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 3)

 - 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
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 Alan Cresswell:
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.

A metaphor only works if it uses something that people recognise and understand; hence for 'baptism' to be used metaphorically then the people reading the Epistles would need to know what 'baptism' is.
I understand the metaphor. You understand the metaphor. My dog Tilly understands the metaphor. Psyduck doesn't understand the metaphor, but only because he is committed to not understanding it [Biased]

quote:
Rather than being some vaguely understood rite that the Jews performed, it's actually (IMO) far more likely that a) all Christians had been baptised in water and hence knew the rite, and that b) part of Christian baptism even then was an understanding that baptism was, in a way, a sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ.
[italics mine]

"far more likely" is about as far as you can get on this, I think. For my money, "posibly more likely, depending on what part of the empire you were in" is even better.

If you were a Christian in Rome and you only had Mark's gospel or a verbal or written precursor that closely resembled Mark's gospel—not an implausible hypothesis before Paul's letter arrived—I doubt very much that, on the evidence in Mark, you would go ahead and conclude that water baptism was normal for all Christians. In Mark 7:3, Mark even has to explain this odd Jewish baptism thing for his readers so they can understand what is going on. I imagine the Gentile Roman hearer sitting there scratching his head saying "Those nutty Jews seem to want to baptize anything that moves and a lot that doesn't. Better keep my kids away from them after ekklesia on Sabbath."

Actually, when Paul's letter arrived, given that the word "baptism" only occurred once and then not in connection with water, the Roman Gentile reader would still not (I suspect) feel motivated to rush out, build a font or find the Tiber, and do the water baptism thang.

quote:
I'm going to admit that Pauls passing reference to baptism in 1 Cor 15 isn't entirely clear what he's talking about. Certainly some practice in Corinth he can appeal to as part of his argument that there will be a resurrection. But beyond that it could be almost anything. It could even be just a washing of the body of the deceased (with water) before burial.
Hear hear.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would think the reason Jesus baptized no one personally was a pretty easy one--because if that was on offer, nobody would ever choose to go to his disciples instead. His arms would drop off.

Unfortunately this same argument for why he didn't baptize has equal or greater force when applied to demon-casting-out or other far more obvious signs of the coming of God's kingdom. Yet it didn't stop Jesus from doing these other activities that he could've delegated to his disciples, thus (if he had delegated) making his own job much easier.

I'd be much more inclined to say, as someone else did, that Jesus (like Paul after him) didn't have a ministry of baptizing. There were more important things to be doing.

[ 24. April 2006, 22:22: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

--------------------
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 Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would think the reason Jesus baptized no one personally was a pretty easy one--because if that was on offer, nobody would ever choose to go to his disciples instead. His arms would drop off.

Unfortunately this same argument for why he didn't baptize has equal or greater force when applied to demon-casting-out or other far more obvious signs of the coming of God's kingdom. Yet it didn't stop Jesus from doing these other activities that he could've delegated to his disciples, thus (if he had delegated) making his own job much easier.
Except, of course, for the ones that could only be driven out by prayer and fasting.

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

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  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 Alan Cresswell:
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 [Biased]

If you read the account in Acts it says Philip told him about Jesus starting from the Isaiah passage. Of course, the Acts account is a very short summary of the conversation. I'm sure that a fair bit of biographical information about Jesus would have been imparted by Philip (the Ethiopian may well have heard a lot of stories about Jesus anyway), a mention of John the Baptist wouldn't have been that unusual - it's recorded in the Gospels we have, so why not in the material used by Philip and others in telling people about Jesus?
Thank you Alan, for understanding what I wrote. I did not say that baptism was mentioned in Isaiah 53, but as you emphasise that that was the starting point for a discussion which obviously involved baptism as the eunuch proceeded to ask for it the moment he saw water!

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
You have misread, or I have miswrote. Or actually, I suspect something else is going on, which shows why our impasse on Romans 6 is possibly insurmountable. I believe that you have radically misunderstood the nature of metaphor because of your prior commitment to the view that the word 'baptize' must, on each and every occurrence of that word, involve water.

Whereas I would say that you have radically misunderstood because of your determination that this passage isn't about Christian baptism in water. This is in fact the point from which this entire thread started as I cited this passage as an example of where I thought evangelicals brought their prior pre-suppositions (about the non-sacramental nature of baptism in this case) to their reading of the text and thus misunderstood what appears to me as a sacramentalist to be the plain meaning of the text!

Carys

[ism/ist what's the difference?]

[ 24. April 2006, 22:55: Message edited by: 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:
Thank you Alan, for understanding what I wrote. I did not say that baptism was mentioned in Isaiah 53, but as you emphasise that that was the starting point for a discussion which obviously involved baptism as the eunuch proceeded to ask for it the moment he saw water!

At least you can acknowledge that what you've done is argue from silence, as there is no mention of water at any point in the text until the eunuch brings it up. So no, the discussion didn't obviously involve baptism. It is equally reasonable to assume that the eunuch asked because he was familiar with baptismal traditions, having spent a great deal of his spare time in the company of Jews (and we know this because the text tells us, so this is not an argument from silence). And Jews were into baptisms, as any fule or reader of Mark 7:3 kno.

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Whereas I would say that you have radically misunderstood because of your determination that this passage isn't about Christian baptism in water.

I don't say it isn't. I'd probably tend towards agnosticism on this question. You just have to argue it on a better basis than "my lexicon says so". But I've already explained why I have a slight tendency to think that it's not a baptism involving water.

[ 24. April 2006, 23:08: Message edited by: Gordon Cheng ]

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

I would explain it by saying that baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church. Therefore, baptism could make sense only after Jesus had died and had risen, and in fact was only possible after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Carys said:
quote:
This is in fact the point from which this entire thread started as I cited this passage as an example of where I thought evangelicals brought their prior pre-suppositions (about the non-sacramental nature of baptism in this case) to their reading of the text and thus misunderstood what appears to me as a sacramentalist to be the plain meaning of the text!
With respect, I'm about as evangelical as they come and I don't have a problem with sacraments; sacramenatalism perhaps, but not sacraments. It's perfectly possible to hold an evangelical view of the sacraments that isn't contrary to Anglican doctrine: in fact I'd venture to say that historical Anglican sacramental doctrine is evangelical.

Again, when it comes to paedo-baptism, it is well worth doing some research into the covenantal theology of classical Puritanism before you suggest that evangelicals are naturally opposed to the practice. I for one - along with my Anglican evangelicals - believe very strongly in infant baptism from a biblical perspective.

However, I do think that Gordon has a point regarding Romans 6. It is not always necesssary for baptism in the NT to refer exclusively to ritual immersion or sprinkling with water. For example Jesus does refer to his death as a baptism (Luke 12.49-51); John does 'preach' baptism; in other words there was a kerygmatic element to baptism that required a response. John's baptism was not meaningful or effecatious in and of itself; it was a sign that accompanied the preaching of repentance. But that was John's baptism.

However, the very fact that part of the apostolic proclamation of Christ is to differentiate between John's baptism and Christian baptism: in other words Christian proclamation seems to have involved differentiation and clarification regarding these two different "baptisms" (Hebrews 6.2).

But this in itself doesn't mean that Christian baptism stopped involving water; in all probability 'instruction about baptisms' in the early church was necessary precisely because these baptisms looked the same! Certainly the Apostle Peter drew a salvation-historical type of baptism in the flood narrative; now that's a lot of water (1 Peter 3:20-22) to explain away if you hold firmly to Gordon's metaphorical view.

Peter clearly links water baptism with the resurrection in this passage, as does Paul in 1 Cor 15. It seems fairly likely to me on this basis that Romans 6.5, "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his." is a reference to water baptism as per 1 Peter 3.21, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

[ 25. April 2006, 05:18: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 
Gordon Cheng: We're all wasting time here. I think your position is rapidly losing its integrity. You concede things, then withdraw them in the next sentence. (Example below.) Your posts insinuate, but don't substantiate. I think it's possible to illustrate how potty your position is from one passage of yours. I'm quoting in full, and including a reference to a post of Moo's which I previously dealt with, so that you can't acculse me of sleight of hand.
quote:
I think we agree on these things:

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.

2. Baptism can have an extended metaphorical meaning, not only in present-day usage but in 1st-2nd century usage.

(My emphasis, but your words.) Nobody disagrees with this. Nobody at all. And you say, without a break:

quote:
I found Moo's example fascinating. 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?

The point of its being a metaphor is that it involves no "baptism" whatever. The idea of baptism is what is present, and the "idea" of baptism is what's important. The "idea" of baptism is what makes it a metaphor.

And the idea of baptism is what the lexical argument is all about.

Let me make it really simple for you. The word βαπτιζω and also βαπτω which it seems to derive from, mean something uncommonly like "dunk". We could have all sorts of linguistic and philosohical discussions about what we mean by "means" - but I reckon that if you'd been up for that, we'd have done it by now. So - a threefold suggestion.

1) I invite you to substitute the word "dunk" for the word "baptize" in each baptismal passage in the NT, and show us how such refrerences can be construed as being to waterless baptism.

2) I invite you to give a dictionary-type definition of βαπτιζω for those passages in which you say it's referent is non-water, non-sacramental. (The only one I've seen is "wash" - and you withdrew that when I demonstrated it was rubbish.)

3) I invite you to come up with an extra-scriptural usage of βαπτιζω that sugests that the primary meaning in that context is what you say it is in the non-water passages.

--------------------
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
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I would think the reason Jesus baptized no one personally was a pretty easy one--because if that was on offer, nobody would ever choose to go to his disciples instead. His arms would drop off.

Unfortunately this same argument for why he didn't baptize has equal or greater force when applied to demon-casting-out or other far more obvious signs of the coming of God's kingdom. Yet it didn't stop Jesus from doing these other activities that he could've delegated to his disciples, thus (if he had delegated) making his own job much easier.
No doubt people would have preferred to have their miracles "directly from the source." Yet there's a sense of urgency, even panic, when it comes to healing, demon-ousting, etc. that doesn't usually exist with baptism. Faced with a resident demon, I'd certainly grab the first apostle to hand rather than waiting around for Jesus. Even if the apostle at hand were Judas.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  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 Gordon Cheng:
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)

Oops, meant to include Romans 6 and exclude 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 15 is a proxy baptism on behalf of a dead person, and despite NT precedent is not practised by major Christian denominations.
It is a sound principle of interpretation that any passage which is consistent with both opposing views proves neither.

I read all these passages (Rom 6, 1 Cor 12, Gal 3, Eph 4, Col 2, 1 Pet 3) as references to "baptism" in the unmarked sense, that is, baptism in water. In fact, given that this discussion relates to the interpretation of Romans 6 on this very point, it would be begging the question to adduce that passage as evidence of your "figurative baptism" viewpoint.

You may well be used to reading these passages with a purely figurative "baptism" in mind. I am used to reading these passages with a literal "water baptism" in mind. I acknowledge that one may make some edifying sense of them either way, though to me they naturally make more sense as references to literal baptism. I cannot (and ought not) concede that they are evidence that references to "baptism" in the epistles were generally only figurative, because they all make sense to me in a non-figurative sense. What is consistent with both viewpoints is proof of neither.

It is true that these passages don't spell out in detail what "baptism" is; they take it for granted that the readers already know. If every Christian was baptised in water as their Christian initiation, these passages make perfect sense as referring their watery initiation. The readers would all, everyone of them, have experienced baptism "in water" and would understand exactly what Paul meant without Paul needing to explain the physical details.

Further discussion would involve a detailed exposition of Paul's (or Peter's) argument in each passage. As a general statement, though, I do not see anything in Paul's arguments in those passages that requires or benefits from a purely figurative "baptism" - and I would think such a figurative baptism would actually weaken his argument in some, maybe all, those passages.

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

Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gordon, if all of these passages do not refer to water baptism where can we go in scripture for our theology of baptism? Are you really saying that the Holy Spirit hasn't provided enough information about baptism in the Scriptures for us to make an informed decision about what it actually means and how we actually do it? It seemes to me that you really are suggesting that the church is wrong to consider baptism to be an ordinance of Christ.

Surely you are in danger of throwing the bathwater out with the baby?

[ 25. April 2006, 09:07: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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:
Gordon Cheng: We're all wasting time here. I think your position is rapidly losing its integrity. You concede things, then withdraw them in the next sentence. (Example below.) 8< snips because I'm trying to deal with one point at a time >8

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.

2. Baptism can have an extended metaphorical meaning, not only in present-day usage but in 1st-2nd century usage.

(My emphasis, but your words.) Nobody disagrees with this. Nobody at all. And you say, without a break:

quote:
I found Moo's example fascinating. 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]

I can't see what your problem is, here, Psyduck. I'm really, really not meaning to be obtuse. The basic meaning of baptism involves water. The extended, metaphorical meaning doesn't have to, although it may.

Just confirm for me that this point is clear, would you, because I don't want to tackle the other points until this one's out of the way.

--------------------
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 
No, it's not clear at all. I don't think it's clear to anyone else on this thread. You say:
quote:
The basic meaning of baptism involves water. The extended, metaphorical meaning doesn't have to, although it may.

The basic meaning of baptism involves water. We all agree.

The basic meaning of Christian baptism is a rite of admission involving water. I take it we all agree.

The extended, metaphorical use of baptism - inasmuch as we accept that the use is "metaphorical", and I reserve my position on that, as it's clear to me that "metaphorical" is your preferred alternative to "sacramental" - depends directly on its use in the Christian community as a rite of admission. Romans 6 certainly is not an exception to this.

The one possible exception to this - Mark 10 - still retains its connotations of water, inundation.immersion, etc.

I think a fairly close analogy to your argument would be someone arguing that a teacher's use of "high-flying" to speak of a good student has, as metaphor, nothing whatever to do with leaving the ground and soaring through the air because leaving the ground and soaring through the air aren't actually involved in being a "high-flying student."

Gordon, metaphor just doesn't work like this.

--------------------
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:

Gordon, metaphor just doesn't work like this.

Doesn't it?

I have known more than one high-flying student over the years, and never once in my life have I seen them leave the ground.

Now I grant that something must have left the ground, at some time in history for the idea of a "high-flying student" to make sense to me or to others, but the student's altitude is of almost complete irrelevance to me understanding your metaphor, er, what you are getting at.

--------------------
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 
In any case, the clincher is the structure of what Paul actually says in Romans 6:3.

quote:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Wouldn't Paul, if he'd intended baptism as a metaphor, have left out the highlighted words? Wouldn't he just have said "Do you not know that all of us have been baptized into the death of Christ Jesus?" Or as you'd have it: "Do you not know that all of us have been 'baptized' into the death of Christ Jesus?" The repetition of the verb seems to me to settle it. It's even clearer in the Greek, I think.

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

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

I think it is the clincher. Even if you take the "immerse" interpretation to mean, sometimes, other than water, the language is conclusive. There may be double meanings about (in fact I think there are) but the central link is always water. Mixing my metaphors, all the metaphorical uses flow out of the baptism/water essential link. It is the root link in the thought world from which we have been given the NT language and therefore all considerations of baptism and its meaning must deal with its root connection with water first.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I've said before, I think it is possible to consider baptism to be an immersion into the reality of the Trinity. After all, what is more important; the water or the Trinity? The Trinity of course! What are we baptised into if we are not baptised into God? Water baptism signifies, seals, and ratifies an immersion into the life of God, the Trinitarian reality.

What Gordon is saying is that getting wet is irrelevant if one does not understand it to be a rite that points to a greater reality that isn't watery. However, when one does understand baptism to be about more that water - that the water in fact changes significance during the sacramental act - then it is perfectly acceptable to say that Christian baptism means more that the rite which uses water. It is about immersion into the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that the argument is about whether the water that points to the reality of immersion in the life of God is ontologically effectual or ontologically corroborative. Gordon says it's corroborative and therefore inessential to the Christian identity. Psyduck says that it's effectual and essential to the Christian identity.

But is there a third, forth and fifth way of looking at this? Is teh argument really polarised between these two views?

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

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

That is wonderfully clear. Intuitively, my instincts for unity push me towards a "not either/or" but "both/and" view - and baptism is one of those issues which provokes this in me. About the only thing I'm completely convinced about is this. Water has always been for washing. Its use in baptism has always been for cleansing. The corroborative view after conversion does not obviously rule out water baptism as an effectual enabler, the effectual view of "water first" does not obviously rule out (in fact it seems to me to rule it in) significant "cutting to the heart" by the work of the Holy Spirit.

Regeneration and repentance. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? I know that's a banal way of putting it. My honest human perspective was that my "cutting to the heart" was very powerful. It precipitated a real first time and committed entry into the life of the church and was followed very quickly by believers' baptism. It was only later that it occurred to me that, as someone baptised as an infant, I may simply have been woken up from a long (over 30 years long) slumber. The fact that this discovery was made some time later does not appear to have done me much harm. You may see it as a failure of leadership in the church I joined - but they dont see it this way.

Sometimes I feel a bit like the man healed at the pool of Siloam. "All I know is this. Once I was blind but now I can see". So I hope there is a third way - but not a fourth or fifth. My head has enough trouble with the two I know.

--------------------
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
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This has been a great debate! I think, however, that we need to be careful we don’t commit the root fallacy James Barr warned against in his book The Semantics of Biblical Language (originally published OUP, 1961) of assuming etymology guides biblical interpretation. Word formation is not a sure guide to meaning: we can not demand, for example, that ‘to undertake’ is always the same as ‘to take under’, or that parakaleo must mean “call to one’s side” rather than, say, “request”. Dictionaries, after all, come after word usage, not before.

Does Baptizo necessarily mean ‘immerse in water’ in every biblical occurrence simply because it is derived from baptein ‘plunge something into’ or ‘sink’? Words change sense with time and the meaning of a Pauline word must be decided by what it meant in Paul’s day in the context he uses it, not what it meant in Plato or the Church Fathers. Context plays a decisive role in determining which sense of a word is intended. A word in isolation has the possibility of several senses; in a verbal context it usually has only one sense (unless - and this is the exception; not the rule, there is deliberate or accidental ambiguity, double entendre, or punning).

There are a number of possible reasons why Paul refers to Baptism in Rom. 6: a counter to the mystery cult initiation rites (e.g. immersing in the blood of a bull – which is hardly ‘washing’ and certainly not water!’); a reference to the physical act of water immersion upon conversion; a metaphorical link to dying and rising (and surely he did not intend ‘die’ and ‘be buried’ in verses 2 and 4 to be taken literally); etc., etc. Perhaps we are not yet in a position to show from the context which reference Paul was using here. We would need to know more than we currently do about the use of the word by Paul’s readers (in Rome?), as well as the 1st century BC usage by Jews.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  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 
Hi, Nigel M, and welcome aboard.
quote:
Word formation is not a sure guide to meaning: we can not demand, for example, that ‘to undertake’ is always the same as ‘to take under’, or that parakaleo must mean “call to one’s side” rather than, say, “request”. Dictionaries, after all, come after word usage, not before.

You are quite correct to note this, and it was something I had in mind as I posted. My point was the slightly narrower one that the word "baptizein" has a restricted and fairly specific field of meaning, and is used in a very small range of contexts in Christian literature, and, on context, Arndt and Gingrich say - rather more narrowly even than I've been arguing - that all the instances in Christian literature have reference to the baptismal rite.

I also note that the instances you give are all compounds, in which the interrelation of meaning-bearing components is an issue. I suppose this could be said about the relation between βαπτ- and -ιζ - (as compared to βαπτω) but I don’t think that any of this carries us any great distance from the meaning-range “dip, immerse etc.”, which was really my point.

Gordon Cheng’s point still seems to me to be that one can envisage a completely anhydrous, (though why he would say this – and he does – when he seems to want to connect baptism to washing) non-immersive “baptism”. I think that the lexicons, though bluntish instruments, are perfectly adequate for a rebuttal of this.

quote:
There are a number of possible reasons why Paul refers to Baptism in Rom. 6: a counter to the mystery cult initiation rites (e.g. immersing in the blood of a bull – which is hardly ‘washing’ and certainly not water!’);
That’s an interesting suggestion, the dear old taurobolium. (Frances Young gives a – literally – bloodcurdling description of this in Sacrifice and the Death of Christ.) That might be background, and Barratt notes affinities between Paul's thought and the hellenistic religious environment.

But the context of the verse is very definitely a dying-to-sin, and given this context, verse 3 makes no sense – to me, anyway – unless it supplies the sense in which the Christian “dies to sin” by “dying with Christ in baptism. I don’t think that leaves much room – or real reason - for a direct comparison with a specific other set of initiation rites.

quote:
Perhaps we are not yet in a position to show from the context which reference Paul was using here.
Actually, I think we are. As I said above, I really don't think that there's any way round the first instance of 'εβαπτσθημεν in v. 3, referring to the rite of baptism as administered to the addressees (and himself of course - interesting that Paul, so far from diminishing the significance of baptism should allude to his own)when they became Christian.

quote:
a metaphorical link to dying and rising (and surely he did not intend ‘die’ and ‘be buried’ in verses 2 and 4 to be taken literally); etc., etc.
I think that there’s a sense in which he did! Well, not literally as we might mean it, but in a sense sacramentally, (which is not the same as “metaphorically”) as a reality at the root of the reality we see and experience. Or maybe we could say, with Bultmann, “existentially”; the real reality of our living is that we have died to sin and risen to new life in Christ. This is the reality we grasp by faith. If we “metaphorize” that too much, we lose a huge amount of the meaning of Romans, and Paul generally: just look at the rest of the passage. I don’t think this is “metaphorical” language. Paul is her certainly talking about a form of Christian reality.
quote:

For if we have been united with him in a death like his [Barratt (New Century Bible)says that this “death like his” is baptism], we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus

I can’t read this without concluding that, for Paul, we are in a very real sense, dead to sin, and – typical Paul, the “already/not yet” – alive in Christ (as faith apprehends this) and awaiting participation in his resurrection. And I can’t but see this as linked to the rite of baptism with water. This, it seems to me, is Paul’s exegesis of the existence of the baptised Christian.

--------------------
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 MSHB:
It is a sound principle of interpretation that any passage which is consistent with both opposing views proves neither. <snips>

You may well be used to reading these passages with a purely figurative "baptism" in mind. <snip> I acknowledge that one may make some edifying sense of them either way, though to me they naturally make more sense as references to literal baptism.

Thank you for this comment, MSHB. I agree completely with the principle that a passage which is consistent with both opposing views proves neither, and thanks for the acknowledgement that the various passages I cited from the epistles could be read in a figurative way.

To add a personal note, I became a Christian at a mid-to-high Anglican Church from a background of atheism, so I traditionally read the passages mentioning 'baptism' in a literal, water-baptism sense. Indeed this reading prompted me to ask for, and receive, water baptism.

This by itself proves nothing, of course; but it would be wrong to suggest that I read the baptism passages inthe way I do because I come from a naturally anti-sacramentalist background. I don't.

The first verse that led me to think there might be a figurative meaning for the word 'baptism' was Mark 10:38-39. Then I realized that the baptism John the Baptist expected Jesus to bring was not his water baptism of repentance, but quite a different baptism of "fire and the Holy Spirit". I believe that John the Baptist was expecting the day of the Lord, manifesting in all-consuming judgement upon the unrepentant and beginning with the brood of vipers in Jerusalem. He was somewhat disappointed and discombobulated to discover that Jesus appeared, and there was no immediate judgement.

But it doesn't change the fact that he saw his water baptism as essentially preparatory to the real thing, and Jesus did nothing in his ministry that would suggest otherwise.

So the ground is well and truly prepared for a figurative reading of 'baptism' by the time we reach the epistles.

--------------------
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 
Nigel M, welcome aboard.

This point that you've made is basic to what I've been arguing on this thread:

quote:
Nigel M:
Dictionaries, after all, come after word usage, not before.

So I almost baptized my cheeks with tears of relief when I read this response from brother Psyduck:

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
You are quite correct to note this, and it was something I had in mind as I posted.

Now if we can just take another half-step forward:

quote:
Psyduck: 1. The basic meaning of baptism involves water. We all agree.

2. The basic meaning of Christian baptism is a rite of admission involving water. I take it we all agree.

[I added the numbers]

Yes to 1.

No to 2. Replace "The" with "A" and we have agreement. Your definition 2. is not however the meaning in Mark 10:38-39. This is an extended, metaphorical use of the term "baptism" which is nonetheless indisputably Christian. And doesn't involve water. It's a dunking into suffering and death.

BTW, do we have any evidence at all that James or John received water baptism? Nothing is said of this in Acts, or in James, or in 1,2,3 John, or Revelation (Yes I know they may have been different Johns, but I spread the net as widely as possible to discover if there was anything of relevance). Yet if water baptism was such a necessary part of the fulfilment of Mark 10:38-39 (and it is according to Psyduck), this is an omission which should cause concern.

Whereas there is plenty of evidence from Acts and beyond that the entire apostolic band were dunked into suffering and faced martyrdom for being "in Christ".

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Gordon, if all of these passages do not refer to water baptism where can we go in scripture for our theology of baptism? Are you really saying that the Holy Spirit hasn't provided enough information about baptism in the Scriptures for us to make an informed decision about what it actually means and how we actually do it? It seemes to me that you really are suggesting that the church is wrong to consider baptism to be an ordinance of Christ.

I assume you mean "water" baptism here.

Baptism is certainly an ordinance of Christ, but water baptism probably isn't. However, haven't you begun to answer your own question already when you say:

quote:
As I've said before, I think it is possible to consider baptism to be an immersion into the reality of the Trinity. After all, what is more important; the water or the Trinity? The Trinity of course! What are we baptised into if we are not baptised into God? Water baptism signifies, seals, and ratifies an immersion into the life of God, the Trinitarian reality.

I would simply amend your final statement to "Water baptism might or could signify, seal and ratify an immersion..."

Or it might not. In which case it is a meaningless ritual, and potentially damaging to our lives in Christ. So it is incumbent upon the baptizer to make sure that the baptisee (or their godparents) understand exactly what is, and isn't, going on in water baptism.

--------------------
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 
A thought occurs. Is it a matter for concern that Jesus doesn't even baptize the apostolic band?

On my view it's not, as he does actually baptize them in John 20:22 in an anticipatory sense, and in reality in Acts 2:1-4. Just not in water.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
In any case, the clincher is the structure of what Paul actually says in Romans 6:3.

quote:
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Wouldn't Paul, if he'd intended baptism as a metaphor, have left out the highlighted words? Wouldn't he just have said "Do you not know that all of us have been baptized into the death of Christ Jesus?" Or as you'd have it: "Do you not know that all of us have been 'baptized' into the death of Christ Jesus?" The repetition of the verb seems to me to settle it. It's even clearer in the Greek, I think.
I don't really see how your point is made clearer by the Greek, I'm afraid, but would be interested if you want to explain further.

The repetition means that Paul is picking up on the specific notion of baptism, yes—and the (non-water) baptism he has in mind is the dunking, total immersion, steeping, soaking into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So Paul's point seems to be that baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is at one and the same time a dunking, total immersion, steeping, soaking into his death. This is where the emphasis falls. It's why the high point of the Christian life is not a sacramental inclusion into the life of God but an ontological inclusion into the life of God through Christ's cross and resurrection. We are, really and truly, in Christ, by trust in his death. Water's beside the point.

--------------------
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
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
A thought occurs. Is it a matter for concern that Jesus doesn't even baptize the apostolic band?


1. Why would it be? Baptism as a sacrament follows the resurrection. The last time I looked, we didn't impose on Jesus the rules we (and he) impose on ourselves.

But, even leaving that aside,

2. How do you know he didn't? Arguments from silence, as someone mentioned higher up the thread, are notoriously difficult to make.

John

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | 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 
I suppose Jesus could have done a water baptism on his disciples post-resurrection, bizarre as it would seem. although I tend to think John 4:2 would not have been written in the way it was if he had.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
I suppose Jesus could have done a water baptism on his disciples post-resurrection, bizarre as it would seem. although I tend to think John 4:2 would not have been written in the way it was if he had.

Sorry, double post to add that John 20:30-31 also suggests that even if we did have this odd and unrecorded water baptism, it's not necessary for us to believe and so have life. So even if we allow (from silence) that there was some weird U-turn and Jesus started doing water baptisms post-resurrection, it is of no consequence for our faith or Christian life.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
As I've said before, I think it is possible to consider baptism to be an immersion into the reality of the Trinity. After all, what is more important; the water or the Trinity? The Trinity of course! What are we baptised into if we are not baptised into God? Water baptism signifies, seals, and ratifies an immersion into the life of God, the Trinitarian reality.

I would simply amend your final statement to "Water baptism might or could signify, seal and ratify an immersion..."

Or it might not. In which case it is a meaningless ritual, and potentially damaging to our lives in Christ. So it is incumbent upon the baptizer to make sure that the baptisee (or their godparents) understand exactly what is, and isn't, going on in water baptism.

From the human side of the equation, yes this is important. I like the way the fact that you've included a caveat that factors infant baptism into the equation. I am of teh opinion that water (sacramental) baptism is more than a ecclesiastical rite: it is about entry in the New Covenant (which of course is effectual in Christ's blood shed on the cross) not in the water itself. However, I also believe that water baptism (and our liturgical rites stress this strongly) is not acted upon an individual in isolation from the body of Christ (the Christian community), nor is baptism something that only affects the baptisee, it affects the entire community because it vows to presume that person to be regenerate and to play an active role is catechising them.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 
Interesting. Is all that stuff you said in the Bible, though? [Biased]

--------------------
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 
Yup. In Romans 6. [Biased]

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell made a point much earlier in the thread about Acts 2 and made the obvious comment that the baptism referred to in Acts 2 (for the 3,000 who responded) must be water. I haven't seen that point discussed further (maybe I've missed it). Just to clarify. The language in Acts 2 verse 38 is very hard to reconcile with anhydrous baptism. The two "ands" separate "repent" and "be baptised" and "receive the Holy Spirit".

So, given the general meaning of the word, and the fact that the audience, being jewish, would know all about water baptism for cleansing, I think it would be perverse to argue that the baptism was anything other than a water baptism. Inextricably linked to regeneration and turning to Christ. I argued in another thread that the account of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8, indisputably water baptism, was following the sequential model in Acts 2. That seems reasonable to me.

So I think you can argue that a practice of water baptism at the point of admission to the church was established right at the beginning and is confirmed by these narratives. How this connects with the baptism/non-baptism of the disciples doesn't bother me. I think they were just doing what they were told to do. Making disciples, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is an inextricable link.

It is arguable that the word is used more abstractly to go more deeply into the meaning of "immersion" in some contexts. Even if one believes that these uses expose a deeper meaning of baptism, none of that implies that water baptism is only corroborative of an inner change. That seems to go against the proclamation and practise at Pentecost.

--------------------
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
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 Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell made a point much earlier in the thread about Acts 2 and made the obvious comment that the baptism referred to in Acts 2 (for the 3,000 who responded) must be water.

Indeed. And what a wonderful symbol of repentance it would have been for those 3000 Jews and all who witnessed it. "Something bigger here than John the Baptist." "Amazing—I thought we'd killed that off." Wrong. Jesus is risen; one greater than John the Baptist is here.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yup. In Romans 6. [Biased]

Romans 6 is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Paul is catechising the baptised (i.e. benefactors of the New Covenant)! As the liturgy says, "Fight valiantly...". All straight from Romans 6-8: Paul's exhortation is to fight sin, our baptismal exhortation is the same.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 
It's a clever reconstruction that to my mind assumes what needs to be proved, and is what this thread is about.

--------------------
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
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:
It's a clever reconstruction that to my mind assumes what needs to be proved

What's the "clever reconstruction"? The order of the posts implies that this is what you're refering to, though I could be wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Romans 6 is a prime example of what I'm talking about: Paul is catechising the baptised (i.e. benefactors of the New Covenant)!

If it is what you're refering to, then I don't think there's an assumption there to be proved. All of the NT is addressed to Christian churches(or, possibly most as John and Luke/Acts could be 'evangelistic', ie: aimed, in part at least, at interested non-believers). Romans certainly is. Paul is writing to the Church in Rome, a church of people who have already accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour and been baptised into that faith (leaving aside for the moment the question of whether there was any water involved in that baptism). He is writing to instruct them in the faith they have already received, making sure they have received what he considers to be the most important doctrines of the faith (he himself at that point hadn't visited Rome, so unlike his other letters to churches he had taught personally he couldn't be sure that what they'd received was what he would have given them), Romans is the letter that's closest to a "systematic Pauline theology". Describing the letter as Paul catechising the Roman church seems to be a very accurate description of his intent.

--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng

a child on sydney harbour
# 8895

 - Posted      Profile for Gordon Cheng     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, m.t.'s previous post refers back to the post before that. It's the one before the previous that is the clever reconstruction.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Alan, m.t.'s previous post refers back to the post before that. It's the one before the previous that is the clever reconstruction.

I'm sorry, I'll read that again.

m.t.'s previous post refers back the post m.t. made before his previous post. It's m.t.'s post before his previous post that is the clever reconstruction.

Clear now? [Smile]

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

I would explain it by saying that baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church. Therefore, baptism could make sense only after Jesus had died and had risen, and in fact was only possible after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
Just rereading this, I realize that AFAICT from this post Josephine and I define baptism in the same way—a participation in Jesus death and resurrection by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church (small c for me though).

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Alan, m.t.'s previous post refers back to the post before that. It's the one before the previous that is the clever reconstruction.

I'm sorry, I'll read that again.

m.t.'s previous post refers back the post m.t. made before his previous post. It's m.t.'s post before his previous post that is the clever reconstruction.

Clear now? [Smile]

Even I don't know which post you're talking about; and I wrote it! Could you provide a link to it? Not because it's that important, but simply because it's been described as "clever". [Razz]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 
Gordon, this is beginning to approach the belief-beggaring.
quote:
I realize that AFAICT from this post Josephine and I define baptism in the same way—a participation in Jesus death and resurrection by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church (small c for me though).
It's for Josephine to answer for herself, but I would be astounded if Josephine equates baptism with some kind of conversion experience that has nothing to do with water. The truth is that most of us on this thread "define baptism in the same way—a participation in Jesus death and resurrection by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church, expressed in an initiation-rite involving water." (I'm putting the italicized bit that way to try to span the diversity of approaches that undoubtedly exists within this consensus.)

You, with your rite-free, anhydrous conception of a "baptism" that's nothing to do with "baptism" are - unless I am completely misrepresenting you - the sole dissenter from this understanding on this thread. Unless, of course, I am wrong about Josephine, and she posts next from an Orthodox equivalent of the Sydney Anglican position, which is what I believe you are representing. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)

--------------------
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 
Or, less confrontationally (sorry) - tell us again what your understanding of baptism is, Gordon.

And perhaps be good enough to explain your distinction between Church and church. [Confused]

--------------------
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 m.t-tomb:
Even I don't know which post you're talking about; and I wrote it! Could you provide a link to it? Not because it's that important, but simply because it's been described as "clever". [Razz]

Oh dear.

OK, the bit where you said

quote:
From the human side of the equation, yes this is important. I like the way the fact that you've included a caveat that factors infant baptism into the equation. I am of teh opinion that water (sacramental) baptism is more than a ecclesiastical rite: it is about entry in the New Covenant (which of course is effectual in Christ's blood shed on the cross) not in the water itself. However, I also believe that water baptism (and our liturgical rites stress this strongly) is not acted upon an individual in isolation from the body of Christ (the Christian community), nor is baptism something that only affects the baptisee, it affects the entire community because it vows to presume that person to be regenerate and to play an active role is catechising them.

Clever. Internally coherent. I just don't see that it's in the Bible.

--------------------
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 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon, this is beginning to approach the belief-beggaring.
quote:
I realize that AFAICT from this post Josephine and I define baptism in the same way—a participation in Jesus death and resurrection by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church (small c for me though).
It's for Josephine to answer for herself, but I would be astounded if Josephine equates baptism with some kind of conversion experience that has nothing to do with water.

Okely doke.

Josephine defines baptism in this way:

quote:
originally posted by Josephine:
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church.

If you ask me how I define baptism, I would say that

quote:
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church.
AIUI, when Josephine says "Church", she means the Orthodox denomination. I don't, hence small-c "church".

Perhpas Josephine meant to put something in about water, but forgot to. she can say if she wants, but as it stands, I'm happy with what she said.

--------------------
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
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:
Josephine defines baptism in this way:

quote:
originally posted by Josephine:
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church.


Again, I'm not going to presume to speak for anyone else, much less someone as capable of speaking for herself as Josephine. But, here's my definition of Christian baptism (which I suspect Josephine would probably more or less agree with).

quote:
Baptism is a ceremony in the presence of a congregation of Christian believers by which someone is immersed or sprinkled in water with words along the lines of "I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" being said, and is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church.
I think the Orthodox position would involve flowing water, and more than a damp patch on a babies head. Also, most Christians would accept that in extremis baptism can occur in the absence of the full congregation of the church (eg: at a hospital bed as someone is dying).

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t-tomb:
Even I don't know which post you're talking about; and I wrote it! Could you provide a link to it? Not because it's that important, but simply because it's been described as "clever". [Razz]

Oh dear.

OK, the bit where you said

quote:
From the human side of the equation, yes this is important. I like the way the fact that you've included a caveat that factors infant baptism into the equation. I am of teh opinion that water (sacramental) baptism is more than a ecclesiastical rite: it is about entry in the New Covenant (which of course is effectual in Christ's blood shed on the cross) not in the water itself. However, I also believe that water baptism (and our liturgical rites stress this strongly) is not acted upon an individual in isolation from the body of Christ (the Christian community), nor is baptism something that only affects the baptisee, it affects the entire community because it vows to presume that person to be regenerate and to play an active role is catechising them.

Clever. Internally coherent. I just don't see that it's in the Bible.

So you don't think that the following things are integral to the baptimal complex as seen in Scripture?
  • incorporation (into Christ and each other i.e. the church)
  • formal ratification of a covenant relationship with the Triune God (with the Father through Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit)
  • commitment to ongoing discipleship on the basis of that covenant ('teaching them to observe the commands of Christ')


[ 26. April 2006, 14:18: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]

Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
If you ask me how I define baptism, I would say that


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry, Gordon, but in the context of your other posts, this is as clear as mud. From what I can reconstruct, baptism, as (partially) defined by you above, does not involve water, does not involve a rite, does not involve an action of the church, and does not involve a specific occasion on which anything happens by human agency (leaving out the humanity which is permanently joined to Christ's divinity). There is also another "baptism" which is an optional rite practised by the church, which in some way dramatises baptism as defined above, the "real" baptism, which is essentially a transaction between God and the soul of an individual framed by the death of Christ. Would this be right? It's what you seem to me to be saying.

--------------------
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
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 Gordon Cheng:
Josephine defines baptism in this way:

quote:
originally posted by Josephine:
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church.

If you ask me how I define baptism, I would say that

quote:
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church.
AIUI, when Josephine says "Church", she means the Orthodox denomination. I don't, hence small-c "church".

Perhpas Josephine meant to put something in about water, but forgot to. she can say if she wants, but as it stands, I'm happy with what she said.

I beg your pardon, Gordon, but this is twice on one page that you have deliberately distorted what I said in ways entirely contrary to what you know full well that I meant.

I was not, in my post, defining baptism. I was answering a question that you asked. Here's the question, in context:

quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
MSHB, if I were to argue for the necessity of water baptism, yours is the argument I would favour. It is by far the strongest of the various arguments that have been presented here as you argue not on purely linguistic grounds but treat the narrative framework of the gospels and Acts with due seriousness.

However, I am not sure that the Acts accounts need to be seen as more than a description of a well-known Jewish ceremony that was taken up by the early church as (firstly) a culturally appropriate way to publicly initiate Jewish Christians into membership of the new covenant, and (secondly) a way of demonstrating to all and sundry that Gentiles, too, were to be included alongside the people of Israel. How is this any less plausible than what you have suggested?

Although it is an argument from silence, if this rite was so important to the apostolic church, where are the references to water baptism in Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (!), Philemon, the Pastorals, Jude, James, the Johannine epistles and Revelation?

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

This is a sophisticated view of the baptismal symbol that seems to go well beyond the evidence of the text. But let me ask one question at this point—why do you refer to 'NT baptism"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to "baptisms"? We know of at least two—the baptism of John and the baptism of the early Christian believers. I am reasonably confident there were more.

Out of curiosity, how would you explain the fact that Jesus baptized no-one? And what is your view of the thief on the cross? That he would of if he could of?

Your question was, "how would you explain the fact that Jesus baptized no one?" Presuming that you're speaking the same language I am, that question, in context, has to be referring to water baptism. So I said, in response:

quote:
I would explain it by saying that baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the Church. Therefore, baptism could make sense only after Jesus had died and had risen, and in fact was only possible after the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.


You'll note that the part in italics, which you clipped out when you quoted me, is essential to understanding what I said. I was NOT defining baptism. I was explaining why Jesus didn't baptise, in answer to a question that you asked.

I would appreciate a prompt apology for your deliberate misrepresentation of my beliefs.

--------------------
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
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012

 - Posted      Profile for daronmedway     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon Cheng:
quote:
If you ask me how I define baptism, I would say that


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baptism is the participation in Jesus's death and resurrection, by which we are made Christians and initiated into the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


There is also another "baptism" which is an optional rite practised by the church, which in some way dramatises baptism as defined above, the "real" baptism, which is essentially a transaction between God and the soul of an individual framed by the death of Christ. Would this be right? It's what you seem to me to be saying.
From what I can tell, I think that this is what Gordon is saying yes. However, it does occur to me that if baptism really is the NT equivalent of circumcision (a rite that the NT overtly and unashamed does spiritualise) then is is possible that Christian baptism might also be understood in similarly figurative (anti-typological) terms.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 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 m.t-tomb:
So you don't think that the following things are integral to the baptimal complex as seen in Scripture?
  • incorporation (into Christ and each other i.e. the church)
  • formal ratification of a covenant relationship with the Triune God (with the Father through Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit)
  • commitment to ongoing discipleship on the basis of that covenant ('teaching them to observe the commands of Christ')

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I would see incorporation into Christ (the first thing on your list) as what Christian baptism is about in Scripture.

"Formal ratification" may or may not be a part of water baptism. The brood of vipers who were baptized by John (or tried to be) had nothing ratified. It seems to be a formal ratification in Acts, though. But not, as I've been arguing, in the epistles.

"Commitment to ongoing discipleship" is the Christian life, but again, is this a water baptism thing? I understand how it might be used in that way in our prayer books, but I don't see the same emphasis in Scripture.

quote:
originally posted by Psyduck:
From what I can reconstruct, baptism, as (partially) defined by you above, does not involve water, does not involve a rite, does not involve an action of the church, and does not involve a specific occasion on which anything happens by human agency (leaving out the humanity which is permanently joined to Christ's divinity). There is also another "baptism" which is an optional rite practised by the church, which in some way dramatises baptism as defined above, the "real" baptism, which is essentially a transaction between God and the soul of an individual framed by the death of Christ. Would this be right? It's what you seem to me to be saying.

That is it precisely!!

[b]Josephine[b], I certainly meant no deliberate misrepresentation, but I apologize for my misrepresentation. It was unintentional. I have never discussed baptism with you previously, and I was unsure to what extent your views reflected simply your own understanding, or that of the Orthodox. Thankyou for the clarification.

--------------------
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



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