|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Romans 6 and Baptism
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
Just fill me in on the other mysterious way people absorb words without reading or hearing again? They must do things differently in Canada.
Some people learn best by hearing. Some people learn best by touching and feeling. Some people learn best by seeing. Some people learn best by tasting or smelling.
Yes we can experience the gospel without hearing or reading.
While I take your point above about "however words are communicated", I would like to lose the language of written text ("words" "reading" etc) as it priviledges hearing over any other sense. I find this fundamentally at odds with an wholistic approach.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Upon what do you base this theory?
hi Grits, I assume you mean my theory about baptisms being a Jewish OT era practice.
I see John the Baptist, and anyone ministering before Christ's death and resurrection, as an Old Testament figure. So I am really thinking of him as the prime example of this as far as our discussion goes.
There is a brief discussion of Jewish baptism in wikipedia. The idea of ritual washing for purification is in the Mosaic law; Lev 8:6 and Numbers 19:11-12 being two examples. They aren't specifically referred to as baptisms but they contain the idea.
--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng: quote:
And I don't suggest an early date for Mark. In both the post you quoted, and in an earlier post, I suggest that there was some precursor—perhaps Q, perhaps the apostle Peter himself.
Gordon, how can Q be a precursor to Mark? Q is the hypothetical "sayings source" which accounts for the stuff that is in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. By definition Q can't be a "predecessor" of Mark.
--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng: quote:
I see ... anyone ministering before Christ's death and resurrection, as an Old Testament figure.
What - like Jesus of Nazareth, for example? quote:
So I am really thinking of him [sc. John the Baptist] as the prime example of this as far as our discussion goes.
And then there's this: quote:
John 3: 26; And they came to John, and said to him, "Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him."
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Grits: Water baptism is however, on my view, an Old Testament practice that, like a number of Old Testament practices, eg meeting at the temple, was legitimately carried on into the New Testament era for a time.
When I say it was an OT practice, I mean not that it was ordained there, but that it was developed in the OT era for use then, and was eminently suited to John the Baptist's purposes of preparing people for the coming of Christ. He picked up and used the practice for his own purposes, and it's not in the least surprising that Christianity, beginning as a 100% Jewish religion, did the same.
My understanding of John the Baptist is that he is new and different to the OT.
All the OT washings are just that: washings. You went out and washed yourself.
Where John the B was different was this: you had to come to him, you couldn't do it yourself. This was an important discontinuity with the OT. You came to be plunged into real water as your act of repentance ("I hereby repent"). There were no big public "*Come to me* and be dunked" crusades in the OT - there were only a lot of individualistic "go and wash yourself" rituals in private, like Naaman the Syrian who was told to go and wash himself seven times in the Jordan (2 Kgs 5.10).
The necessity of going to another meant that you couldn't just choose to repent by yourself: there was a prophetic standard, John the Baptist might challenge you ("Show the fruit of repentance!") - you were responsible to another. It even acts out the gospel understanding that turning to God isn't simply a personal choice: it is God (through his servant) who calls, and God (through his servant) who chooses to accept or challenge. The gospel isn't "do it yourself", but "submit" to Him who is the real Active One in this process - John's baptism, unlike the OT do-it-yourself washings, reinforced that.
Also, unlike the OT washings, JtB's baptism wasn't a baptism of ritual cleansing, as though wetting the body could make you holy. JtB's baptism was an act of repentance ("baptisma eis metanoian"). John didn't say "Whoever I dunk in the water will be clean", he said "If you want to repent and turn to God, come to me in the water and do it". Only, he didn't say "If you want to...", he said "God the Judge is coming. Turn to Him!"
So I am not at all convinced that John was just continuing the OT cultic washings. I think he was inaugurating something new: getting the people ready for the gospel. He was part of the prophetic line, not the priestly line (he was not his father Zacharias). And even there, he was something new (cf Elisha and Naaman).
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And BTW, your use of the word "read" in this context I find revealing -- it demonstrates an altogether anachronistic approach to how people learn, how they believe, how they know, and how they pass on what matters to them.
What? I said
quote:
read or heard
.
Just fill me in on the other mysterious way people absorb words without reading or hearing again? They must do things differently in Canada.
And I don't suggest an early date for Mark. In both the post you quoted, and in an earlier post, I suggest that there was some precursor—perhaps Q, perhaps the apostle Peter himself.
You cast doubt -- well deserved, if not definitive, in my opinion -- on whether Q existed in any useful way. So I naturally took your comments to refer to Mark.
And I thought it was clear, because of your comment about manuscripts and reading (and hearing) that you were more focused on people reading (and being read to) than on people talking to each other. Which at this point I would have expected to be the primary means of teaching and learning. It seemed consonant to me with your focus on the BIBLE AS A WRITTEN ARTIFACT, which you seem to me constantly to be setting in opposition to any other knowledge or means of knowing.
And I'd still like to know what other religions had baptism-like rites that might have shaped the awareness of Christians in Rome of the 40s and 50s.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Just on Q: I don't at all subscribe to the details of any particular source criticism theory for the gospel, but I certainly recognize the primary insight that there must hve been verbal precursors to the four gospels, and possibly written precursors as well. Psyduck is right, Q is the non-Marcan stuff. I am assuming, indeed you have to, that there was pre-Mark as well. Though that may have been just the apostle Peter speaking the words that were subsequently distilled into Mark.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Gordon Cheng: quote:
I see ... anyone ministering before Christ's death and resurrection, as an Old Testament figure.
What - like Jesus of Nazareth, for example?
[/QUOTE]
Yes! Why else do you think he followed the Mosaic law in every detail, and encouraged his followers to do the same. He was an Old Testament (= "Covenant") man. In one sense he was the only Old Testament man, who by keeping it perfectly fulfilled it. It was his fulfilment of it that enabled him to institute the New Testament in his blood. After his resurrection and the giving of the Spirit, he (and therefore all new believers) were New Testament people.
John H: I have no specific knowledge of other Roman religions in the 30s-50s, so I am speculating.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thank you MSHB: I found that very helpful.
[not that the rest of you don't have posts that aren't ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ]
[ 28. April 2006, 22:49: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Yes! Why else do you think he followed the Mosaic law in every detail, and encouraged his followers to do the same.
Eh? Not as generally understood... Else why that stuff about the man not being made for the sabbath, etc.?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
The key to that, Jerry Boam, is Jesus' radical and consistent critique of Pharisaic interpretations of Sabbath regulations and, more broadly, the Mosaic law. Jesus dispensed with pharisaic tradition whenever it suited him, even (or especially) you could see from their words that they believed their own traditions to be grounded on Jewish Scripture.
Jesus' way (for me paradigmatic) of overturning tradition was his interpretation of Scripture by Scripture. Mark 7:9-14, tangentially connected to our discussion on baptism, is a classic example of how Jesus believes apparently honourable tradition ought to be reshaped by Scripture.
On your example of the Sabbath, see Mark 2:23-28, where Jesus' makes explicit appeal to the example of David in 1 Sam 21:1-6 to justify his Sabbath practice.
--------------------
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
MSHB, I'm in substantial agreement with what you say about washings Vs John the Baptist's baptism "eis metanoian". I don't say they were identical, I merely suggest it as a hypothesis to show where the use of water to cleanse might have found an Old Testament anchor. It is my theory to account for why, thousands of years after Moses, hardline Jews of the New Testament era might press for a range of baptismal practices to be observed.
We can perhaps speculate how the Pharisees might argue for an unbroken line of tradition right back to the Sinaitic covenant to show why it was so useful and important for people to now follow their prescriptions regarding baptism, even though no definitive piece of Torah could be adduced to substantiate their practice.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And I thought it was clear, because of your comment about manuscripts and reading (and hearing) that you were more focused on people reading (and being read to) than on people talking to each other. Which at this point I would have expected to be the primary means of teaching and learning. It seemed consonant to me with your focus on the BIBLE AS A WRITTEN ARTIFACT, which you seem to me constantly to be setting in opposition to any other knowledge or means of knowing.
OK., I see what you were saying and please accept my apologies for my tone.
Yes—"talking to each other"—I agree. This would I guess have been the only way non-readers would have had access to the story of Jesus, and even most readers would not have had access to anything in writing, I imagine.
Yet even within their mutual conversation, they must have recognized that their evolving idea of what Christianity was, and what the gospel story was, carried weight only insofar as it could be linked to the apostolic tradition, as conveyed to them by the words of Paul, Peter, or what others could recall of the apostolic teaching they had heard.
And there is a sense in which we, as opposed to they, must privilege the written record, however. For a start, it's all we reliably have. Start shooting holes in that, and the ground we stand on as Christians starts to look very precarious. I don't think that is saying anything radical, it's one of the things that makes any ecumenical effort have any real credibility. The Bible is the ecumenical document and its where our interactions must begin, if not end.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
thousands of years after Moses
Yikes. that would be now.
I meant hundreds. No early re-dating of Moses for me. After all, we can't have him hanging around with the patriarchs, and any earlier than that and we start running into problems with the creation of the world in 4004 BC
--------------------
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
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
...we start running into problems with the creation of the world in 4004 BC
Heretic! It was 4003.
I disagree with you Gordon, as one would expect , but I have a clearer idea where you're coming from. Thanks for the explanations.
[ 29. April 2006, 02:23: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
On your example of the Sabbath, see Mark 2:23-28, where Jesus' makes explicit appeal to the example of David in 1 Sam 21:1-6 to justify his Sabbath practice.
"David done it" seems like a terribly weak argument, david also committed adultery, does that make it lawful. Also, the priests seemed to believe that it might be permissible to share the bread of the presence if David's men were not impure because of sexual activity... so this doesn't seem like an open and shut case.
I'm not contesting that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, but that this is a more complicated thing than "he kept it perfectly" unless "keeping it perfectly" means bending it when needed. It seems to me that "...whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same..." is a description of Jesus.
Maybe this is another thread?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Why else do you think he followed the Mosaic law in every detail, and encouraged his followers to do the same. He was an Old Testament (= "Covenant") man. In one sense he was the only Old Testament man, who by keeping it perfectly fulfilled it. It was his fulfilment of it that enabled him to institute the New Testament in his blood. After his resurrection and the giving of the Spirit, he (and therefore all new believers) were New Testament people.
Once again, I disagree. I mean, haven't you read the sermon on the mount? All He does is totally redefine and restructure Mosaic Law. And, yes, it was because He was the fulfillment of it. And as far as encouraging His followers -- I don't think so. Healing, harvesting, roaming around on the Sabbath? All of His life, His teachings were about mercy and no more sacrifice. And I just love it when He says, "For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day." What could be more clear about who He is and why He's here. Out with the old, in with the new.
I don't think He was the only Old Testament man, but I do think He was the last.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Gordon Cheng: quote:
Yes! Why else do you think he followed the Mosaic law in every detail, and encouraged his followers to do the same. He was an Old Testament (= "Covenant") man. In one sense he was the only Old Testament man, who by keeping it perfectly fulfilled it. It was his fulfilment of it that enabled him to institute the New Testament in his blood.
And would I be right that his divinity, on this view is the principle guarantee of the ability of his humanity to keep the Law and therefore be the pure, undefiled sacrificial lamb?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
Why else do you think he followed the Mosaic law in every detail, and encouraged his followers to do the same. He was an Old Testament (= "Covenant") man. In one sense he was the only Old Testament man, who by keeping it perfectly fulfilled it. It was his fulfilment of it that enabled him to institute the New Testament in his blood. After his resurrection and the giving of the Spirit, he (and therefore all new believers) were New Testament people.
Once again, I disagree. I mean, haven't you read the sermon on the mount? All He does is totally redefine and restructure Mosaic Law.
I don't think that makes adequate sense of Mt 5;17-20.
Rather he seems to be redefining a Pharisaic minimizing view of what the law requires. He teaches the true law. Indeed, here he instructs people to obey the Pharisees because they "sit on Moses' seat", so high is his regard for the authority of the Mosaic code.
--------------------
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
Gordon Cheng: quote:
I don't think so, Psyduck. Perfect humanity keeps God's law.
OK, that surprised me a little. On your account, then, Gordon, what was the purpose of the Incernation?
--------------------
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
Sorry for the posh accent! I meant Incarnation, obviously.
--------------------
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
But if Jesus could accomplish all that through his perfect humanity and perfect obedience without being God incarnate - then isn't the Incarnation just a nice gesture of solidarity from God?
I'm a bit thrown here because I expected you to be shadowing Anselm in Cur Deus Homo. Obviously what I want to do is to tease out your understanding of the saving event of Christ, so that I can see gow you connect it to baptism - though at the moment that seems to be "not at all". That's the relevance to Romans 6.
Romans 6 seems to me to present a component of Paul's understanding of baptism as connected to our salvation as a participation in the death of Christ. I'm putting it that way so as to avoid begging questions, and I think that put that way an awful lot of people on this thread would agree to at least some extent. Obviously you don't. I'm not entirely sure why, which is why I'm asking.
--------------------
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
And just out of interest: quote:
[originally posted by Gordon Cheng: Our salvation of course. And to destroy the works of the devil. And to bring glory and honour to God the Father. And to lay all things under his feet so God might be all in all.
I wouldn't disagree with any of these things. I understand our salvation in all these terms. And I connect them with the Incarnation. But none of them are connected with Penal Substitutionary Atonement! And indeed if one takes the full conservative view of PSA, then it alone actually is atonement. It is the doctrine. And as I understand it, the function of the incarnation in this understanding of PSA is to guarantee the human sacrifice that no human being could offer, by the Son's becoming perfectly human.
Have I been imputing stuff to you, Gordon? I'd been assuming that your antisacramentalism, esp. in respect to baptism, was partly down to this view of PSA.
Orrrrrr....
You haven't succumbed to the Orthodox Plot overnight, have you? Throw in a fish-hook and a reference to medicine, and I'll wonder if I'm in a parallel universe!! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
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
Cross-posted. And how interestingly!
Hmm. I'm off to think about this. Sleep well, Gordon (hope I got the time-zones right) - and stay away from men with long beards and loaves stamped with crosses! I have a small sum of money on you resisting the Orthodox Plot longer than Benedict XIV...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And just out of interest: quote:
[originally posted by Gordon Cheng: Our salvation of course. And to destroy the works of the devil. And to bring glory and honour to God the Father. And to lay all things under his feet so God might be all in all.
I wouldn't disagree with any of these things. I understand our salvation in all these terms. And I connect them with the Incarnation. But none of them are connected with Penal Substitutionary Atonement! And indeed if one takes the full conservative view of PSA, then it alone actually is atonement. It is the doctrine.
Is it? I am conservative theologically, of course, and I know quite a few theologicalconservatives. But none of them AFAIK believe that PSA exhausts the meaning of the doctrine of atonement. It is central and foundational, no doubt about that. But the idea of the God-forsaken God is, I would say with Luther, a great mystery.
--------------------
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
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day all.
Whenever we read Jesus and the law, we need to make a big distinction between the oral law and the Mosiac law.
I may be wrong here, and am open to correction - however whenever Jesus spoke about the oral law he said "You have heard it said, BUT... I say"
Yet when it comes to the Mosiac law he says, "It is written"
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
But first... Gordon Cheng: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And would I be right that his divinity, on this view is the principle guarantee of the ability of his humanity to keep the Law and therefore be the pure, undefiled sacrificial lamb?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so, Psyduck. Perfect humanity keeps God's law.
Also: quote:
Ah well, there's this little thing called original sin that had to be broken by some means for there to be a perfect man. The incarnation was the only possible way.
Right. So is this because of the derivation of Jesus' humanity solely from the sinless BVM? Is this the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception operating in the background?
In which case I have to put the question again - given that we are not Appolinarians, and Christ's incarnate humanity is complete, why was it not possible for Christ to be simply the perfect human being? Again, why is the Incarnation necessary?
You see, I think that what may be operative at the back here is an Appolinarianism that relegates Christ's humanity to an adjunct of his divinity, and makes it something very different to our humanity. (God in an meat suit.) Thomas Torrance, in a very important article, traces some of the effects of this on Protestant theology and liturgy, including the understanding that there is a gulf between our humanity and Christ's, and an impairment of our ability to identify with Christ. It seems to me that that might explain certain attitudes to Romans 6 - specifically that it can't possibly be about our participation in Christ's death in any real sense through baptism.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But first... Gordon Cheng: quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And would I be right that his divinity, on this view is the principle guarantee of the ability of his humanity to keep the Law and therefore be the pure, undefiled sacrificial lamb?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think so, Psyduck. Perfect humanity keeps God's law.
Also: quote:
Ah well, there's this little thing called original sin that had to be broken by some means for there to be a perfect man. The incarnation was the only possible way.
Right. So is this because of the derivation of Jesus' humanity solely from the sinless BVM? Is this the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception operating in the background?
You are a tease, Psyduck. It's up to the Romans to play around with the metaphysics of this operation.
Humanity was created good, and fell through the sin of Adam. Although sin is extrinsic to human nature, and indeed to creation itself, at this point humanity was irrevocably tainted by the knowledge of good and evil.
In the miracle of the incarnation, God brings creation and salvation together in the perfect man, the Lord Jesus. But it was, you see, a miracle. Something only God could have done, and then only because he was God. I think it unwise to enquire to deeply into this mystery, don't you?
Once the miracle of the incarnation had been accomplished, the one act of the perfect man was enough to overcome and defeat the one act of the sinful man.
But I'm quite sure you knew this already, Psyduck. Although, quite neatly, you have drawn us back to Romans 6.
--------------------
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
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Gordon,
I agree with what you have said about Christ being the prefect man, yet at the same time we need to be careful of saying that Christ was perfect only in his human strength, which can point towards a Spiritless Christology.
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
If I have understood you corectly Gordon, you are suggesting that baptism is Paul's way of figuritively speaking about regeneration: immersion into the benefits of the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is that right?
If so, can you explain why Paul makes categorical distinction between water baptism and proclamation of the gospel? In 1 Cor. 17 Paul asserts that 'Christ did not send [him] to baptise but to preach the gospel'.
Now, there can be no doubt at all that Paul is refering to water baptism in this passage. Paul is not using the word baptism as a euphemism for conversion. Consequently, I also think the following inferrence exists: Paul considers water baptism to be pastoral ministry that follows on from evangelistic ministry.
Those who are 'cut to heart' as they hear the gospel preached undergo spiritual circumcision (regeneration). Those people are then immersed in water by the church as a ratification of that spiritual circumcision. They become (regenerated) through spiritual circumcision through the sovereign decision of God; they play no part in their regeneration.
However, entry into a covenant requires the agreement of both parties: hence the provision of water baptism. Water baptism is the reciprocal element of entry into the covenant; it acknowledges and ratifies the soveriegn activity of God in conversion inasmuch as it is 'the response of a good (i.e. cleansed) conscience toward God' 1 Peter 3.21.
So it seems clear to me that water baptism is the human response to regeneration (actual or presumed). It is the human contribution to the covenant between God and a regenerate person (or child of a regenerate person).
Gordon, - in the light of what I've in my last two posts - would you agree that 'spiritualised baptism' (as you present it) seems to confuse rather than elucidate Paul's soteriology?
[ 29. April 2006, 08:59: Message edited by: m.t-tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Gordon,
I agree with what you have said about Christ being the prefect man, yet at the same time we need to be careful of saying that Christ was perfect only in his human strength, which can point towards a Spiritless Christology.
The Holy Spirit was present with Christ because he was holy; not to make him holy.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day m.t-tomb
quote:
The Holy Spirit was present with Christ because he was holy; not to make him holy.
I disagree with that premise. Did David have the Holy Spirit because he was Holy?
Whenever we look at the life of Christ, we need to ensure we don't exclude the Spirit in our Christology.
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
uh Craig, mt-tomb isn't excluding the Spirit. He is simply saying that the Spirit was with Christ because Jesus was holy, and not that Jesus was holy because of the presence of the Holy Spirit.
There is a huge difference between David having the Holy Spirit, and Jesus having the Holy Spirit - because we believe Jesus was without sin, whereas David showed amply that he was just as ornery a sinner as the rest of us.
Although I think it's all a bit of a brain-stretcher, and can't quite see the distinction, myself. (Between Jesus having the Spirit because he was holy, or being holy because of the Spirit's presence...)
[ 29. April 2006, 13:47: Message edited by: Nunc Dimittis ]
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day m.t-tomb
quote:
The Holy Spirit was present with Christ because he was holy; not to make him holy.
I disagree with that premise.
Blessings craig b
You're free to disagree with this premise but you're not free to maintain that your view is orthodox: pentecostalsim is pneumacentric; evangelicalism is Christocentric. The choice however is your to make.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day M.T. Tomb,
You made an assertion that Christ had the Spirit because he was Holy!
I'm not denying he was Holy, yet your assertion that that is why he had the Spirit has not been proven.
On what scriptural basis can you show this to be true.
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
Hey m.t.
I'll get back to you. I'm just dropping in this, the other metaphorical reference to baptism by Jesus:
quote:
originally posted by Jesus:
I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!
It's from Luke 12:50. Again, it involves no water whatsoever.
--------------------
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
Gordon, did anybody say "baptism" was never used metaphorically? You seem to be attacking a man of straw.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
craigb, I'll be happy to discuss it if you open a new thread. I'd like to keep this thread on subject. Thanks.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Gordon,
Are you saying then that our real Christian baptism is when we die?
I see no other scriptural support to support this, yet this seems to be where you are headed with it.
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Gordon, did anybody say "baptism" was never used metaphorically? You seem to be attacking a man of straw.
Psyduck tells me that baptism only ever involves water, unless he's changed his mind from when he posted this back on page one;
quote:
It seems to me that, once made, the equation baptism=the-death-of-Christ/a-death-like-that-of-Christ is still so crucially dependent on the symbolism of immersion-in/inundation-by/going-through water that it can never be said, in the New Testament, to be metaphorical. You just can't get the water out, no matter how much silica gel you use. And water is always the actuality of baptism, not a metaphor.
[bold mine]
But that's not the reason I quoted Luke. It's just another little brick in the argument that by the end of the gospels, the picture we've built up of the way Jesus speaks about baptism is that it is metaphorical rather than literal. Not that there's a lot of evidence to go on, as the incidence of both word and idea of "baptism" is infrequent in the gospels outside of the ministry of John the Baptist. As indeed you would expect, if their was not a great deal of emphasis laid on the idea of water baptism in the NT.
I should have made it clearer why I was dropping in that ref, but the Cheng family was gearing up for the major rush out the door for 9 am church (where we celebrated the Lord's supper, some readers will be pleased to learn)!
[ 30. April 2006, 04:27: 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
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by craigb:
G'day Gordon,
Are you saying then that our real Christian baptism is when we die?
I see no other scriptural support to support this, yet this seems to be where you are headed with it.
Blessings craig b
No, not at all. Our real Christian baptism is when the Spirit regenerates our heart through the preaching of the word.
It's a washing of the conscience that happens when we put our trust in the Lord Jesus.
Mind you, that's when we die (as Rom 6 teaches), but let's not confuse things by returning to the OP.
--------------------
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
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Gordon,
I'm interested in what you say about Acts 19:5.
Did Paul baptise these disciples in water, or was it a spiritual baptism?
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Why have we started separating the two? I feel they go hand in hand: "...for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ"; "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"; "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ".
The water of baptism is representative. There is nothing saving in that water. It is the act of obedience and acceptance of Him through baptism that imparts the Spirit to us.
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit..."
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
But Grits, would you agree that Jesus separates the two in Mark 10 and Luke 12/ He looks for a baptism (which James and John are going to share) that is water free?
Anyway, I wouldn't always separate them. If we are going to do water baptism, the ideal is that this reflect some underlying spiritual reality.
--------------------
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
|
|
craigb
Shipmate
# 11318
|
Posted
G'day Gordon,
Sorry if I am taking a tangent here,
What is your take on infant baptism, if baptism is a believers baptism?
Blessings craig b
--------------------
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!I once was lost, but now am found; Was blind, but now I see... The Lord has promised good to me,His word my hope secures;He will my shield and portion be,As long as life endures.
Posts: 993 | From: Tahmoor | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
