To Michael: A Theology Post

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Bill Grover, Jun 20, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    WARNING WARNING WARNING:

    DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY THEOLOGY!



    My thanks to our broad-minded moderators.

    I apologize if I offend anyone! I'm just one of those stodgy old Bible thumpers!


    Hello Michael (or any)

    On the other forum you raised two excellent points: (1) (in the Quaker view) As baptism is spiritual , why are the elements ,as water , necessary?, (2) (in the egalitarian view) Why accept any Pauline directives re gender roles unless we also require women to wear veils in church? Good questions/ counters/points!

    I qualify my response as being an answer based on the belief that Scripture is to have authority over the faith and practice of Christians who claim to believe in the Scripture . I am not trying to be convincing to any who do not fit that.

    We all must decide what we will live by and have the right and the responsibility to be fully persuaded or not be at all convinced!

    So that Sister Josie preaches a fine sermon or that Dr. Alice knows more than any man in the church is not something to which I care much to respond . My issue only is, what does Scripture require?

    I have much more to say as you wish to "hear " it , if you don't that's OK too, , but this will get us started.




    I) So then why would water baptism be important since it is spiritual and water is physical?

    A) I find that to be a remarkable question. Why then would anything in the human-divine relationship that is physical be at all important? Why would adultery or drugs be either negative or positive as they are physical? Why would the suffering of Christ be important? Why would His humanity be important? Why would reading the Bible be important? Why would preaching be important? Even prayers in the Bible oft include the lifting up of hands and voices- but these are physical! Yet all of these physical things are also spiritual too, aren't they? So, why should water baptism not also be important just because it is physical?

    B) I submit that the command of Christ is to baptise in water. Clearly during the life of Jesus baptism included water as He, Himself, was water baptised in the Jordon River (Mt 3:14) . Jesus's disciples while He was on earth also baptised in water (Jo 4:2).

    His command in Matthew 28 was to baptise in water. This in fact is part of how is how disciples were made since the participles 'go' 'baptize' 'teaching' ,all work off the verb 'matheteusate .'

    C) That water was the element meant is evidenced by the baptism in Acts 2:38 where IMO the purpose of that baptism was expressly the remission of sins (I am very able to elaborate on the function of the preposition 'eis' there as indicating purpose).

    To counter that after Pentecost (Acts 2) the baptisms in Acts were in Spirit only, not in water, is groundless:

    Obviously water is the element in Acts 8:36, "Here is water! What prevents me from being baptised?"

    Look also at 10:47, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptised?"

    Again see the proximity of the Spirit coming and water baptism in 19:5,6.

    C) IMO such texts as Rom 6:1-4 , Col 2 :11,12; 1 Cor 12 :13, and Gal 3:27 all have water baptism as the referent. Consider the last text. Here observe the chiastic structure where being son connects to putting on Christ and baptism connects to through faith! That is water baptism=faith! The same connection is in Col 2.

    I am saying that in the examples in Acts above and in the formal Pauline exposition of water baptism here, that ordinance is an expression of faith. It is the faith that saves not the water!

    Of course, one can believe without being water baptised . But why do that? Why not just follow the Scripture like Jesus commanded and the Church exemplified, and Paul exposited?


    As the first century church baptised in water and thus following the example and the command of its Lord, I really am very interested in your perspective on why the Quakers feel at liberty to stop doing that.




    II) But, flipping the page now and putting myself on the spot, how can I feel at liberty to forego the woman's veil in 1 Cor 11:5 if I insist that gender roles still connect to some ecclesiastical offices?

    A) Let me assure you that I do not deny that Paul referenced on some occasions customs of his own day and that the particulars of these are not always permanent. Consider this example:

    the Holy Kiss.

    In this same book of 1 Cor (also in Rom/2 Cor) Paul says in ch 16 to "Greet one another with a holy kiss." Yet, while I oft see warm hand shakes and even frequent hugging in churches I go to , I rarely see a lot of smooching going on (despite the Unk ever threatening to kiss my hand;) ).

    But wait, are all these good church folks I see not kissing then not breaking the Pauline command? Well, I don't think so .

    I think it is the principle that is important! And that principle is love for the brethren. Love for the brethren is thinking on the things of others (Phil 2: 4). Love of the brethren is caring for the poor (Jas 3:15,16). Loving is being patient and kind and not arrogant and bearing and believing all things (1 Cor 13). Love is MUCH, MUCH more than kissing.

    It is the principle of loving is that which is significant, not the holy kiss.

    B) Well, then , if it's principles that count, what is the principle at work in the first part of 1 Cor 11? Paul is giving praise in v2 because they follow the traditions he taught them. )We should ask ourselves if Paul would praise us). The very next verse supplies the principle:

    "Christ is the Head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman." {Kephale (head) means authority over--not source of! -I will very happily give evidence if desired}

    So, the function of the veil in that society was one way to show the headship of the male. The headship of man is the principle, the veil is a sign/custom! The veil was the sign of the males ( an argument can be made that 'husband' is particular referent, not all males) dominance in church contexts just like the holy kiss was a sign of love. But it is quite possible to honor the principle without keeping this particular sign of that principle.

    C) And complementarians, as I, feel we are in fact honoring the principle by saying certain ecclesiastical offices were/are to be filled by men.

    These offices to be filled by men include "apostleship" ,in the authoritative sense, and eldership and/or the office of instructing men in the church. However, IMO, in the New Testament women were prophetesses and probably deaconesses as well.

    By doing this as a practice in my preferred denomination of Conservative Baptist, it is felt that we are in fact keeping the principle required in 1 Cor 11:5 though without the cultural sign of that.



    III. But now, have I not cornered myself? How can I well argue that a sign of male headship , the veil, can be given up, but the sign of salvation, water baptism, cannot?

    A) Water baptism is pervasively both exemplified and taught in Scripture as being a universal and an ongoing practice within the Church. The "of all nations" in Mt 28 demonstrates that!

    B) Water baptism was not simply a sign of faith, but was an expression of faith too.

    C) Water baptism has no established cultural causation. It clearly was a divine mandate!

    D) Male dominance in ecclesiastical offices is also pervasively exemplified and taught. Why did Jesus choose no female apostles? Why must Judas's replacement be male (Acts 1:21, the noun is andros)? Why never a clear example of a female authoritative apostle? Why never a clear case of a female elder? Why must elders be husbands (1 Tim 3)? Why no clear example of a woman whose calling was to teach men in a church setting?

    E) Besides this, the headship of men and the offices they hold are specifically said to be an effect of the order of creation, not a consequence of a societal condition:

    "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." 1 cor 11:8

    " I don't allow a woman to teach a man...For it was Adam who was first created." 1 Tim 2:12, 13

    For these reasons the giving up of the veil is not justifiably to be taken as a corollary for the giving up of water baptism!



    It seems to me, that more convincing arguments need to be made by a Bible believer for changing the apostolic church's practice of water baptism and gender roles than saying , "Well that's just how we do it now."
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    I know nothing of Christianity, as a perusal of my past posts will extablish. However, I was VERY surprised by your statement that "water baptism has no established cultural causation".

    Jews have required converts to be immersed in the mikveh as their final act prior to being accepted as Jews at LEAST since Mishnaic times. Judging from the Mishnah, the practice was well established even then. Although the practice COULD have evolved simultaneously among the Jews and the early Church, that seems doubtful to me because of the age of the Mishnah and the nature of the arguments therein. I am not in any way qualified to discuss that issue.

    Of course, the cult of the mikveh requires periodic immersion throughout one's life for various reasons connected with ritual purity.

    Today, few American Jews outside the Orthodox sects continue the practice of the mikveh, but even Conservative and some Liberal Rabbis require immersion in the context of conversion.
     
  3. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Pretty hard to make any sense out of John the "Baptizer" if mikvaos weren't in use as a common practice. Yes, I know that's the "wrong" spelling. I don't care.

    Years ago a rabbi I knew was moved to tears when I was reciting some prayers, which he knew I really only knew by rote anyway. When I asked him what was wrong, he said. "You use the Ashkenazic pronunciation." I asked him why wouldn't I, since my family is Carpathian, not Spaniard. He said to some of the other people present. "Look how this Christian shows pietas toward our ancestors. Our kids and almost all cantors now only use Israeli pronunciation as though Vilna or Budapest never were." One of the men who had flown in the London Polish Air Force during the war said I reminded him of his father. I have never in my life received better compliments than these, nor do I expect or care to.

    With all due respect, if Quakers are normative Scripture-based Christians, then Jewish Science is normative Torah-true Judaism. Cosmicness ain't no substitute for Heilsgeschichte, whether for Jews or Christians, and reinterpreting stuff out of existence ain't loyalty to the stuff in question. Anybody living remember the American Council for Judaism? Or the Catholic Apostolics? Or the Frankists (hi Mr Justice Brandeis)? Or the Muggletonians?

    Sorry for typos. Can't see text well tonight.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Uncle Janko....very touching story.

    As an aside, I love Jewish culture. It is fascinating in its richness and variety. I worked around an Orthodox Rabbi in the army and learned a lot from him. The humour, the insight, etc. He even surprised me once when he said that he was very happy about the accession of a Muslim Chaplain (the Christians were less so). His point was that the Christian dominated chaplaincy paid lip service to diversity but now having a faith group so different would require more thoughtful processes. He was a character. Had an EdD and gave me the advice that when working on a dissertation it was important to work on it every day because that diligence and fortitude made the difference between ABD & Dr.

    PBS had a great series (2 programs) "A laugh, a tear, a Mitzvah,"(??)

    North
     
  5. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
  6. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 20, 2004
  7. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", hunh?

    Fair enough. I cannot prove for certain that the Christian baptism derived from the Jewish cult of the mikveh. However, an awful lot of Christian practice DOES derive from Jewish custom and I admit that the similarity of the acts plus the fact that John and Jesus are thought to have been Jews makes me suspect that there is no "independant, intervening cause".

    Anyway, thank you for your explanation.

    Uncle:

    Ashkenazi is HARD if one's ears are accustomed to Sephardi/Israeli pronounciation. Historically, the Sepharadim were considered the "superior" religious and intellectual tradition until about, oh, the 1700s or so. NOW, of course, that is not the case. It is ironic that the Hebrew of Israel, an Ashkenazi-ruled country, follows the Shephardi pronounciation.
     
  8. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2004
  9. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Bill:

    Did John Baptize Jesus in water or with water?
     
  10. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Blessed Virgin Mary: "Oy. Lookit that. Coupla grown men splashing around in the water like big babies. Where did we go wrong?"
    St. Elisabeth: "I dunno. Let's blame their fathers."
     
  11. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    ==

    Howard

    I am the worst kind of Bible thumper--a Baptist:eek:

    So, IMO, yes, there is more evidence which can be elicited from lexicical investigations, various clues in texts describing the experiences of baptizands, and in the figures found in such as Rom 6, as being "buried" with Him in baptism as Calvin himself admits, to strongly suggest that Christian baptism was generally by immersion rather than by pouring or sprinkling. Acts 19 suggests to me that John's baptism was not exactly Christian baptism.

    As an aside you know the baptism by John was in the Jordan River. That river being salty was perhaps not deemed suitable for Jewish purification rites and so may not have either been closely connected with first c. Judaism . Num 19:17) as I discussed with Nosborne .

    John's baptism of Jesus may have been by immersion. I am not saying either side, immersion or not, re John's baptism, does not have some difficulties.

    But one issue is why such a volume of water would be needed were immersion not the mode. John seems to chosen his site carefully because there was not just water available, and how much really is needed for sprinkling, but MUCH water there at Aenon (John 3:23) . Here Harper's Bible Dictionary opines, "The abundance of water suggests that the candidates may have been immersed."

    The need for much water is reminiscent of the baptism of the Ethiopian by Philip in Acts 8. Surely they had a small supply of drinking water quite sufficient for merely sprinkling or pouring. But baptism there was occasioned by them finding a larger supply.

    Then, second, is the description of Jesus's baptism in Mark chap 1. In v5 we see by the preposition 'en' that John baptised IN the river--not just next to it as in scooping water out of it. In v9 the preposition 'eis' shows that Jesus went into the river. In V10 , He came up out of (ek) the water. But sprinking or pouring would not seem to require being IN a river.

    Here Hodge counters that baptism was done by one standing in the river and having water poured over him until he was thoroughly drenched. However if one cares to do a lexical study of the Greek word 'bapto,' I believe he will find that the verb does not mean "to pour."

    You see, in such doctrines as the mode of baptism, as an evangelical , I can appreciate and have good fellowship with any who disagrees with me as long as we agree that the norm of doctrine is the Scripture.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2004
  12. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Actually, there is a similar debate in Talmud.

    A valid mikveh requires no less than 40 se'as of water that must be free, like rain water or a stream or lake. In theory, the ocean is acceptable.

    A valid immersion must be complete. The subject must not only be completely submerged, but must not touch the sides or bottom of the mikveh.

    The use of the mikveh has resurfaced (grin) among some Reform groups. They commonly use a swimming pool since these congregations very rarely build a proper mikveh.

    A swimming pool is not acceptable UNLESS 40 se'as of free running water are introduced into it prior to use. Even then, authority is split.

    The Conservative movement has issued an opinion that renders valid for conversion an immersion in any lake or stream even where the subject had no intention, or even awareness, that he was performing a ritual immersion. This argument is designed to increase the number of Reform conversions that conservatism will accept as valid. (Reform does not require immersion or, technically, even adult male circumcision, though in practice few Reform rabbis will accept an uncircumcised male convert.)
     
  13. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Interesting Nosborne.
     
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It may be of interest to some that many in the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) are beginning to baptize.

    A number of Quaker meetings (churches) in Indiana Yearly Meeting (Friends United Meeting) and a number of meetings in the Evangelical Friends International (FKA Evangelical Friends Alliance) are also beginning to baptize.

    Also of interest is that many Friends meetings are now celebrating Communion on an irregular basis.

    As a former Quaker I find all this rather disturbing. It won't be long before there will be no distinctives between Quakers and other Protestant groups.

    I have studied denominations and churches for a long time. I think many denominations have lost their distinctives due to our mobile society. No longer do folks look for specific denominations when seeking a church after moving into a new community.

    They will join a church that is closest to their home, because someone invited them, or because they have met and like the minister.

    I'll never forget one particular Friends church I pastored where I was told, on a number of ocassions, "Oh, I'm not a Quaker, I'm a Baptist (Methodist, etc.)" whenever I reminded them of our distinctives. They said this even though they were members of a Friends meeting!

    At my current pastorate I make sure all prospective members know and understand Christian church/chruches of Christ history and theology--Lord's Supper each week, baptism by immersion, no infant baptism, etc.
     
  15. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

    ===

    ?? Something incongruous about this, but I just can't put my finger on it :confused:
     
  16. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

    No incongruity here. If one is going to be a Quaker, be a Quaker. If one is going to be an independent Christian, be an independent Christian.

    I believed North touched upon this with his post regarding the RCC. Basic foundational principles are fundamental to the continuation of any "denomination."
     
  17. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 21, 2004
  18. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

     
  19. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

     

Share This Page