent vehicles for things like fighters, carriers, and such. Finding the right parallel, or building the right one, will take more time.
So, first, hop on over to the previous post and see my primer on the carrier phenomena. Paper Plates and Gray Ghosts. But, here's the gist:
The aircraft carrier started as an experiment that some interwar military leaders used as a loophole to get around a treaty. The battles of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, and Midway proved the concept to be not only sound, but potentially war winning in a way the battleship could only dream of. Sadly, most sci fi writers and fans do not understand why this is the case. They at best see the carrier as a "cool" excuse for starfighters, and at worst a relic that won't keep up with technology. The stand-off capability and growth potential makes carriers extremely valuable.
Now, a caveat that I ignored last time: missiles.
Yes it is true modern warship can carry hundreds of advanced missiles of multiple type to zerg rush a battlespace. And, yes, a missile is faster, more agile, and cheaper than a piloted craft. And, yes, it would be entirely possible to have these missiles actually be drones, remotely controlled from a safe distance. Missiles have all the advantages over fighters with none of the drawbacks.
Except for some of the same limitations "big guns' have during upgrades. Not as bad, though, since merely upgrading missiles is easier, but adding more, or updating hardware is equally or more costly than new planes. Especially when one of the missions might need eyes on target, not at a computer screen miles away.
(No, I'm not getting into an anti-drone rant. I think drones have their place. But I don't think that place is wholesale replacement.)
So, the first issue is finding a ship in Star Wars that can be considered comparable to the carrier, circa 1940. Both directions. Because in the galaxy far, far away, there are starfighters, so devising a hypothetical space USS Enterprise is easier.
There aren't too many dedicated carriers in Star Wars, build from the keel up for that purpose. The most notable is the Endurance-class fleet carrier for the New Republic. The size of a star destroyer, these ships carried at least four wings, though Wookieepedia also shows 60+ carried.
Another common carrier seen are converted Quasar Fire-class bulk cruisers. Conceptually similar to escort carriers on Earth, these converted cargo ships carry 48 craft.
Most full-scale warships have minor carrier abilities, such as the Imperial-class star destroyer, which carries 72 ships, plus support craft. Most evident in this style of "dual-role" craft are the Venator-class star destroyers. In some ways the logical conclusion of attempts like the Japanese Fuso; a strange hybrid of cruiser and carrier with guns in front and flight deck on back. Kinda like a ship version of a mullet. The Venators can accommodate up to 420 fighters, not counting 40 landing craft.
Now, that's a lot of stuff to throw at our old girl here, but if you check her record, she'd been on the receiving end of those odds before. But I don't think the Venator-class is a good example, because it is a dual-role. Since they exist in the universe, I'm going to use a dedicated carrier.
Let's start with transferring the Star Wars ship back to 1940. And I'll do two.
First is the Imperials had the Ton-Falk-class "escort carrier," a 500 meter long ship with a full wing of 72 TIE fighters in her hanger. Not very heavily armed, this ship has one mission: deliver fighters.
The New Republic had the Endurance-class. At 1,040 meters and decently armed, this ship had 48-60 ships onboard. I could have picked the Quasar Fire-class, but I wanted dedicated ships.
The USS Enterprise was 770 ft (234 meters) long, with up to 90 aircraft carried. Well armed, according to theory and naval doctrine, but not intended to wade into the battle, the "Big E" was an innovator, being the first US carrier fitted with radar for night operations.
So, what would the opposition be equivalent to in the '40s?
The Ton-Falk would be a Saipan-class light carrier. While I think the Imperial ship is more like an escort carrier, such as the Casablanca-class, in function and mission, the larger air-group and keel-up build makes the Saipan more comparable. The Saipan-class was 684 ft (208 meters) long, with 42 aircraft.
The Endurance-class would have to be an Implacable-class. At 766 ft (233 meters) and carrying 81 aircraft, you're probably wondering why I didn't pick this one for the Empire, since, ya know, the British and all. Or why I didn't pick the Essex-class. First the second point, I didn't want to pit two US fleet carriers against each other. (And, yes, I'm using a US light carrier, but it fits the style.) And secondly I picked the Brit because of the armor.
British carriers had better armor on the flight deck that US ships. When kamikazes attacks were over, the order was "sweepers, man your brooms," and they'd simply push the debris off the deck, keeping calm and carrying on. New Republic ships tend to be better shielded than their opposites in the Empire, so it seemed fair.
As for the air wing, things are interesting. The Imperial stuff kinda has to be Japanese, while Rebel ships are Brit or American. Its mostly a design concept similarity. (And, for the record, I'm intentionally ignoring "bombers" and other multi-engine land based craft for simplicity sake.)
The standard TIE is the A5M "Claude," while the TIE-IN is the A6M Zero. TIE bombers would be B5N "Kates." The J2M "Jack" would be the TIE Advanced, while the J7W Shindin would be the TIE-Defender. The D4Y "Judy" would have to be the Scimitar bomber.
Having run out of navy birds, I'll switch to IJAAF craft. Yes, I know, they don't have fly from carriers. Roll with it. There aren't many left worth noting. (And, yes, I also know that the J2M and J7W aren't carrier birds. Its okay.) Anyway, the A-9 Vigilance would be the Ki-43 "Oscar," while the I-7 Howlrunner would be the Ki-44 "Tojo."
A Y-Wing would be an SBD Dauntless, while the B-Wing would be a TBM Avenger. The X-Wing would be the F6F Hellcat. And yes, the F4U, P-38, P-40, and P-51 all would make perfect stand-ins. But three of those don't operate from the deck and one is too temperamental to be the T-65. That one, the Corsair, would make a great E-Wing. The F8F Bearcat would have to be the A-Wing, even through the Grumman bird was late for the show. Another bird that missed the fight, the AD-1 (later A-1) Skyraider, would be the K-Wing. The Seafire would have to be the Naboo starfighter.
So, USS Enterprise going toe-to-toe against an Implacable-class and a Saipan-class crewed by the best from the Galaxy far, far away. One-on-one.
What's the battle look like, and who wins?
Now, since there are actual fighters and such in Star Wars, and tactics to go with them, the fight gets more challenging than the previous one with that silly flying saucer.
Against the Imperials on the Saipan-class carrier with Japanese fighters, the score is victory for the Big E 9 times out of 10.
Against the Rebels on the Implacable-class with American fighters (and a Brit), the score is victory for the Big E 8.5 times out of 10.
Now, why? Especially when neither ship is known as a gunship, like the cruiser stand-in for Starship Enterprise was. And that is exactly why. Without onboard offensive weapons, the fight boils down to the air wing and tactics. There, its a case of just looking at history for how well the various aircraft performed in their missions. Where it all comes down to is tactics.
Let's start with the Imperials. The idea of "throw away ships" is fitting with Japanese doctrine, though the Japanese held their pilots in greater value. They just didn't rotate them enough, or at all. However, since the Imperials preferred using big-gun ships, their fighter support doctrine was even more lacking. Expect Kates, flying in Vee formation, escorted by Claudes while a few Zeroes fly top-cover to be the best efforts the Imps can muster for attack. Most of the Zeros, as well as the Oscars, Tojos, and Jacks, will be attempting to either find the American aircraft or defending their ship.
If this is 1942, chances are 50/50 that the Imperials will get to the Enterprise. However, with only Kates, they won't have enough firepower. They'll hit with torpedoes, which the Big E was able to dodge plenty of times. Assuming they even make it past the combat air patrol, which will decimate the formation.
If this is 1944, forget it. With F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs flying defense few attackers will get through, and even fewer will be able to fend off the Big E's dive and torpedo bombers when they attack the Imp carrier.
Now it gets interesting. The crown jewel of the US Navy fleet in World War 2 against a US Navy equipped Rebel Alliance/New Republic. Everyone's flying the same stuff, so who is really "#1?"
First thing's first, who to include in the Rebel air wing? Do I allow Rogue and Wraith Squadrons to take part? Because that does effect the outcome quite a bit. They are both force multipliers. Wraith would be the equivalent of having the OSS own fighters. Rogue Squadron is the whole TOPGUN program as a unit.
For kicks and giggles, I'll include both renown squadrons. Likewise, I'll allow Defender wing on board. However, that pretty much fills out the wing, with just enough space for some of Pash Cracken's A-Wings or Knave Squadron's E-Wings. Since the F8F (ersatz A-Wing) didn't reach the fleet in time, we'll use the F4U (representing the E-Wing). We'll let Defender wing have two squadrons of SBDs and a squadron of TBMs.
So, the Rebels have almost a full squadron more on their ship, plus a squadron of OSS agents in Hellcats. Not that it'll do too much good, since forced boarding of a ship via aircraft, other than helicopters, really doesn't work well. But I'd argue Wraith is the "ace up their sleeve." Even being able to land two operatives on the Big E would allow for a severe disruption on tactics, forcing more fighters be dedicated for CAP.
With so much of the Rebel fighters' success in the GFFA being contingent on shields and droids, being placed in "humble" piston fighters is quite the downgrade in operations, from a certain point of view. More damaging is the lack of guided missile to represent proton torpedoes. But there are rockets.
So how come the Rebels don't do better than eight and a half out of ten? Unity. While the Imperials don't try to have any inter-service cooperation, the New Reps do, to a degree. But not enough. By 1943 the idea of "combined arms" with airstrikes became a thing. Later called "alpha strike," the Navy would throw their whole air group at a target, with all squadrons working together, unlike what happened at Midway.
At the Battle of Midway, the US Navy got lucky, in a way. Their strikes were not coordinated properly, but they worked out, since it drew the attention toward the torpedo bombers and away from the dive bombers. The way they flew and fought at that battle is how the New Reps fight. It relies too much on luck and random chance (and the Force), and not enough on talent, training, and discipline.
The question is which air group finds the opposing carrier first. Due to how the US Navy performed searches, and how frequently they broke enemy codes, this allowed them to lead their opponents by the nose.
The US bombers will do better than the Rebel birds. The fighters, though, will have their work cut out for them, depending on who has the altitude. Both sides have the attitude.
But, since the US Navy had better teamwork than the Rebel Alliance/New Republic frequently displayed, getting the first look is key. Granted, in reality, between submarines, spotter scout planes, and roving gunships like cruisers, the US Navy will win most frequently. Then its down to skill and teamwork.
End result, though, is probably 50% losses for the Big E, and near total for the Rebels. That's regardless of who wins. Remember, "winning" is determined by sinking the flattop. And most of the time, the Big E wins.
Which she did. A lot. And would do against both major factions of the "classic" Star Wars universe.
May the Force be with you, Rebel scum.
(or Imperial buckethead, if you prefer)
Oh, yeah, FN 2187, we're doing this!
Buckle up, nerds.
Now, this will be more fun, and more complicated, than the Star Trek one. Why? Because Star Wars has equivalent vehicles for things like fighters, carriers, and such. Finding the right parallel, or building the right one, will take more time.
So, first, hop on over to the previous post and see my primer on the carrier phenomena. Paper Plates and Gray Ghosts. But, here's the gist:
The aircraft carrier started as an experiment that some interwar military leaders used as a loophole to get around a treaty. The battles of Taranto, Pearl Harbor, Coral Sea, and Midway proved the concept to be not only sound, but potentially war winning in a way the battleship could only dream of. Sadly, most sci fi writers and fans do not understand why this is the case. They at best see the carrier as a "cool" excuse for starfighters, and at worst a relic that won't keep up with technology. The stand-off capability and growth potential makes carriers extremely valuable.
Now, a caveat that I ignored last time: missiles.
The hwach! - for when you really don't want that guy over there to "have a nice day."
Yes it is true modern warship can carry hundreds of advanced missiles of multiple type to zerg rush a battlespace. And, yes, a missile is faster, more agile, and cheaper than a piloted craft. And, yes, it would be entirely possible to have these missiles actually be drones, remotely controlled from a safe distance. Missiles have all the advantages over fighters with none of the drawbacks.
Except for some of the same limitations "big guns' have during upgrades. Not as bad, though, since merely upgrading missiles is easier, but adding more, or updating hardware is equally or more costly than new planes. Especially when one of the missions might need eyes on target, not at a computer screen miles away.
(No, I'm not getting into an anti-drone rant. I think drones have their place. But I don't think that place is wholesale replacement.)
So, the first issue is finding a ship in Star Wars that can be considered comparable to the carrier, circa 1940. Both directions. Because in the galaxy far, far away, there are starfighters, so devising a hypothetical space USS Enterprise is easier.
There aren't too many dedicated carriers in Star Wars, build from the keel up for that purpose. The most notable is the Endurance-class fleet carrier for the New Republic. The size of a star destroyer, these ships carried at least four wings, though Wookieepedia also shows 60+ carried.
May look like a star destroyer, but isn't. I think.
Another common carrier seen are converted Quasar Fire-class bulk cruisers. Conceptually similar to escort carriers on Earth, these converted cargo ships carry 48 craft.
Kinda looks like a chip. And now I'm thinking about Doritos.
Most full-scale warships have minor carrier abilities, such as the Imperial-class star destroyer, which carries 72 ships, plus support craft. Most evident in this style of "dual-role" craft are the Venator-class star destroyers. In some ways the logical conclusion of attempts like the Japanese Fuso; a strange hybrid of cruiser and carrier with guns in front and flight deck on back. Kinda like a ship version of a mullet. The Venators can accommodate up to 420 fighters, not counting 40 landing craft.
Now, that's a lot of stuff to throw at our old girl here, but if you check her record, she'd been on the receiving end of those odds before. But I don't think the Venator-class is a good example, because it is a dual-role. Since they exist in the universe, I'm going to use a dedicated carrier.
Let's start with transferring the Star Wars ship back to 1940. And I'll do two.
First is the Imperials had the Ton-Falk-class "escort carrier," a 500 meter long ship with a full wing of 72 TIE fighters in her hanger. Not very heavily armed, this ship has one mission: deliver fighters.
Pudgy looking thing.
The New Republic had the Endurance-class. At 1,040 meters and decently armed, this ship had 48-60 ships onboard. I could have picked the Quasar Fire-class, but I wanted dedicated ships.
The USS Enterprise was 770 ft (234 meters) long, with up to 90 aircraft carried. Well armed, according to theory and naval doctrine, but not intended to wade into the battle, the "Big E" was an innovator, being the first US carrier fitted with radar for night operations.
So, what would the opposition be equivalent to in the '40s?
The Ton-Falk would be a Saipan-class light carrier. While I think the Imperial ship is more like an escort carrier, such as the Casablanca-class, in function and mission, the larger air-group and keel-up build makes the Saipan more comparable. The Saipan-class was 684 ft (208 meters) long, with 42 aircraft.
The Endurance-class would have to be an Implacable-class. At 766 ft (233 meters) and carrying 81 aircraft, you're probably wondering why I didn't pick this one for the Empire, since, ya know, the British and all. Or why I didn't pick the Essex-class. First the second point, I didn't want to pit two US fleet carriers against each other. (And, yes, I'm using a US light carrier, but it fits the style.) And secondly I picked the Brit because of the armor.
British carriers had better armor on the flight deck that US ships. When kamikazes attacks were over, the order was "sweepers, man your brooms," and they'd simply push the debris off the deck, keeping calm and carrying on. New Republic ships tend to be better shielded than their opposites in the Empire, so it seemed fair.
As for the air wing, things are interesting. The Imperial stuff kinda has to be Japanese, while Rebel ships are Brit or American. Its mostly a design concept similarity. (And, for the record, I'm intentionally ignoring "bombers" and other multi-engine land based craft for simplicity sake.)
Sometimes its just easier to push the broken ones off the deck.
The standard TIE is the A5M "Claude," while the TIE-IN is the A6M Zero. TIE bombers would be B5N "Kates." The J2M "Jack" would be the TIE Advanced, while the J7W Shindin would be the TIE-Defender. The D4Y "Judy" would have to be the Scimitar bomber.
Having run out of navy birds, I'll switch to IJAAF craft. Yes, I know, they don't have fly from carriers. Roll with it. There aren't many left worth noting. (And, yes, I also know that the J2M and J7W aren't carrier birds. Its okay.) Anyway, the A-9 Vigilance would be the Ki-43 "Oscar," while the I-7 Howlrunner would be the Ki-44 "Tojo."
A Y-Wing would be an SBD Dauntless, while the B-Wing would be a TBM Avenger. The X-Wing would be the F6F Hellcat. And yes, the F4U, P-38, P-40, and P-51 all would make perfect stand-ins. But three of those don't operate from the deck and one is too temperamental to be the T-65. That one, the Corsair, would make a great E-Wing. The F8F Bearcat would have to be the A-Wing, even through the Grumman bird was late for the show. Another bird that missed the fight, the AD-1 (later A-1) Skyraider, would be the K-Wing. The Seafire would have to be the Naboo starfighter.
So, USS Enterprise going toe-to-toe against an Implacable-class and a Saipan-class crewed by the best from the Galaxy far, far away. One-on-one.
What's the battle look like, and who wins?
CV-6. In all her glory.
Now, since there are actual fighters and such in Star Wars, and tactics to go with them, the fight gets more challenging than the previous one with that silly flying saucer.
Against the Imperials on the Saipan-class carrier with Japanese fighters, the score is victory for the Big E 9 times out of 10.
Against the Rebels on the Implacable-class with American fighters (and a Brit), the score is victory for the Big E 8.5 times out of 10.
Now, why? Especially when neither ship is known as a gunship, like the cruiser stand-in for Starship Enterprise was. And that is exactly why. Without onboard offensive weapons, the fight boils down to the air wing and tactics. There, its a case of just looking at history for how well the various aircraft performed in their missions. Where it all comes down to is tactics.
Let's start with the Imperials. The idea of "throw away ships" is fitting with Japanese doctrine, though the Japanese held their pilots in greater value. They just didn't rotate them enough, or at all. However, since the Imperials preferred using big-gun ships, their fighter support doctrine was even more lacking. Expect Kates, flying in Vee formation, escorted by Claudes while a few Zeroes fly top-cover to be the best efforts the Imps can muster for attack. Most of the Zeros, as well as the Oscars, Tojos, and Jacks, will be attempting to either find the American aircraft or defending their ship.
If this is 1942, chances are 50/50 that the Imperials will get to the Enterprise. However, with only Kates, they won't have enough firepower. They'll hit with torpedoes, which the Big E was able to dodge plenty of times. Assuming they even make it past the combat air patrol, which will decimate the formation.
If this is 1944, forget it. With F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs flying defense few attackers will get through, and even fewer will be able to fend off the Big E's dive and torpedo bombers when they attack the Imp carrier.
"Scratch one flattop!"
Now it gets interesting. The crown jewel of the US Navy fleet in World War 2 against a US Navy equipped Rebel Alliance/New Republic. Everyone's flying the same stuff, so who is really "#1?"
First thing's first, who to include in the Rebel air wing? Do I allow Rogue and Wraith Squadrons to take part? Because that does effect the outcome quite a bit. They are both force multipliers. Wraith would be the equivalent of having the OSS own fighters. Rogue Squadron is the whole TOPGUN program as a unit.
For kicks and giggles, I'll include both renown squadrons. Likewise, I'll allow Defender wing on board. However, that pretty much fills out the wing, with just enough space for some of Pash Cracken's A-Wings or Knave Squadron's E-Wings. Since the F8F (ersatz A-Wing) didn't reach the fleet in time, we'll use the F4U (representing the E-Wing). We'll let Defender wing have two squadrons of SBDs and a squadron of TBMs.
So, the Rebels have almost a full squadron more on their ship, plus a squadron of OSS agents in Hellcats. Not that it'll do too much good, since forced boarding of a ship via aircraft, other than helicopters, really doesn't work well. But I'd argue Wraith is the "ace up their sleeve." Even being able to land two operatives on the Big E would allow for a severe disruption on tactics, forcing more fighters be dedicated for CAP.
With so much of the Rebel fighters' success in the GFFA being contingent on shields and droids, being placed in "humble" piston fighters is quite the downgrade in operations, from a certain point of view. More damaging is the lack of guided missile to represent proton torpedoes. But there are rockets.
"Holy Moses!"
So how come the Rebels don't do better than eight and a half out of ten? Unity. While the Imperials don't try to have any inter-service cooperation, the New Reps do, to a degree. But not enough. By 1943 the idea of "combined arms" with airstrikes became a thing. Later called "alpha strike," the Navy would throw their whole air group at a target, with all squadrons working together, unlike what happened at Midway.
No, not that midway...
At the Battle of Midway, the US Navy got lucky, in a way. Their strikes were not coordinated properly, but they worked out, since it drew the attention toward the torpedo bombers and away from the dive bombers. The way they flew and fought at that battle is how the New Reps fight. It relies too much on luck and random chance (and the Force), and not enough on talent, training, and discipline.
The question is which air group finds the opposing carrier first. Due to how the US Navy performed searches, and how frequently they broke enemy codes, this allowed them to lead their opponents by the nose.
The US bombers will do better than the Rebel birds. The fighters, though, will have their work cut out for them, depending on who has the altitude. Both sides have the attitude.
But, since the US Navy had better teamwork than the Rebel Alliance/New Republic frequently displayed, getting the first look is key. Granted, in reality, between submarines, spotter scout planes, and roving gunships like cruisers, the US Navy will win most frequently. Then its down to skill and teamwork.
And this is why the F6F Hellcat was one of the top fighters of the War. Even better than the Mustang.
End result, though, is probably 50% losses for the Big E, and near total for the Rebels. That's regardless of who wins. Remember, "winning" is determined by sinking the flattop. And most of the time, the Big E wins.
Which she did. A lot. And would do against both major factions of the "classic" Star Wars universe.
Because the series is worth watching again.
May the Force be with you, Rebel scum.
(or Imperial buckethead, if you prefer)
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Paper Plates And Gray Ghosts (or) Who Ever Heard of Kirk Anyway?
I've written on the Enterprise before.
And, no, Trekkies, the real one. The famous one. The legend. Not the goofy looking flying saucer.
But have any of you ever wondered which would win in a battle?
I have no doubt that fans of Star Trek have discussed (nay, argued) over which incarnation of their show's flagship is best. I know that there are debates on who the best captain is. And I know that fans of a galaxy far far away trade shots back and forth about which ship wins. I don't mean any of that.
I mean which would win: the USS Enterprise (CV-6) or the starship Enterprise?
Yeah, I'm positing a slugging match between a Yorktown-class aircraft carrier and a starship from the 23rd century. Maybe that's not possible. At least, not without some modifications.
Buckle up, kids.
First, some "housekeeping." Obviously, these two would not be able to meet in combat, nor are they designed for similar missions. One is an Earth-bound ship built for war. The other is a space ship constructed for long-term exploration. Not only are their eras different, but the reason they exist is like night and day. Then why am I pitting them toe-to-toe?
The reason is simple. Since 1945, the name "Enterprise" has been inseparably connected with combat as the keystone of a fleet. The fame she earned in the Second World War is why it was an appropriate name for a ship in a sci fi television series. Familiarity. Just like what Ford did with the name "Mustang."
Now, I rather like the reboot Star Trek films. And I can understand the appeal of the original series and the spin-offs. But I've never appreciated how they treated the name "Enterprise." It is not a name for a ship of peace, sent out to explore and be a mobile diplomatic post. A ship named Enterprise is a vessel meant to do one thing: win. Think of this as similar to the stuff that EckhartsLadder does when comparing two ships. So who wins?
To accomplish this, the two opponents must be able to meet. I'm going to ignore any potential ability of the starship to "fly" in an atmosphere and basically "bomb" the ship. Mostly because that changes the starship from a "ship" to more like a B-52 bomber or AC-130 gunship. The way you fight with those is different. And, incidentally, the right way when given a platform like the starship Enterprise. No, for this the two need to meet as near equals.
That means either "transforming" the starship into an ocean-going warship or "morphing" the carrier into a star-craft.
Because there does not seem to be a comparable collection of small ships in the Star Trek universe, I'll be bringing the starship into WW2 as a "classic" warship. If there are things similar to fighters, dive bombers, and such, then moving the Big E to space may be possible. (If this was Star Wars, then it is easier to do. Maybe next time.)
But what is the starship Enterprise similar to in the US Navy in the 1940s? Cruisers.
This makes sense, so follow along for a moment while I explain. The cruiser is, historically, designed to be a long-range ship capable of independent operations. Now, doesn't that sound like "5 year voyage" and "boldly going?" Cruisers are decently armed, able to take on anything at their weight class and lighter. Some were even up armed (or up armored, if your's is German) to be able to go against battleships (allegedly... maybe). Fast and agile, these were the ships that gain the fame. Ships like the Graf Spee, the SMS Emden, and the USS Constitution. And, yes, technically "Old Ironsides" is a frigate, but in mission, and concept, she is the very definition of a cruiser or battlecruiser.
By the 1930s, cruisers were fitted with 8 inch or 10 inch guns for main weapons. At least a half dozen lighter guns (5 inch, usually), and dozen or so light cannon and machine guns would round out the firearms. Torpedoes would also be a common arm. Cruisers often carried a few scouting floatplanes, both for finding targets far off, and for directing shots. Later in the war, the planes would aid in rescuing downed aircrew or sailors stranded after their ship sank.
Cruisers have been the mainstay of fleets since the 1860s. Battleships are the backbone, sure, and destroyers bring utility and numbers, but the cruiser is the jack-of-all-trades. Even today, with the Ticonderoga-class, cruisers are the primary independent ships for navies that can afford to use them. They are the jack-of-all-trades. The Tico cruisers carry a couple advanced 5 inch guns, a few machine guns and auto-cannon, a pair of torpedo launchers, and 130 missiles.
I think it's a fair parallel for the design and purpose of ships from Star Trek. Especially if you imagine a Northampton-class (or comparable from another navy) being used by NOAA or the USCG. A ship of exploration and outreach able to defend itself from just about any threat.
But what of the flattop.
Now, carriers were initially (at least in the US) based on cruiser or battlecruiser hulls. Lexington and Saratoga were laid down as battlecruisers, while the Yorktown-class had a similar sized and shaped hull. Even the HMS Furious transitioned from battlecruiser to flattop, in such an incremental way to show the process that lead to the Big E.
This meant that aircraft carriers were relatively fast. Still are, in fact. The Iowa-class had to be fast enough to keep up with the carrier task force. The first nuclear carrier, named Enterprise, outran her escorts during trials. The new Ford-class is able to hit at least 35 knots, which is darn fast for a quarter mile of steel.
But compared to the cruisers of World War 2, carriers were pretty lightly gunned. The biggest guns were 5 inchers, with 40 mm, 20 mm, and machine guns all around. Initially the Lex and Sara had a few of the original cruiser guns, but once aircraft proved viable, the guns were removed to make space for more planes. Later on there would be dozens of anti-aircraft guns all over. Today carriers have no offensive fixed armament, just some anti-air guns and missiles. Like in WW2, the defense of the carrier is dependent on her escorts.
The strong arm of the carrier is her air wing. Back in the day, that was a squadron of fighters, two squadrons of dive bombers, and a squadron of torpedo bombers. Initially the dive bombers were SBD Dauntless, but later replaced by the SB2C Helldiver. The TBD Devastator torpedo bomber was, thankfully, replaced by TBM Avengers. The fighters were F4F Wildcats at first, then later the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair. One of the two dive bomber squadrons was the "scouting" squadron, tasked with forward recon to find targets.
So, in a one-on-one fight, based on this scenario, who wins?
The aircraft carrier Enterprise, I'd say wins 9.95 times out of 10. Now, if the cruiser-version of starship Enterprise can get within gun range, and the aircraft can't stop it soon enough, it will win. But that will be a rare occurrence.
So lets make it interesting. Lets take the Enterprise from the original series, the Next Generation, the 2001 TV series, and the reboot film version. So that's four "cruisers" against a carrier. Now its 9.8 out of 10 in favor of the Big E.
What gives? Being outnumbered 4 to 1, and outgunned at least 20 to 1, yet the flattop beats the gunships?
Why does an aircraft carrier beat a cruiser?
Now, there is an answer from history, a current answer, and the sci fi answer that Atomic Rockets disagrees with. That being said, the Atomic Rockets website is full of great sci fi writing info. And it leans "hard" sci fi, so much of the stuff they posit is either doable, or potentially doable, in the next couple centuries.
The answer is twofold: "stand-off capability" and "growth potential."
After Pearl Harbor and Taranto, the navies of the world quickly realized that the day of the battleship was near the end. What good is a multi-million dollar warship able to shoot targets twenty miles away when it can be sunk by a single dive bomber launched from a thousand miles away? Now, there is plenty of use for the "gunship," and hopefully they come back, somehow. But that was the key: range.
In the Battle of the Coral Sea (4-8 May, 1942), Japanese and American fleets fought each other via airpower alone. It was the first time in history that two fleets engaged each other without being able to see each other directly. None of the ships met and traded shots. Only aircraft. And with the advent of jets post-war, and later inflight refueling, the range of strike aircraft increased. Aircraft carriers are major power projectors. Just one can tip a campaign, if used correctly.
Now, the sci fi fan here would argue, correctly, that space faring warships can be maneuvered in such a way that fighters as we know it are unnecessary. But I'll get back to that. Right after I explain why the battleship died logistically.
Consider, you are the commander of a navy, and your president/king/dictator/whatever wants the fleet to be able to "hit harder, faster, and farther." And not in another five or six years, after the first of a new class of ship is launched, but pretty much now. You have battleships and aircraft carriers. Which do you upgrade?
The battleship has 16 inch guns in three triple turrets. The carrier has three hydraulic catapults and houses 47 aircraft with 1000 mile combat radiuses. (Numbers are rough conjecture, not official. Don't believe me, just rummage through Wiki pages on ships that underwent upgrades and watch the creep.)
To replace the guns on the battleship, one-to-one, requires a lot of work. The guns themselves are heavier, due to thicker breeches and longer barrels. The elevation mechanisms are larger too. Because of this, the turrets must be larger, so as to house the new guns and their loading equipment, which is larger as well. More crew is needed per gun, since they are larger. And ammo storage is less, since each round is larger. The choice is either carry less ammo per gun, or have less overall space to carry the same amount of shots as before. With larger turrets, though, comes greater weight, which the motors used to rotate the turret must cope with. Larger motors take up space and add weight. New barbettes, upon which the turret sits, are needed to support this weight. The hull, frame, and keel will need strengthening to handle the weight, too. And the engines will need to be improved to maintain speed, which requires both larger engines and more fuel carried. More engineering crew will be needed to maintain the devices. On top of all this, new fire control is needed to accurately lay shots, which adds weight, complexity, and crew.
At the end of the day, just to replace one turret, we're looking at an estimated 100 tons added of material, and around 80+ crew added. Just for three guns that will increase hit power no more than 50% and range no more than 20%. This refit will take at least a full year in the yard.
To get the carrier up to spec requires fitting new catapults. Steam catapults are more powerful than hydraulic, and don't require the large fluid reservoir, only steam from the boilers. More catapult crew is not needed, though training will be. This will allow for at least 20% increase in aircraft launch weight.
The aircraft will have an upper limit on footprint and weight, but so long as they can carry the right ordinance, this is not a limiting factor. Getting then next mark of strike craft with 25% more range will not require any modifications to the carrier. In fact, very little work on the carrier is needed to greatly increase aircraft capability. So long as there is space in the hangar, and space for the aircrew and support crew, the plane can deploy.
Net result: less than 20 tons added overall, not including weight of embarked aircraft, and likely no more than two dozen crew added. Hit power increased 50+% and strike range increased 20+%. And the best part, this upgrade can be done again every couple years in just a few months.
Now, reshaping the deck with an angle to accommodate jets will be more costly, but after that, the growth curve resets.
That's the beauty of the aircraft carrier. Think back to the HMS Dreadnought. When she was launched in 1906, all other battleships were obsolete. But by 1919, the trendsetter herself was obsolete. Less than fifteen years of cutting edge for 1.7 million pounds (1906 rate). That's not "bargain."
On the other hand, a large number (22 out of 24) of the Essex-class were able to be upgraded for handling jets post-war, as were their replacements, the Midway-class. In fact, Midway served from 1945 to 1992.
And here is the thing that Atomic Rockets, and many "hard sci fi" fans seem to ignore when discussing the validity of "fighters" in science fiction: versatility.
Now, I'm not saying I think the assessment that "a small one-man fighter" is a bit out of place in realistic sci fi is wrong. But that doesn't mean a "tactical craft" is stupid.
Ditch the idea of the X-Wing, Colonial Viper, and Starfury for a moment. Think like a space-going mix between the AC-130 Spooky gunship, the AH-64 Apache, and the torpedo boat. Small crew, lots of guns and missiles, small size, plenty of agility and speed. Now have a ship designed to carry, launch, support, and service about thirty to sixty of these "damned bats***." Now have three of these ships sneak up on a battleship centered fleet. The results should speak for themselves.
Now, maybe a bit of that is bias. And I'm okay with that, because I'm teasing those thoughts out on my own time, and I think it is possible. And clearly David Weber (author of the Honorverse) agrees. Granted, most of the combat in that series is "gunship," like a sci fi Napoleonic war, but there are "torpedo boat" stand-ins.
Don't forget, right as the HMS Dreadnought was being launched, many navies were also playing around with 100ft long (or less) torpedo boats. These little things carried two or more ship-killing torpedos, and maybe a light gun or two. Their armor was speed; about 30+ knots early on. By WW2, its was more like 50 knots. The idea of small, lightweight, heavy hitting ships is a viable one. Especially for a navy that does not have the resources to build even a small fleet of cruisers, let alone battleships.
Which brings me back to Star Trek. I could go and look at the best ships from the whole universe and transfer them to WW2, but I don't think that's possible. There really is no equivalent to the Borg cube that I know of, for example.
But I can create a hypothetical transfer for the USS Enterprise into space.
So, lets start with Ralph McQuarrie's concept art, and assume that it is a carrier. After all, that aft opening could be a landing bay.
Now, I know I'm biased, but I think that looks better than most incarnations of starship Enterprise. Regardless, there's our ship. And lets say she carries 25-30 of these gunship/torpedo boats. Now, is there any question who wins against the "standard" starship Enterprise?
If you are thinking "well, all it takes is the other ship to warp in close and start laying waste," you've forgotten about the Combat Air Patrol. Escort aircraft in flight above the carrier just to ward off attacking planes. Not to mention the alert craft on the catapults for the moment enemies show up. Maybe not enough to guarantee keeping an attacker from catching someone with their pants down, but its better than nothing but finicky shields and an exposed bridge.
At the end of the day, my beef with Star Trek is still the same: The name "Enterprise" belongs on a carrier. Please, please...
And, no, Trekkies, the real one. The famous one. The legend. Not the goofy looking flying saucer.
But have any of you ever wondered which would win in a battle?
I have no doubt that fans of Star Trek have discussed (nay, argued) over which incarnation of their show's flagship is best. I know that there are debates on who the best captain is. And I know that fans of a galaxy far far away trade shots back and forth about which ship wins. I don't mean any of that.
I mean which would win: the USS Enterprise (CV-6) or the starship Enterprise?
Yeah, I'm positing a slugging match between a Yorktown-class aircraft carrier and a starship from the 23rd century. Maybe that's not possible. At least, not without some modifications.
Buckle up, kids.
First, some "housekeeping." Obviously, these two would not be able to meet in combat, nor are they designed for similar missions. One is an Earth-bound ship built for war. The other is a space ship constructed for long-term exploration. Not only are their eras different, but the reason they exist is like night and day. Then why am I pitting them toe-to-toe?
The reason is simple. Since 1945, the name "Enterprise" has been inseparably connected with combat as the keystone of a fleet. The fame she earned in the Second World War is why it was an appropriate name for a ship in a sci fi television series. Familiarity. Just like what Ford did with the name "Mustang."
Now, I rather like the reboot Star Trek films. And I can understand the appeal of the original series and the spin-offs. But I've never appreciated how they treated the name "Enterprise." It is not a name for a ship of peace, sent out to explore and be a mobile diplomatic post. A ship named Enterprise is a vessel meant to do one thing: win. Think of this as similar to the stuff that EckhartsLadder does when comparing two ships. So who wins?
To accomplish this, the two opponents must be able to meet. I'm going to ignore any potential ability of the starship to "fly" in an atmosphere and basically "bomb" the ship. Mostly because that changes the starship from a "ship" to more like a B-52 bomber or AC-130 gunship. The way you fight with those is different. And, incidentally, the right way when given a platform like the starship Enterprise. No, for this the two need to meet as near equals.
That means either "transforming" the starship into an ocean-going warship or "morphing" the carrier into a star-craft.
Because there does not seem to be a comparable collection of small ships in the Star Trek universe, I'll be bringing the starship into WW2 as a "classic" warship. If there are things similar to fighters, dive bombers, and such, then moving the Big E to space may be possible. (If this was Star Wars, then it is easier to do. Maybe next time.)
But what is the starship Enterprise similar to in the US Navy in the 1940s? Cruisers.
USS Louisville (CA-28), a Northampton-class cruiser. My grandfather served aboard her.
This makes sense, so follow along for a moment while I explain. The cruiser is, historically, designed to be a long-range ship capable of independent operations. Now, doesn't that sound like "5 year voyage" and "boldly going?" Cruisers are decently armed, able to take on anything at their weight class and lighter. Some were even up armed (or up armored, if your's is German) to be able to go against battleships (allegedly... maybe). Fast and agile, these were the ships that gain the fame. Ships like the Graf Spee, the SMS Emden, and the USS Constitution. And, yes, technically "Old Ironsides" is a frigate, but in mission, and concept, she is the very definition of a cruiser or battlecruiser.
By the 1930s, cruisers were fitted with 8 inch or 10 inch guns for main weapons. At least a half dozen lighter guns (5 inch, usually), and dozen or so light cannon and machine guns would round out the firearms. Torpedoes would also be a common arm. Cruisers often carried a few scouting floatplanes, both for finding targets far off, and for directing shots. Later in the war, the planes would aid in rescuing downed aircrew or sailors stranded after their ship sank.
Cruisers have been the mainstay of fleets since the 1860s. Battleships are the backbone, sure, and destroyers bring utility and numbers, but the cruiser is the jack-of-all-trades. Even today, with the Ticonderoga-class, cruisers are the primary independent ships for navies that can afford to use them. They are the jack-of-all-trades. The Tico cruisers carry a couple advanced 5 inch guns, a few machine guns and auto-cannon, a pair of torpedo launchers, and 130 missiles.
I think it's a fair parallel for the design and purpose of ships from Star Trek. Especially if you imagine a Northampton-class (or comparable from another navy) being used by NOAA or the USCG. A ship of exploration and outreach able to defend itself from just about any threat.
But what of the flattop.
Isn't she pretty?
Now, carriers were initially (at least in the US) based on cruiser or battlecruiser hulls. Lexington and Saratoga were laid down as battlecruisers, while the Yorktown-class had a similar sized and shaped hull. Even the HMS Furious transitioned from battlecruiser to flattop, in such an incremental way to show the process that lead to the Big E.
This meant that aircraft carriers were relatively fast. Still are, in fact. The Iowa-class had to be fast enough to keep up with the carrier task force. The first nuclear carrier, named Enterprise, outran her escorts during trials. The new Ford-class is able to hit at least 35 knots, which is darn fast for a quarter mile of steel.
But compared to the cruisers of World War 2, carriers were pretty lightly gunned. The biggest guns were 5 inchers, with 40 mm, 20 mm, and machine guns all around. Initially the Lex and Sara had a few of the original cruiser guns, but once aircraft proved viable, the guns were removed to make space for more planes. Later on there would be dozens of anti-aircraft guns all over. Today carriers have no offensive fixed armament, just some anti-air guns and missiles. Like in WW2, the defense of the carrier is dependent on her escorts.
The strong arm of the carrier is her air wing. Back in the day, that was a squadron of fighters, two squadrons of dive bombers, and a squadron of torpedo bombers. Initially the dive bombers were SBD Dauntless, but later replaced by the SB2C Helldiver. The TBD Devastator torpedo bomber was, thankfully, replaced by TBM Avengers. The fighters were F4F Wildcats at first, then later the F6F Hellcat or F4U Corsair. One of the two dive bomber squadrons was the "scouting" squadron, tasked with forward recon to find targets.
So, in a one-on-one fight, based on this scenario, who wins?
The aircraft carrier Enterprise, I'd say wins 9.95 times out of 10. Now, if the cruiser-version of starship Enterprise can get within gun range, and the aircraft can't stop it soon enough, it will win. But that will be a rare occurrence.
So lets make it interesting. Lets take the Enterprise from the original series, the Next Generation, the 2001 TV series, and the reboot film version. So that's four "cruisers" against a carrier. Now its 9.8 out of 10 in favor of the Big E.
What gives? Being outnumbered 4 to 1, and outgunned at least 20 to 1, yet the flattop beats the gunships?
Why does an aircraft carrier beat a cruiser?
Now, there is an answer from history, a current answer, and the sci fi answer that Atomic Rockets disagrees with. That being said, the Atomic Rockets website is full of great sci fi writing info. And it leans "hard" sci fi, so much of the stuff they posit is either doable, or potentially doable, in the next couple centuries.
The answer is twofold: "stand-off capability" and "growth potential."
After Pearl Harbor and Taranto, the navies of the world quickly realized that the day of the battleship was near the end. What good is a multi-million dollar warship able to shoot targets twenty miles away when it can be sunk by a single dive bomber launched from a thousand miles away? Now, there is plenty of use for the "gunship," and hopefully they come back, somehow. But that was the key: range.
In the Battle of the Coral Sea (4-8 May, 1942), Japanese and American fleets fought each other via airpower alone. It was the first time in history that two fleets engaged each other without being able to see each other directly. None of the ships met and traded shots. Only aircraft. And with the advent of jets post-war, and later inflight refueling, the range of strike aircraft increased. Aircraft carriers are major power projectors. Just one can tip a campaign, if used correctly.
For no other reason than it is a good show.
Now, the sci fi fan here would argue, correctly, that space faring warships can be maneuvered in such a way that fighters as we know it are unnecessary. But I'll get back to that. Right after I explain why the battleship died logistically.
Consider, you are the commander of a navy, and your president/king/dictator/whatever wants the fleet to be able to "hit harder, faster, and farther." And not in another five or six years, after the first of a new class of ship is launched, but pretty much now. You have battleships and aircraft carriers. Which do you upgrade?
The battleship has 16 inch guns in three triple turrets. The carrier has three hydraulic catapults and houses 47 aircraft with 1000 mile combat radiuses. (Numbers are rough conjecture, not official. Don't believe me, just rummage through Wiki pages on ships that underwent upgrades and watch the creep.)
To replace the guns on the battleship, one-to-one, requires a lot of work. The guns themselves are heavier, due to thicker breeches and longer barrels. The elevation mechanisms are larger too. Because of this, the turrets must be larger, so as to house the new guns and their loading equipment, which is larger as well. More crew is needed per gun, since they are larger. And ammo storage is less, since each round is larger. The choice is either carry less ammo per gun, or have less overall space to carry the same amount of shots as before. With larger turrets, though, comes greater weight, which the motors used to rotate the turret must cope with. Larger motors take up space and add weight. New barbettes, upon which the turret sits, are needed to support this weight. The hull, frame, and keel will need strengthening to handle the weight, too. And the engines will need to be improved to maintain speed, which requires both larger engines and more fuel carried. More engineering crew will be needed to maintain the devices. On top of all this, new fire control is needed to accurately lay shots, which adds weight, complexity, and crew.
At the end of the day, just to replace one turret, we're looking at an estimated 100 tons added of material, and around 80+ crew added. Just for three guns that will increase hit power no more than 50% and range no more than 20%. This refit will take at least a full year in the yard.
To get the carrier up to spec requires fitting new catapults. Steam catapults are more powerful than hydraulic, and don't require the large fluid reservoir, only steam from the boilers. More catapult crew is not needed, though training will be. This will allow for at least 20% increase in aircraft launch weight.
The aircraft will have an upper limit on footprint and weight, but so long as they can carry the right ordinance, this is not a limiting factor. Getting then next mark of strike craft with 25% more range will not require any modifications to the carrier. In fact, very little work on the carrier is needed to greatly increase aircraft capability. So long as there is space in the hangar, and space for the aircrew and support crew, the plane can deploy.
Net result: less than 20 tons added overall, not including weight of embarked aircraft, and likely no more than two dozen crew added. Hit power increased 50+% and strike range increased 20+%. And the best part, this upgrade can be done again every couple years in just a few months.
Now, reshaping the deck with an angle to accommodate jets will be more costly, but after that, the growth curve resets.
A variety pack of Essex-class, post war. Flavors include long, short, straight deck, angled deck, and bridle catches.
That's the beauty of the aircraft carrier. Think back to the HMS Dreadnought. When she was launched in 1906, all other battleships were obsolete. But by 1919, the trendsetter herself was obsolete. Less than fifteen years of cutting edge for 1.7 million pounds (1906 rate). That's not "bargain."
On the other hand, a large number (22 out of 24) of the Essex-class were able to be upgraded for handling jets post-war, as were their replacements, the Midway-class. In fact, Midway served from 1945 to 1992.
Midway at commissioning, 1945.
Midway en route to southeast Asia, 1972.
Deck evolution of Midway. 1945, 1957, 1970.
And here is the thing that Atomic Rockets, and many "hard sci fi" fans seem to ignore when discussing the validity of "fighters" in science fiction: versatility.
Now, I'm not saying I think the assessment that "a small one-man fighter" is a bit out of place in realistic sci fi is wrong. But that doesn't mean a "tactical craft" is stupid.
Ditch the idea of the X-Wing, Colonial Viper, and Starfury for a moment. Think like a space-going mix between the AC-130 Spooky gunship, the AH-64 Apache, and the torpedo boat. Small crew, lots of guns and missiles, small size, plenty of agility and speed. Now have a ship designed to carry, launch, support, and service about thirty to sixty of these "damned bats***." Now have three of these ships sneak up on a battleship centered fleet. The results should speak for themselves.
Now, maybe a bit of that is bias. And I'm okay with that, because I'm teasing those thoughts out on my own time, and I think it is possible. And clearly David Weber (author of the Honorverse) agrees. Granted, most of the combat in that series is "gunship," like a sci fi Napoleonic war, but there are "torpedo boat" stand-ins.
Don't forget, right as the HMS Dreadnought was being launched, many navies were also playing around with 100ft long (or less) torpedo boats. These little things carried two or more ship-killing torpedos, and maybe a light gun or two. Their armor was speed; about 30+ knots early on. By WW2, its was more like 50 knots. The idea of small, lightweight, heavy hitting ships is a viable one. Especially for a navy that does not have the resources to build even a small fleet of cruisers, let alone battleships.
Which brings me back to Star Trek. I could go and look at the best ships from the whole universe and transfer them to WW2, but I don't think that's possible. There really is no equivalent to the Borg cube that I know of, for example.
But I can create a hypothetical transfer for the USS Enterprise into space.
So, lets start with Ralph McQuarrie's concept art, and assume that it is a carrier. After all, that aft opening could be a landing bay.
Some really good artwork based on this found here.
Now, I know I'm biased, but I think that looks better than most incarnations of starship Enterprise. Regardless, there's our ship. And lets say she carries 25-30 of these gunship/torpedo boats. Now, is there any question who wins against the "standard" starship Enterprise?
If you are thinking "well, all it takes is the other ship to warp in close and start laying waste," you've forgotten about the Combat Air Patrol. Escort aircraft in flight above the carrier just to ward off attacking planes. Not to mention the alert craft on the catapults for the moment enemies show up. Maybe not enough to guarantee keeping an attacker from catching someone with their pants down, but its better than nothing but finicky shields and an exposed bridge.
At the end of the day, my beef with Star Trek is still the same: The name "Enterprise" belongs on a carrier. Please, please...
(For the record, I wrote this a few weeks ago, before the move. And, yes, I intend on paring the Big E against something from Star Wars. Because I can.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)