Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

(Please insert a pun here about throwing out the baby with the baptismal water.)

---

If you are a somewhat dyspraxic clergyperson with a vivid imagination, and a firmer grasp of liturgy than of material objects, this is something you don't joke about!!!

--------------------
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)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Grey Whistler:
Ok... got me.

Substitute regeneration for conversion and see if my post makes sense then.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Grey Whistler:
Regeneration = being born (again or from above) as in Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus in John 3.

Without one will not even see the Kingdom of God even if one is a child of the covenant (as Nicodemus undoubtedly was).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Grey Whistler:
Ok... got me.

Substitute regeneration for conversion and see if my post makes sense then.

---

Not really. In my experience, regeneration takes place after conversion.

And a kid who's always been a Christian - what does regeneration mean in their case?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
But the truth of the matter Numps is that neither infant or adult baptism ensures faithfulness. I know plenty of adults who have received a believers baptism and stopped believing, often with an ensuing guilt complex.

P

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
But the truth of the matter Numps is that neither infant or adult baptism ensures faithfulness.

P

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I found Moo's example fascinating.

---

quote:

---

1. The basic meaning of baptism must involve water, and Psyduck's earlier summary of what the lexicons say is no different to what I think.

---

quote:

---

But no need to go outside the four gospels. Does anyone dispute that 'baptism' in Mark 10:39 is metaphorical, and involves no water whatsoever?

---

quote:

---

3. As for the Romans 6 of OP, I think it is metaphorical but I lack the energy to deny that water could be involved. I don't think it is, and it seems both bizarre and out of context to assert that it must.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The great thing about Baptism of conscious believers is that it is a fixed point in their history from which Paul can argue in Romans 6.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon Cheng:

quote:

---

I found Moo's example fascinating.

---

Moo's example is completely beside the point. It's paralleled by numbers of citations in Liddell and Scott, all of which are clearly metaphors based on inundation, as is hers. I said this previously. Indeed you yourself said

quote:

---

1. The basic meaning of baptism must involve water, and Psyduck's earlier summary of what the lexicons say is no different to what I think.

---

Which means that you are contradicting yourself here.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Me: But no need to go outside the four gospels. Does anyone dispute that 'baptism' in Mark 10:39 is metaphorical, and involves no water whatsoever?

---

quote:

---

Psyduck: I do. For the same reason. I said so above. I think that was also Alan Cresswell's point above.

"Baptism" here means "initiation", means Christian initiation, through water, invoking the death of Christ.

---

You say this even though water is not mentioned in the Mark passage, and the context dictates that something other than water is on view.

quote:

---

3. As for the Romans 6 of OP, I think it is metaphorical but I lack the energy to deny that water could be involved. I don't think it is, and it seems both bizarre and out of context to assert that it must.

---

You are simply asserting this. You haven't actually argued it anywhere.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Not true; I've already noted that the context nowhere mentions water, and that the flow of the argument is entirely to do with Christ's death. The context suggests a metaphorical usage.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Not true; I've already noted that the context nowhere mentions water, and that the flow of the argument is entirely to do with Christ's death. The context suggests a metaphorical usage.

---

Paul's reference begins with an "unmarked" use of the term "baptism": "are ye ignorant that all we who were baptised into Christ Jesus..." (6.3 (RV)). Paul is referring to something that is common knowledge, common experience - so much so that he feels free to say "Or are ye ignorant?" He is talking about Christian A-B-C stuff here, something that any Christian would know - so he doesn't need to spell out the details of what "baptism" is.

---

That is, I think, the strongest argument for the Romans 6 'baptism' to be one that involves water. (Oh, and thanks for changing your name MSHB, an act of great kindness to the entire community ) Even here, however, it assumes that the early Christians knew of no other baptism than one that involved water. But I do think, pace Psyduck, that Mark 10 is an example of non-water baptism; likewise I think that when Jesus commands baptism "into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" in Mt 28, he is saying a new (and metaphorical) thing. Otherwise he could simply have commanded baptism, and left the statement unqualified in any way.

quote:

---

But a very different question. If you were preaching a sermon to a mixed group of people (i.e. Christians and non-Christians), and somebody came up to you afterwards and said, "I was really struck by what you said about Christ rising from the dead and being Lord ... How do I become a Christian?" - what would you answer?

---

quote:

---

What does the evangelised, convicted non-Christian need to do to "tie the knot" or "step over the line" or "join the club"? I am not asking for a scripturally correct answer here, but for what you would in practice do. What would happen at Sydney Anglican churches if someone expressed a desire to become a Christian?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

(I said) You are simply asserting this. You haven't actually argued it anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true;

---

quote:

---

I've already noted [read] stated - unsupported] that the context nowhere mentions water,

---

quote:

---

and that the flow of the argument [see how hardit is to keep references to liquid out of it!!] is entirely to do with Christ's death.

---

quote:

---

The context suggests a metaphorical usage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
likewise I think that when Jesus commands baptism "into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" in Mt 28, he is saying a new (and metaphorical) thing. Otherwise he could simply have commanded baptism, and left the statement unqualified in any way.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I've already noted [read] stated - unsupported] that the context nowhere mentions water,

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
likewise I think that when Jesus commands baptism "into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" in Mt 28, he is saying a new (and metaphorical) thing. Otherwise he could simply have commanded baptism, and left the statement unqualified in any way.

---

Jesus would need to qualify his command because there were a number of different baptisms on the market. There was the baptism of repentance that John performed, and quite possibly some of Johns disciples were continuing to perform. Baptism formed part of the process by which God-fearing Gentiles became accepted within the Jewish faith. These were all baptisms that involved water.

---

quote:

---

I suspect that the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" bit is a fairly late addition to the tradition to counter movements that were only performing baptisms into the name of Jesus or the Father (or, indeed, only considered Spirit Baptism to be valid).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
(Oh, and thanks for changing your name MSHB, an act of great kindness to the entire community )

---

quote:

---

Psyduck and others will probably point out that in Acts 17, the jailer and his household were baptised, and that in the context it's hard to see that this could be anything other than water baptism.

---

quote:

---

That is fair enough, and I wouldn't want to deprive new Christians of an important symbol of belief.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:
You see baptism as merely a symbol - an act, that describes a person's turning to God, performed *after* that turning has taken place. I see (and think the NT sees) baptism as the actual, initial act of commitment or turning itself - like an immigrant taking the oath of allegiance (Latin sacramentum) and *thereby* becoming an Australian citizen. Until I sign a cheque, my intention to transfer money is a mere subjective plan; once I sign the cheque, the transfer is authorised - I am committed to it. Ditto signing the contract of sale when buying a house. These are not mere symbols - they are commitments. NT baptism was no mere symbol (a concept foreign to the NT church) but an actual life-changing act of commitment.

8< etc.- lots of good stuff >8

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the baptism that Jesus brought was into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whether it involved water can't be assumed

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I suspect that the "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" bit is a fairly late addition to the tradition to counter movements that were only performing baptisms into the name of Jesus or the Father (or, indeed, only considered Spirit Baptism to be valid).

---

Textual evidence please?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
the baptism that Jesus brought was into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Whether it involved water can't be assumed

---

I can point to numerous examples where water was certainly involved. In fact I did so earlier, and MSHB has also repeated many of those references. Can you point to a single example of someone being baptised where there's certainly no water involved?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:

*1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 15, Galatians 3, Ephesians 4, Colossians 2, 1 Peter 3 (1 Cor 10 and Heb 6 are references to Jewish washings. Interestingly 1 Corinthians 10 necessarily involves no contact between the believer and any water whatsoever, or they are not saved)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:
And the Ethiopian eunuch, "Behold, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptised?" (8.36ff) - very clearly *water* baptism.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MSHB:
And the Ethiopian eunuch, "Behold, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptised?" (8.36ff) - very clearly *water* baptism.

---

Indeed and the other thing which strikes me about that story each time we here it (as we did at Mass one day this week) is that Philip's explanation of the scriptures to him (starting from Isaiah 53) and who Jesus was obviously included explaining baptism so that he knew to ask for it. This indicates to me that baptism (in water) was an essential part of the early Christian message.

Carys

---

No question that the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism was a water baptism. However, as a Jewish proselyte who was completely convinced of the truth of the Jewish religion (Acts 8:27) and had come to Jerusalem to worship, there is also no question that he would have been completely familiar with the various Jewish baptisms that were on offer. Perhaps, I speculate, he was relieved to find a method of initiation into a clearly Jewish religion that didn't involve the use of a knife on his delicate bits.

Oh and just fill me in again on where any reference to baptism, or water, can be found in Isaiah 53? Although I suppose Isaiah 53:12, "he poured out his soul" is a clear and unmistakeable reference to the flowing water of the Jordan, so perhaps that's what you are referring to

[ 23. April 2006, 23:26: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

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

Posted                          

quote:

---

originally posted by Gordon Cheng
In the epistles, all the references to Christian baptism are metaphorical except for Paul's dismissive comments in 1 Corinthians 1. Apart from 1 Corinthians 1 there are 6 references in the epistles to baptism of Christians*, and they all occur in the context of other discussions. They are best understood as an inclusion into the sufferings and death of Christ, ie the baptism of Mark 10:38-39.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
In the epistles, all the references to Christian baptism are metaphorical except for Paul's dismissive comments in 1 Corinthians 1. Apart from 1 Corinthians 1 there are 6 references in the epistles to baptism of Christians*, and they all occur in the context of other discussions. They are best understood as an inclusion into the sufferings and death of Christ, ie the baptism of Mark 10:38-39.

---

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15 is a proxy baptism on behalf of a dead person, and despite NT precedent is not practised by major Christian denominations.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Oh and just fill me in again on where any reference to baptism, or water, can be found in Isaiah 53? Although I suppose Isaiah 53:12, "he poured out his soul" is a clear and unmistakeable reference to the flowing water of the Jordan, so perhaps that's what you are referring to

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

(I said) And many of us disagree. But all you do, Gordon, is state it again.

Okaaay... where does Paul mention 'water' in Romans?

---

quote:

---

I think that when Jesus commands baptism "into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" in Mt 28, he is saying a new (and metaphorical) thing. Otherwise he could simply have commanded baptism, and left the statement unqualified in any way.

---

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, how would you explain the fact that Jesus baptized no-one?

---

quote:

---

But I do think, pace Psyduck, that Mark 10 is an example of non-water baptism;

---

quote:

---

Psyduck and others will probably point out that in Acts 17, the jailer and his household were baptised, and that in the context it's hard to see that this could be anything other than water baptism.

---

quote:

---

But notice that the cause of rejoicing (in Acts 17 :34 and today) is believing in God.

---

quote:

---

Some churches invite people to show their commitment by walking up to the front of the church and joining in a public prayer prayed by the preacher. Others ask people to pray that prayer privately and to fill in a form indicating that they've done this. Either way, you would expect the person to be put in contact with another Christian and followed up in some way, eg by doing a short series of bible studies on what it means to be a Christian.

---

quote:

---

No question that the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism was a water baptism. However, as a Jewish proselyte who was completely convinced of the truth of the Jewish religion (Acts 8:27) and had come to Jerusalem to worship, there is also no question that he would have been completely familiar with the various Jewish baptisms that were on offer.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps, I speculate, he was relieved to find a method of initiation into a clearly Jewish religion that didn't involve the use of a knife on his delicate bits.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Out of curiosity, how would you explain the fact that Jesus baptized no-one?

---

Like Paul (I Cor 1.17), that wasn't his personal ministry. As Paul expected others to baptise the converts, so Christ delegated that task to his disciples ("Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples)" Jn 4.2 (WEB)). Maybe he was getting them into practice for the Great Commission!

quote:

---

And what is your view of the thief on the cross? That he would of if he could of?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? ESV

---

quote:

---

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? NIV

---

quote:

---

Else what shall they do, that be baptized for dead men, if in no wise dead men rise again [if in all manner dead men rise not again]? whereto [also] be they baptized for them? John Wycliffe

---

quote:

---

Else what shall they do, that be baptized for dead men [i.e. a theoreticallty dead Jesus], if in no wise dead men rise again?

---

• It is a proclamation of the gospel for Jesus i.e. He is risen In other words water baptism ceases to have meaning if the person into whom one is baptised is dead. You can't be baptised for the dead! Water baptism and Christ's resurrection are categorically inseparable. If Christ is dead, baptism is meaningless: this is Paul's point.
• It is an act of worship. It is done for Jesus; it is a Jesus-ward action. It is for Jesus inasmuch as it glorifies Jesus (see 1 Cor 10.31). Christians do things for the glory of God, including baptism.
• It is an act of obedience inasmuch as it is for Jesus.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
The guy was a eunuch for pity’s sake! Do you seriously think that if he was willing to forgo his cojones for a civil service job and pension [initially misspelled that ‘penison’ – who says there’s nothing in Freud…] he would have flinched at a nick somewhere else for the sake of the Kingdom?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb
I think that the ESV's 'on behalf of' is a mistranslation that alters the entire meaning of the text by introducing an entirely erronoeous category into the argument.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t-tomb
I think that the ESV's 'on behalf of' is a mistranslation that alters the entire meaning of the text by introducing an entirely erronoeous category into the argument.

---

Both the Greek υπερ and English for can mean 'in behalf of', 'for the sake of'.

Moo

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon Cheng

quote:

---

(I said) And many of us disagree. But all you do, Gordon, is state it again.

Okaaay... where does Paul mention 'water' in Romans?

---

In the word ‘baptize’. You have already accepted that every time the word baptize is used, the idea of water is present.

---