homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: Romans 6 and Baptism (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: Romans 6 and Baptism
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From a thread in Purgatory
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I once had someone tell me that Romans 6 was not referring to water baptism at all.

Hey, that's what I think!
I guess the key verses are 3-4.
quote:
Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
What is "baptism" here if not in water? What other sort of "baptism into Jesus" could Paul mean?

[ 06. May 2007, 11:45: Message edited by: Moo ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If it doesn't mean water baptism here, what does it mean? And where else in Paul does baptism mean anything else?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I was cleaning it and it went off! I had meant to develop my position a bit beyond the last two lines of the OP, and clicked Post Reply - but really, what more is there to be said?

I've always understood that this is the definitive advance in typology beyond the mere "washing" which may or may not have been involved in Jewish Proselyte Baptism, or the "baptism of repentance" of JB. This is sacramental participation in the dying and the rising of Christ.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What is "baptism" here if not in water? What other sort of "baptism into Jesus" could Paul mean?

I think Paul does mean baptism in water. Psyduck's rhetorical question may be the key - does Paul ever mean anything other than "baptism in water" when he uses "baptism"? If not, then Gordon has a difficult position to defend, which he will hopefully shortly attempt to do.

If I may indulge in speculation for a moment, perhaps one could make a case that Paul means "baptism into the Holy Spirit". I reckon this is a hard case to make however, because if Paul meant this, he probably would have said it - he was fairly articulate.
Or a case could be perhaps made that Paul is talking of identification with Christ. Which he clearly is. And this is represented symbolically how? Through water baptism.

Looking forward to hearing your arguments Gordon.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that Paul was, indeed, referring to water baptism, but I'm not really a sacramentalist, so I would see the baptism as more descriptive than prescriptive. In other words, as being a symbolic act, but not in itself having any intrinsic or salvific merit apart from that symbolism. It was what church did, and was therefore a ready "visual aid" in understanding that which was actually accomplished in the spiritual realm. A bit like the way in which many people of the more evo persuasion understand Holy Communion.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The obvious interpretation is so obvious here that I'm dying to know why Gordo thinks it's not about baptism. And indeed what he thinks it is about. Because I smell a tortured interpretation to avoid a sacramentalist conclusion.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wolfgang
Shipmate
# 10809

 - Posted      Profile for Wolfgang   Email Wolfgang   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I do think that Paul is referring to water baptism here, I don't think it's all he's referring to. When Paul was writing baptism was something which was so closely related with conversion they were almost treated as one and the same thing, hence Acts 2:38 - i.e. you were converted and then baptised immediately after. So when Paul talks about us being "baptised" into Christ's death and "buried with him through baptism into death" he only uses the term "baptise" because it was so closely associated with conversion itself....his readers would be calling to mind that one occasion on which they were converted-and-baptised (inseperable).

--------------------
"The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist" - Dostoevksy

Posts: 121 | From: The North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
Whilst I do think that Paul is referring to water baptism here, I don't think it's all he's referring to. When Paul was writing baptism was something which was so closely related with conversion they were almost treated as one and the same thing, hence Acts 2:38 - i.e. you were converted and then baptised immediately after.[

With this I would agree, and would point to the fact that this is a sacramental understanding, to my mind.

quote:
So when Paul talks about us being "baptised" into Christ's death and "buried with him through baptism into death" he only uses the term "baptise" because it was so closely associated with conversion itself
This bit is I think unsubstantiated, especially the italicised word.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 


[ 11. April 2006, 11:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well said Barny...expresses your utter contempt for the argument better than mere words can.
Hang on...which side are you objecting to? [Big Grin]

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apologies, guys, finger fumble! This is what I wanted to say. I think Mark 10:35-45 has some clues. Particularly here
quote:
37They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

38"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus refers to his forthcoming trial and crucifixion as a "cup" which, if possible, may be taken away from him. The suggestion in the Mark passage is that he is using "cup" and "baptism" to speak allegorically about his own forthcoming trial, sentence, suffering and death. The significance of the use of the word "baptism" here is the notion of full immersion. (A normal Greek usage of "baptizo" meant to dip, like dipping a garment in a dye, and therefore fully immerse). His "baptism" in this sense is not one James and John should seek to emulate readily.

I think the final clue is here.
quote:
Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Turning to Romans 6, I think the verses have the double meaning of both explaining baptism in water and the deeper life challenge of following Jesus - as later explained here in Phil 3:10-11

quote:
10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
I think the notion is of a life fully immersed in following Christ. Which includes both the fellowship of his suffering and identifying with his dying and rising. So I think Romans 6 points both to water baptism and the obedient life.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499

 - Posted      Profile for Anselm   Email Anselm   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
With out removing, at this stage, the possibility that Paul is including the ritual baptism with water, I think that he is certainly talking about more than just water baptism.
Theologically we know that there is a change in era with the coming of Jesus. John the baptist says
quote:
“After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Mark 1:7-8
And that Paul himself, while using the ritual of water baptism, didn't seem to think it all that important - judging by his comments in 1 Cor 1
Yet the baptism he is talking about in Romans 6 seems quite important and central to the experience of being a follower of Jesus.

--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?

Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
you were converted and then baptised immediately after

A different possibility. Baptism *was* the moment, the act, of conversion. How do single people become married people? By a wedding - a promise, a commitment. How do non-Christian people become Christians? In the Bible, by baptism: a promise, a commitment.

I think baptism in the NT was the decisive step of commitment that non-Christians made in order to become Christians. Baptism was the dividing line - rather like a wedding is the dividing line between being a single person and being a married person.

In the bible, baptism was not a testimony that you had already turned to God and become a Christian. Rather it *was* the way that you turned to God and committed yourself to Christ. By the act of baptism, a non-Christian said "I *hereby* receive Christ as my Lord. I *hereby* become a Christian". This is a commitment in the process of being made, not a symbolic testimony to an earlier commitment.

That is why Peter in the NT can say, "baptism saves you". And why Paul can say a person is buried and rises with Christ in baptism. It is not mere symbolism. People weren't baptised after their conversion: they were baptised *as* their conversion. The act of going into the water was the acted-out prayer, so to speak, of repentance and turning to God. Just as signing a bank cheque commits you to the payment of the money described on it, and a wedding commits you to a marriage.

In the NT, people responded to the gospel by getting baptised - not by just being prayed for (or with) by counsellors and then being declared a Christian.

[ 11. April 2006, 15:43: Message edited by: MSHB ]

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Baptism *was* the moment, the act, of conversion. How do single people become married people? By a wedding - a promise, a commitment. How do non-Christian people become Christians? In the Bible, by baptism: a promise, a commitment.

I think baptism in the NT was the decisive step of commitment that non-Christians made in order to become Christians. Baptism was the dividing line - rather like a wedding is the dividing line between being a single person and being a married person.

Except the commitment to become married usually happens long before the wedding. I wouldn't think many people would still be undecided as they stood at the altar on their wedding day. Marriage is normally what happens after you have made the commitment, and is just a public acknowledgement and celeberation of that commitment. I don't think the physical act of marriage is an anyway important to the issue of the commitment (and divorce statistics back me up).

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Baptism was the dividing line - rather like a wedding is the dividing line between being a single person and being a married person.

Except the commitment to become married usually happens long before the wedding.
Yes, there is usually a period of time between deciding to get married and getting married. It's called engagement or betrothal. If all goes well, it's followed by a wedding, at which point you're married.

Likewise, there is usually a period of time between deciding to become a Christian and becoming a Christian. It's called the catechumenate. If all goes well, it's followed by a baptism, at which point you're a Christian.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
And that Paul himself, while using the ritual of water baptism, didn't seem to think it all that important - judging by his comments in 1 Cor 1

I have to say that I think this remark is eisegetical. Clearly from the verses you have quoted Paul is expressing thankfulness that he was not responsible for baptising many of the Corinthians, because of the factionalism that was resulting in the congregation.

This in no way indicates that Paul thought water baptism was no big deal. He might have thought that, but you have not established it from this section.
And the rest of your post does not explain why Paul is not talking about water baptism as the symbol of what is taking place in a person's identification with the death and resurrection of Christ in Romans 6.

[ 12. April 2006, 07:00: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Anselm:
quote:
And that Paul himself, while using the ritual of water baptism, didn't seem to think it all that important - judging by his comments in 1 Cor 1
Yet the baptism he is talking about in Romans 6 seems quite important and central to the experience of being a follower of Jesus.

I just can't see how I Cor. can be understood as saying that water baptism (we still haven't established what other kind we might be talking about yet) isn't important to Paul. Quite the reverse.
quote:
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

I don't think Paul is saying more here than that his Apostolate is centred on the preaching of the Gospel - certainly not that baptism isn't important. In fact, the highlighted words suggest to me that baptism, being in Christ's name, is central. And the link between baptism and the death of Christ is clear throughout.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I don't think Paul is saying more here than that his Apostolate is centred on the preaching of the Gospel - certainly not that baptism isn't important. In fact, the highlighted words suggest to me that baptism, being in Christ's name, is central. And the link between baptism and the death of Christ is clear throughout.

I wouldn't even say that he is saying that his apostolate is centred on preaching. The reason he is thankful he didn't baptise any of them (well except for the people he then remembers) is that this stops them saying they were baptised in his name (not Christ's) and furthering the division in the Church. He is thankful that the fact (presumably co-incidental?) he did not baptise them means that their baptism cannot become a focus for division.

In terms of what other baptism might be meant, the original person* who told me that Romans 6 was not about water baptism went on to say that it referred to baptism with the Holy Spirit.

*I can't now remember who it was or even where it was, it might have been on the UCCF discussion boards where I posted for a while! I am amused that Gordon popped up briefly to agree with the comment and thus once again conforms to my stereotyped evangelical!

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I am amused that Gordon popped up briefly to agree with the comment and thus once again conforms to my stereotyped evangelical!

I aim to please [Biased] And I am rather chuffed to be thought of as a steretopyical evangelical, as not too long ago on these boards I was being relegated to an outer solipsistic darkness of wacko out-there something-or-other. Although not by evangelicals, I seem to recall. By hook or by crook, I'll be mainstream one of these days.

I wasn't lying when I said I have a busy week, I'm all kinds of overdue on several projects so I really only have time to go through this once, with apologies to all who want to ask follow-up questions.

Let's start with the null hypothesis that baptism (Gk baptizw, "I wash"), always involve water in the New Testament. If this is our point of departure, then Romans 6:3-4 must be talking about water baptism, and only the most strained exegesis would suggest otherwise.

However. Is it true that baptism always involves water? If you were a follower of John the Baptist, this was clearly so, as he only ever did one sort of baptism. That Jesus and his followers knew of this is indisputable, since Jesus (at least) experienced this water baptism.

However again. John the Baptist clearly expected that the nature of Jesus' baptism would not involve water. So in Mt 3:11-12 John insists

quote:
originally posted by John the Baptist:
11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Given the expectation set up by this passage, together with the complete absence of any baptizing activity by Jesus himself (John 4:2), it is not unreasonable to tread cautiously before we ascribe large quantities of H2O to the activity of baptism. Whether or not water was used after John, Jesus' own attitude to baptism seems to indicate that it was symbolic or metaphorical. He called on his disciples not to baptize, or to baptize with water, but to baptize into (Gk eis the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19).

Interestingly, the comments Paul offers regarding water baptism, in particular the baptism of John, seem guarded and qualified in the extreme. Anselm has mentioned 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, also of interest is Acts 19: 1-7. Here, Paul, quite clearly believes the baptism of John to be inadequate, and we already know from the gospel accounts that this was a baptism of water (Luke records the same contrasting baptisms in Luke 3:16. So what Paul is offering, so to speak, is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism.

So there is sufficient evidence from the New Testament to reject our null hypothesis, and assert that baptism does not always involve water. Indeed, given the specific and repeated contrast made by John the Baptist, Paul and (implicitly) by Jesus between the baptism of John and the baptism that followers of Christ are called upon to experience.

So I replace the null hypothesis with a new hypothesis, namely that unless water is specifically mentioned, it is not present in connexion with Christian baptism in the New Testament.

I think it most likely that baptism in Romans 6 means an immersion into Christ and his death, experienced by faith alone.

Interestingly, using my handy-dandy ESV word search , I discover not one reference to the word "water" in the whole of Romans. This is a great mystery. [Roll Eyes]

Apologies, time for posting is severely limited this week.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499

 - Posted      Profile for Anselm   Email Anselm   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
And that Paul himself, while using the ritual of water baptism, didn't seem to think it all that important - judging by his comments in 1 Cor 1

I have to say that I think this remark is eisegetical. Clearly from the verses you have quoted Paul is expressing thankfulness that he was not responsible for baptising many of the Corinthians, because of the factionalism that was resulting in the congregation.

This in no way indicates that Paul thought water baptism was no big deal. He might have thought that, but you have not established it from this section.

I think that Paul's statement in verse 17
quote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel
does actually relativise the importance of baptism for Paul, when compared to the task of preaching.

It would be interesting to work out the connection between this statement of Paul's and the great commission of Jesus recorded in Matt 28. Did Paul think that this did not apply to him? Or perhaps he thought that preaching was the way to fulfill it?
quote:

And the rest of your post does not explain why Paul is not talking about water baptism as the symbol of what is taking place in a person's identification with the and resurrection of Christ in Romans 6.

That may be because I wasn't actually saying that, rather it was your eisegesis of my post. The first sentence of my post was...
quote:
With out removing, at this stage, the possibility that Paul is including the ritual baptism with water...
I think that Paul in Romans 6 is primarily talking about the experience of being identified with Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (becoming a Christian) that may have been closely associated with the ritual of water baptism in that culture.

--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?

Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SUrely the non-water use of "baptism" is one of the purest forms of metaphor. And metaphor only works if the primary meaning is clear and in everyone's mind. The primary meaning of "baptism" has to be water baptism -- otherwise the metaphorical use is meaningless.

Water baptism without the metaphorical overtones was and is known in Judaism -- I'm told it forms part of the rite of reception of a convert.

As the primary meaning involves water, and the usual meaning involves water, I'd want evidence far stronger than adduced so far, and from a base that wasn't trying to prove a prior position, before I walked very far towards the position that the metaphorical meaning has taken over from the primary meaning.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
I think that Paul's statement in verse 17
quote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel
does actually relativise the importance of baptism for Paul, when compared to the task of preaching.

It would be interesting to work out the connection between this statement of Paul's and the great commission of Jesus recorded in Matt 28. Did Paul think that this did not apply to him? Or perhaps he thought that preaching was the way to fulfill it?

Perhaps what Paul saw was baptism linked to the task of making disciples, rather than his primary role of preaching the gospel. I can certainly see a rationale for an itinerant evangelist making the decision not to baptise because he won't be around for the task of discipling the new converts. Leaving the tasks of making converts disciples, and baptising them, to the leadership of the local church - even if he needs to create a local church first.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Let's start with the null hypothesis that baptism (Gk baptizw, "I wash"), always involve water in the New Testament. If this is our point of departure, then Romans 6:3-4 must be talking about water baptism, and only the most strained exegesis would suggest otherwise.
No, let's start with the Greek. βαπτιζω doesn't mean "wash". It means dip, immerse, (middle voice) dip oneself, wash in the sense of immerse oneself in water, , plunge, (in non-Christian lit. also plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. (Arndt and Gingrich) Liddell and Scott add a (passive) sense of “be drowned”, and senses of ships being sunk, cities being flooded with people, and things being soaked with wine. Also people drowning in debt.

I think that on its own is pretty conclusive. The root meaning of βαπτιζω isn’t “wash” but “inundate, dip, drown, steep in a fluid”.

Interesting that you quote the Matthean expansion of Mark 1:8, with its deployment of fire. Mark does contrast the Johannine water-baptism with Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit, but I don’t think that counts for anything in this argument. The most natural reading is “I have baptized you onlywith water; but he will baptize you also with the Holy Spirit." Particularly in view of the dipping-in-fluid root meaning of the verb.

quote:
it is not unreasonable to tread cautiously before we ascribe large quantities of H2O to the activity of baptism.
The issue is actually the use of water as such, not the quantity. Those early depictions of Jesus which show him up to the knees while JB baptizes him are probably on the mark (apart from the shell in the Baptist’s hand!) In any case, the clear allusion to baptism in John 13 – or are you going to tell us that that’s something else? – is equally clear that a small quantity of baptismal water suffices to inundate.

quote:
Interestingly, the comments Paul offers regarding water baptism, in particular the baptism of John, seem guarded and qualified in the extreme.
Where does Paul say anything about the “baptism of John”?

quote:
Anselm has mentioned 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, also of interest is Acts 19: 1-7.
Er… Paul didn’t write Acts. You can’t derive any direct knowledge about Pauline attitudes from Acts. As far as I know, there is still a critical scholarly consensus that we don’t have a clue what Luke is talking about here. If it’s anything we could make sense of, my guess would be that it’s the beginning of Confirmation. Acts is clearly in conflict with Paul here.

quote:
So what Paul is offering, so to speak, is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism.
Are you saying this on any other basis than the Acts quote?

quote:
So I replace the null hypothesis with a new hypothesis, namely that unless water is specifically mentioned, it is not present in connexion with Christian baptism in the New Testament.
Despite the clear meaning of the verb?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I am amused that Gordon popped up briefly to agree with the comment and thus once again conforms to my stereotyped evangelical!

I aim to please [Biased] And I am rather chuffed to be thought of as a steretopyical evangelical, as not too long ago on these boards I was being relegated to an outer solipsistic darkness of wacko out-there something-or-other. Although not by evangelicals, I seem to recall. By hook or by crook, I'll be mainstream one of these days.
Aah, but you see, I have to remember that my stereotypical evangelical is a subset of evangelical and that there are evangelicals like Wood and Alan Cresswell and Ken (and many others on the ship) who don't fit my stereotype so I have to be careful in ranting about `evangelicals' because I only mean a sub-group. But this is a tangent.

quote:

I wasn't lying when I said I have a busy week, I'm all kinds of overdue on several projects so I really only have time to go through this once, with apologies to all who want to ask follow-up questions.


I think a lot of us have busy weeks this week, it being a rather important week in the Church's year.

quote:
So there is sufficient evidence from the New Testament to reject our null hypothesis, and assert that baptism does not always involve water. Indeed, given the specific and repeated contrast made by John the Baptist, Paul and (implicitly) by Jesus between the baptism of John and the baptism that followers of Christ are called upon to experience.

So I replace the null hypothesis with a new hypothesis, namely that unless water is specifically mentioned, it is not present in connexion with Christian baptism in the New Testament.

I think it most likely that baptism in Romans 6 means an immersion into Christ and his death, experienced by faith alone.

Ok. So baptism in a Christian context is taken further than the root of immersion (you could have mentioned Jesus to the disciples who wanted to sit on his right and left sides), however, it is a big step from that to ruling out the implication of water everywhere it is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. That would be a significant change in the meaning of the word rather than metaphorical development which is all you've proved. Also, my original comment included to `proof texts' the other being 1 Pet 3:18-22. Here water is specifically mentioned. What do you make of this one? This is the stronger of the two for arguing for a salvific effect to baptism anyway.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Old Grey Whistler
Shipmate
# 11266

 - Posted      Profile for Old Grey Whistler   Author's homepage   Email Old Grey Whistler   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is such a good thread I wanted to add a line! I am sure Baptism is either by immersion or at least having a good soak. Romans 6 IS about that baptism because the argument is about the meaning of the whole action. "Spirit Baptism" is a vague phrase meaning different things to different people because it is not at all clear from scripture what it means.

Baptism is the decisive moment when a person consciously devotes him/herself to Christ as Lord and receives the confirmatory promise of God that they are accepted in Christ. The whole argument in Romans 6 holds together powerfully if this is your view.

--------------------
Prov 17:28 Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace;When he shuts his lips, he is considered perceptive.
www.15tg.freeserve.co.uk

Posts: 70 | From: East London | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
I think that Paul's statement in verse 17
quote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel
does actually relativise the importance of baptism for Paul, when compared to the task of preaching.

An additional remark in relation to this comment. I'm working my way through references to baptism in the NT, to see if I can see any of the sort of pattern which would indicate the word is used for something other than water baptism (I'll come back to that once I'm there). But, I got to Acts 18 and read
quote:
many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptised.
Which doesn't quite tally with Pauls comment in Corinthians that he didn't baptise many people. Unless, that is, someone else did the baptism - either someone who accompanied Paul or other Christians already in Corinth.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
. . . my original comment included to `proof texts' the other being 1 Pet 3:18-22. Here water is specifically mentioned. What do you make of this one? This is the stronger of the two for arguing for a salvific effect to baptism anyway.

Carys

What I find interesting about the use of the Flood as a type for baptism in I Peter is that the people who were saved were not immersed in the water! Noah and his family may have been sprinkled a bit with rain before they got in the Ark, but the ones who were totally immersed perished. I guess we just don't want to press the analogy too far in this case.

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Al Eluia:
quote:
Noah and his family may have been sprinkled a bit with rain before they got in the Ark,
No, that's not how the typology works in Christian tradition. Noah and his family are the people who pass from an old, dead world to a renewed world through the waters of the flood, which is what we do in baptism. This is made explicit in the "Flood Prayer" which for most Protestant traditions derives in its present form from Martin Luther, but in which Luther certainly draws on much older traditions going back to 1 Pet. 3.
Carys:
quote:
So baptism in a Christian context is taken further than the root of immersion
I don't think that that's so, or that we need to think of anhydrous-seeming references to "baptism" as being metaphorical. There was the tradition of martyrs being baptised through their martyrdom - yes, in their own blood, often, but not if you went like Polycarp!!
quote:
(you could have mentioned Jesus to the disciples who wanted to sit on his right and left sides),
As to the two disciples wanting good seats in the Kingdom - even if the association of water-baptism (I'm getting to hate that phrase!!) with the death of Christ were a Pauline innovation, there's enough time for it to have influenced Mark, and that's certainly the case if it's earlier than Paul.

It seems to me that, once made, the equation baptism=the-death-of-Christ/a-death-like-that-of-Christ is still so crucially dependent on the symbolism of immersion-in/inundation-by/going-through water that it can never be said, in the New Testament, to be metaphorical. You just can't get the water out, no matter how much silica gel you use. And water is always the actuality of baptism, not a metaphor.

Baptism is always Christian initiation, is always identification with Christ in his death. However hard I try, I can't see any other reading as anything but a distortion.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
also of interest is Acts 19: 1-7. Here, Paul, quite clearly believes the baptism of John to be inadequate, and we already know from the gospel accounts that this was a baptism of water (Luke records the same contrasting baptisms in Luke 3:16. So what Paul is offering, so to speak, is not water baptism but Holy Spirit baptism.

I think the problem with this interpretation is identifying the key feature of the baptism of John as that it's by water. The key feature of Johns baptism is that it was a baptism of repentance, it was a sign of turning away from sins. But, what was missing was that there was nothing about what you turn towards - Christian baptism isn't just about repentance, it's about positively turning to God. John offered a cleansing of the old life, in Christ we have the offer of a whole new life entirely. It's that that Paul considered to be lacking.

Yes, there is a definite element of reception of the Spirit in this baptism in Christ. Peter himself picks it up in Acts 2, addressing the crowd at Pentecost. His response to the question "what shall we do?" is "repent and be baptised" - what other than a baptism in water could he mean? He has talked about the outpouring of the Spirit, but never called that a baptism. The crowds would have been very familiar with baptism in water. He must be talking about water baptism. But, he does go on "And you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit". Clearly, Christian baptism is linked to the giving of the Spirit, but the giving of the Spirit doesn't seem here to be equivalent to baptism, nor indeed a baptism at all, just an abundant outpouring gift from God.

Now, if we take your hypothesis that Paul is offering Spirit baptism, not water baptism, then one thing I would expect is that the NT refers to the gift of the Spirit as a baptism. Errrmmm ... I'm not sure I can find such a reference. The closest I can find is 1 Cor 12:13
quote:
For we were all baptised by [with or in] one Spirit into one body
Now, the "with or in" alternate readings could easily be what we would call a baptism in the Spirit (eg: of the sort found in the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements), but the "by" reading could make it equivalent to "baptised by John" - it's the Spirit (through the body of believers) who does the baptism. Either way, it's a big bunch of theology to hang on a bit of a verse that's in the middle of a section about Christian unity and the use of gifts for building up the body of Christ and not about baptism (in water or the Spirit). There are, of course, references to annointing in the Spirit, but that also seems to be different from baptism.

Also the "baptism = Spirit not water" hypothesis runs into problems when you come up against examples of conversion in Acts. Consider the Ethiopian eunuch - "here is water, why shouldn't I be baptised", can't be anything but water baptism there. Or, Cornelius. After the household receive the Spirit as the disciples had at Pentecost, Peter asks "Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water?". In Acts 16, Paul speaks to a prayer meeting by the river, and baptises Lydia and her household - presumably in that same river, there and then. In Acts 19 we have the aforementioned men who'd received the baptism of John - they're baptised, then Paul places his hands on them and they receive the Spirit; it could have been a simultaneous event, but clearly here baptism and the giving of the Spirit are considered to be seperate things. I could go on ... but

quote:
So there is sufficient evidence from the New Testament to reject our null hypothesis, and assert that baptism does not always involve water.
In contrast, I'd reject the hypothesis that baptism in the New Testament relates to the giving of the Spirit. Yes, the Spirit is given. Yes, that can happen at baptism. But, the New Testament doesn't support any notion that this is a replacement for water baptism - at the best baptism is used as a metaphor in describing the gift of the Spirit.

Which leaves the question. When the New Testament uses the word "baptism", what event is it refering to (either directly or by analogy)? It seems clear that it's not receiving the Spirit. The only other thing it could reasonably be is an actual physical washing, in actual real water.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell:

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, thought of something, reconsidered, selected all, hit Add Reply instead of Delete...

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533

 - Posted      Profile for the_raptor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Baptism was the dividing line - rather like a wedding is the dividing line between being a single person and being a married person.

Except the commitment to become married usually happens long before the wedding.
Yes, there is usually a period of time between deciding to get married and getting married. It's called engagement or betrothal. If all goes well, it's followed by a wedding, at which point you're married.

Likewise, there is usually a period of time between deciding to become a Christian and becoming a Christian. It's called the catechumenate. If all goes well, it's followed by a baptism, at which point you're a Christian.

What happens if I was baptised as a child? Is that still valid? Considering I wasn't a Christian for a number of years after being baptised I don't think it really does count.

And personally I think that splashing a bit of water on someones head being the defining symbol of them becoming a Christian is bloody stupid. Personally I think you become a Christian when you decide to live by God's will (which I am doing rubbish at, so make that "attempting"). Of course that probably damns me as an evangelical non-sacramentalist protestant that gets Matthias Media guides [Razz]

--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly

Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Let's start with the null hypothesis that baptism (Gk baptizw, "I wash"), always involve water in the New Testament. If this is our point of departure, then Romans 6:3-4 must be talking about water baptism, and only the most strained exegesis would suggest otherwise.
No, let's start with the Greek. βαπτιζω doesn't mean "wash". It means dip, immerse, (middle voice) dip oneself, wash in the sense of immerse oneself in water, , plunge, (in non-Christian lit. also plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm. (Arndt and Gingrich) Liddell and Scott add a (passive) sense of “be drowned”, and senses of ships being sunk, cities being flooded with people, and things being soaked with wine. Also people drowning in debt.

I think that on its own is pretty conclusive. The root meaning of βαπτιζω isn’t “wash” but “inundate, dip, drown, steep in a fluid”.

Check Mark 7:1-3, where "wash" is a perfectly legitimate and sensible translation in the context. Also, it's hard to see how it could not mean washing in 1 Peter 3:21, where Peter quite explicitly assumes that in the process of baptism, there would be "removal of dirt from the body".

Immediate context has to be the overarching determinant of linguistic meaning, and both of those two examples are pretty obvious, it seems to me.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And personally I think that splashing a bit of water on someones head being the defining symbol of them becoming a Christian is bloody stupid.

That stupid Jesus. I'll have a word with him next time I see him.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
John 4:2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Clarification:Some posts above seem to assume that I believe Christian baptism never involves water. That's not so, and Alan C's post a few up helpfully summarizes some of the evidence relatiing to this.

My view is that Christian baptism always involves the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (and that this is no different from Spirit baptism), and may sometimes involve water in varying quantities.

Interesting, Dr Ashley Null argues that for Thomas Cranmer, architect of the Anglican formularies including the Prayer Book, water baptism is effectual only for those who are elect. Cranmer's view (as Null presents it) is not exactly mine, but as an Anglican minister I find it close enough to my view to be useful.

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Check Mark 7:1-3, where "wash" is a perfectly legitimate and sensible translation in the context. Also, it's hard to see how it could not mean washing in 1 Peter 3:21, where Peter quite explicitly assumes that in the process of baptism, there would be "removal of dirt from the body".

Immediate context has to be the overarching determinant of linguistic meaning, and both of those two examples are pretty obvious, it seems to me.

Complete rot! And - by the way - a flat contradiction of your previous post! You are the one who said that baptizo "means" "wash". Context irrespective. I can see why you want "baptizo" to mean "wash", because "wash" is a much easier "meaning" to turn into a (waterless) metaphor than "dunk, dip, soak, inundate, immerse in a fluid" which, I said, is the root meaning of baptizo.

Actually, thinking about it, I was the one who gave all those metaphorical senses of baptizo - "drown in debt" "flood a city with refugees" etc. etc. But all these metaphorical meanings turn on the same meaning, whuich isn't "wash." It's "immerse in a fluid", "dip", make wet" etc. In your sense, "wash" is itself an extended, even "metaphorical" use of baptizo in its root meaning.

I don't know if you're trying to build something on the Saussurean recognition that the connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary - but what you seem to be saying is that meaning is so completely determined by immediate context that there is absolutely no relationship between one use of a word and any other. In other words, you have to know what the passage means before you know what any of the words in it mean in context. But isn't that basically the claim that you're making here anyway? That you know that this passage can't refer to water-baptism, therefore baptizo can't mean what the dictionary says it means?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry - should have explained that "Saussurean" bit. Maybe this link will help.
On the 1 Peter passage Gordon Cheng mentions:
quote:
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 clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
This is actually a denial of the importance of the "washing" component of the meaning of baptism!!! Obviously if someone pours water all over you, you'll be 'cleaner' - but that's not - washing's not - what tipping water all over you means. Baptism can mean (among other things) 'washing' - but 1 Peter says there are times when it doesn't. What I'm saying is that, because of the root meaning of the word baptizo, there are no times when it doesn't carry something of the meaning "dip, soak, inundate", whatever else it also means.

Baptism is like Bob Monkhouse's Swiss watch. Totally waterproof. Once you get water into it, you'll never get it out...

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Baptism can mean (among other things) 'washing'

As long as you acknowledge this point, we have no dispute about the exact meaning of the word. I agree that Peter is saying more than this.

As for Saussare, in Sydney Australia with our sunny climate we often enjoy saussare sizzles. [Biased]

But it is also obvious that baptism need not involve water. If I say that someone has had a "baptism of fire", do assume that they necessarily got wet?

--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care

Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dark Knight

Super Zero
# 9415

 - Posted      Profile for Dark Knight   Email Dark Knight   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
And that Paul himself, while using the ritual of water baptism, didn't seem to think it all that important - judging by his comments in 1 Cor 1

I have to say that I think this remark is eisegetical. Clearly from the verses you have quoted Paul is expressing thankfulness that he was not responsible for baptising many of the Corinthians, because of the factionalism that was resulting in the congregation.

This in no way indicates that Paul thought water baptism was no big deal. He might have thought that, but you have not established it from this section.

I think that Paul's statement in verse 17
quote:
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel
does actually relativise the importance of baptism for Paul, when compared to the task of preaching.

If it is relativised this simply means Paul thought of it as less important than preaching the gospel, which is a long way from saying it wasn't all that important to him, which is what you initially said.

quote:
quote:
And the rest of your post does not explain why Paul is not talking about water baptism as the symbol of what is taking place in a person's identification with the death and resurrection of Christ in Romans 6.
That may be because I wasn't actually saying that, rather it was your eisegesis of my post. The first sentence of my post was...
quote:
With out removing, at this stage, the possibility that Paul is including the ritual baptism with water...


I wasn't eisegeting your post. I just assumed that your post would be addressing the OP. In those terms, while this assertion is a valid and possibly defensible one:

quote:
I think that Paul in Romans 6 is primarily talking about the experience of being identified with Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (becoming a Christian) that may have been closely associated with the ritual of water baptism in that culture.
You have still not made clear why you think the primary reference to baptism here is not to water baptism. And I happen to believe the burden of proof is upon you to do so.

--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me
- A B Original: I C U

----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).

Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
But it is also obvious that baptism need not involve water. If I say that someone has had a "baptism of fire", do assume that they necessarily got wet?

In contemporary English, it's certainly the case that as in your "baptism of fire" example that the word 'baptism' can be used in instances where there is no water involved. But, such use is almost always with the meaning "initiation", which is an extension of the practise of baptising people with water as an initiation into the Christian church. And, that in itself is a corruption because Christian baptism isn't exactly an initiation - it's far more than that.

So, even in contemporary English where there are examples of idiomatic water-less baptisms, these still draw their meaning from a common understanding of an initiation ceremony involving water.

If Romans 6 is about an idiomatic use of the word 'baptism' to indicate something other than the actually baptism with water that believers received, then it's not clear that that's the case (unlike the much more obvious "baptism by fire" or "baptism with the Spirit").

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
As long as you acknowledge this point, we have no dispute about the exact meaning of the word. I agree that Peter is saying more than this.
I'm not letting you away with that so easily! Now you're bending my words into a shape that suits!! You still haven't conceded, let alone answered, the point I made that the root meaning of baptizo is connected with immersion in/wetting by water. I do have a dispute with you about the exact meaning of the word, dammit!

And "Peter" isn't "saying more than this". He's saying something different to what you say he said. You say he said that baptism was, inter alia (don't think I missed that you blinked!) "the removal of dirt fom the body" (i.e. "washing" - which you said is the meaning of baptizo. I Peter explicitly says that it isn't that.

Baptizo means I immerse, dip, flood, inundate, make wet with water. Then, in different contexts, it can mean other stuff. It can mean wash - but not when the text says it doesn't mean "wash"!!!

It seems to me that the more you try to get off the reef which has holed your argument beneath the waterline, the more you take on... er... wetting-agent. [Big Grin]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry, I suggested that βαπτιζω means "dip". I think it's more correct to say that it's βαπτω that means "dip" - along with many of the other meanings of βαπτιζω. I remember coming across an article years ago that held that βαπτιζω was a Jewish/Christian extension of βαπτω: I'm not sure this is consistent with the dates of occurrences cited in Liddell and Scott, but if it is it actually suggests that - as Alan Cresswell has suggested is true for contemporary usage - the conjunction of "wetting with water" and "rite" may be integral to the word's root meaning from the start. But as I say, I'm not sure about that.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Baptizo means I immerse, dip, flood, inundate, make wet with water. Then, in different contexts, it can mean other stuff.

I have a lexicon which cites contemporary secular use of the NT vocabulary. There is a citation from around 150 B.C. where a form of βαπτιζω is used to mean that someone is overwhelmed (by calamities).

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Moo - Liddell and Scott have similar citations, but the derivation is as metaphor from the primary meaning of immersion in water, inundation, etc.

Interestingly, on "overwhelm" itself, Merriam Webster online suggests
quote:
Etymology: Middle English, from 1over + whelmen to turn over, cover up
1 : UPSET, OVERTHROW
2 a : to cover over completely : SUBMERGE b : to overcome by superior force or numbers c : to overpower in thought or feeling

Whereas The Free Dictionary is even more waterlogged!
quote:
o·ver·whelm (vr-hwlm, -wlm)
tr.v. o·ver·whelmed, o·ver·whelm·ing, o·ver·whelms
1. To surge over and submerge; engulf: waves overwhelming the rocky shoreline.
2.
a. To defeat completely and decisively: Our team overwhelmed the visitors by 40 points.
b. To affect deeply in mind or emotion: Despair overwhelmed me.
3. To present with an excessive amount: They overwhelmed us with expensive gifts.
4. To turn over; upset: The small craft was overwhelmed by the enormous waves.

And the Online Etymology Dictionary
quote:
overwhelm
c.1330, "to turn upside down, to overthrow," from over + M.E. whelmen "to turn upside down" (see whelm). Meaning "to submerge completely" is c.1450. Perhaps the connecting notion is a boat, etc., washed over, and overset, by a big wave. Fig. sense of "to bring to ruin" is attested from 1529.

This ain't getting any drier! I hope Gordon Cheng responds soon, or he'll be quite - er... overwhelmed! [Big Grin]

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Al Eluia

Inquisitor
# 864

 - Posted      Profile for Al Eluia   Email Al Eluia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Al Eluia:
quote:
Noah and his family may have been sprinkled a bit with rain before they got in the Ark,
No, that's not how the typology works in Christian tradition. Noah and his family are the people who pass from an old, dead world to a renewed world through the waters of the flood, which is what we do in baptism.
Oh yes, I understand that. I just thought it was funny to look at the imagery as I did--I often find the oddball way to look at the scriptures.

--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/

Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Psyduck

Ship's vacant look
# 2270

 - Posted      Profile for Psyduck   Author's homepage   Email Psyduck   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, since you put it that way, Al - and man, I've been fighting against this - since I came across this whole business of flood-typology in Liturgical Studies,I've had a weird mental picture of Noah and family in oilskins and sou'westers, and the Ark crashing through the waves at 50 knots like a lifeboat, and the camera zooming out, and it's all a giant baptismal font... [Paranoid] And the background music is the theme from Hawaii 5-0. [Help]

Is there a support group, I wonder...?

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228

 - Posted      Profile for MSHB   Email MSHB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For what it is worth, I can see only one thing regularly called baptism in the NT. It involved the application of H20. As Paul wrote: "There is one baptism..."

The phrase "baptise in the Holy Spirit" I only ever see in a stock formula relating John and Christ: "John baptised you with water, but the One who comes after will baptise you with the Holy Spirit". This stock formula about John and Christ occurs 6 times in the NT, if I remember correctly (once in each gospel, and twice in Acts).

There is no evidence to my mind that the first century Christians ever used this phrase outside this stock formula comparing John and Christ. Talk about "water baptism" and "Spirit baptism" I can only see as totally foreign to the language and understanding of the NT church. I think a first century Christian would be bewildered by such modern terminology. They only knew one thing by the name "baptism" in ordinary every-day language - and it involved getting wet.

The testimony of the early church also seems unequivocally in favour of baptism as the watery rite of entry into the Christian covenant.

The difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism has nothing to do with the element of water as such. John's baptism was an act of repentance; Christian baptism is an act of repentence AND receiving the indwelling Lord. John's baptism was a mere preparation for the coming of the gospel; Christian baptism actually takes up the whole bundle of blessings that come with the Gospel.

Putting a holding deposit on a house is not the same thing as settling the contract and moving in. I can imagine many Jews agreeing with John's message ("The Messiah is coming; Get ready") but baulking at Jesus ("You are the Messiah, The Son of the Living God"). John's baptism was open-ended: *a* Messiah is coming, look for Him. Christian baptism is "narrow": *this* is the Messiah, submit to *Him*.

--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Well, since you put it that way, Al - and man, I've been fighting against this - since I came across this whole business of flood-typology in Liturgical Studies,I've had a weird mental picture of Noah and family in oilskins and sou'westers, and the Ark crashing through the waves at 50 knots like a lifeboat, and the camera zooming out, and it's all a giant baptismal font... [Paranoid] And the background music is the theme from Hawaii 5-0. [Help]

Is there a support group, I wonder...?

[Killing me] BTW, with you over meaning. Earlier, I suggested that there is some evidence of allegorical use by Jesus - but that doesn't alter the plain meaning of the word.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Psyduck:
quote:
This ain't getting any drier! I hope Gordon Cheng responds soon, or he'll be quite - er... overwhelmed!
Still waiting. [Snore]

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools