a theology post for Bill Glover

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Howard, Jun 29, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Howard

    Howard New Member

    Bill:
    Any comments?


    BAPTISM ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST
    In one day, the day of Pentecost, three (3,000) thousand were baptized. This notable meeting started at nine oclock in the morning and certainly the shouting and rejoicing of the saved did not cease before noon. If 3,000 were immersed from noon until seven in the evening then seven were baptized every minute. It is not unreasonable to believe that at this time of the year there was no water around Jerusalem except the public pools, and who could believe that the enemies of this movement, authorities of Jerusalem, would under any circumstances allow the pools of water to be defiled? The multitudes of the city had to use this water for cooking and drinking. In Ezek. 86:24, "I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land, then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." According to this prophecy God gathered His people from "all countries into their own land. See Acts 2:5. Luke who wrote the book of Acts, calls this baptism. What Isaiah calls sprinkling Jesus too calls it baptism. Jesus said, "For John truly baptized with water but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." Joel 2:28 said, "With the Holy Ghost" would be by pouring on the day of Pentecost and Peter up at Caesarea said that "the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning," which was done by "pouring," said Joel and Peter. See Joel 2:28 and Luke 8:16.
    Richard Watson, in his Institutes, says: "It is satisfactory to discover that all attempts made to impose upon Christians a practice (immersion) repulsive to the feeling, dangerous to the health and offensive to delicacy, is destitute of all scriptural authority and of really primitive practice."
    Henry Alford, one of the great Greek scholars of the world says: "Almost without doubt this first baptism must have been administered, as that of the first Gentile converts was (see Acts 10:47) by affusion or sprinkling -not by immersion. The immersion of three thousand persons, in a city so sparsely furnished with water as Jerusalem, is equally inconceivable with a procession beyond the walls to the Kedron, or to Siloam, for that purpose."

    Bill, I am not your equal as a Biblical Scholar - so please center your debate around Alford & Watson - not with me. I know very little Greek and my Hebrew is limited to the knowledge that it is a language for left handed people. So, please, no running....debate Alford & Watson and give the board the benefit of your superior insight.
     
  2. Bill Grover

    Bill Grover New Member

    The issue of baptism is important to many Christians. My thanks to the moderators for being allowed to comment on it.


    Usually I would not mind your confrontive language as "don't confuse the issue" (in thread to Michael) or "no running away" here. But I do resent your tone a little in your case because you excuse yourself from competition by saying of yourself "I'm no Biblical scholar" and you do not respond to the questions I ask you. You can be as confrontive as you wish but excuse yourself from being confronted by saying "address your comments to what these say." But IMO if you base your beliefs on what these say, then you need to make yourself capable of defending what these say and what you believe!

    Nevertheless here are my responses to the points you make. Most of what I say could be simply found by anyone who would look.




    NO TIME TO IMMERSE 3,000?

    I don't see any merit at all in that argument. Why would any suppose that effusion or sprinkling would be so much quicker than immersion? Does one think that Peter hooked up a hose to the corner fire hydrant and sprayed them all? So, if 3000 could not in that time be immersed, then neither could they receive that sacrament by effusion!



    NOT SUFFICIENT WATER TO IMMERSE?

    Whoever suggests this needs to reconsider his data. Some of these pools in Jerusalem were 200 feet wide, six hundred feet long and up to fifty feet deep! (IDB 2:842). Morris says these pools were large and deep enough to swim in (Com John, 481).



    POOLS ONLY USED FOR COOKING AND DRINKING?

    Is that right? Then why would the Lutheran Lenski say that the pools were even used for swimming? (Com John, 361) Why would the sick lie around the Pool of Bethesda and jump in it to be healed? (John 5:3). (note INTO it, not just having from it poured over them!) Why would Jesus tell a man to go to a pool and wash mud and spit off his face if these pools were not used for anything but only cooking and drinking? (John 9:11). Someone needs to get facts straight!



    ENEMIES WOULD NOT ALLOW POOLS TO BE DEFILED?

    If sick people get into pools or the pools are used for swimming , then I think the 3000 well pilgrams for religious reasons would also be allowed to be baptised in those pools. I think this all happened rather too quickly for the authorities to mobilize and respond , and I think the unusual circumstances such as the wind and the tongues and the presence and religious convictions of Peter's auditors might not allow the authorities to act in the manner you suggest. The apostles and the converts continued daily in the Temple mostly unmolested (Acts 2:46).




    EZEK 86:24=LUKE 1:5?

    I suppose that you mean Acts 1:5 not Luke 1:5. But I'm yet at a loss as I cannot find chapter 86 in Ezekiel!!!



    JOEL 2:28 = WATER BAPTISM?

    I don't believe that this is very careful thinking. The pouring out of the Spirit itself is not a baptism anymore than the speaking in tongues was a baptism or the mentioned heavenly signs was a baptism. Baptism is not IN the Spirit as IN water, but it is BY the Spirit. The Spirit is the Agent not the Substance!

    In Acts 1:5 the preposition 'en' is not locative. It is instrumental(Bruce, Acts, Greek Text w-Commentary, 69). Jesus is not there saying that just as John baptised into water so, you will be baptised into Spirit! Spirit is not the substance or the element into which this baptism occurs.

    Rather the Spirit is the Agent of that baptism. It is not that God by pouring out His Spirit is baptising. Pouring out does not=baptizing! It is rather that the Spirit being poured out becomes the one who baptises! The two events are not identical.

    Any baptism must have four components: A baptizer, a baptizand, an element, and a purpose. But if I claim that the Spirit is the baptizer ,and not the element, then into what by the Spirit is one baptised?

    The answer is into the "body" of Christ, ""For we were all baptized BY one Spirit into one body... . (1 Corinthians 12:13--The context shows that body=Church). In this text also eis signifies INTO not TO!

    But if it is the Church into which we are baptised, then it is not into the Spirit. But if it is not into the Spirit, then that baptism is not identical with a pouring out of the Spirit!

    So, at Pentecost the baptism BY the Spirit is not the equivalent of the pouring out of the Spirit , it is an effect of that. Therefore, pouring in Joel 2 does not=baptism in Acts 1 or 2! The events are related, but they are not identical.



    THE HOUSE OF CORNELIUS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMMERSED?

    Why not? Cornelius was a Roman officer. The Romans were used bathing in baths. Why would he not have such a facility? Where is the evidence that he did not?


    BTW, I never thanked you for helping me to see it that I should "go" to SA. thanks.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2004
  3. Anthony Pina

    Anthony Pina Active Member

    The historical record for baptism by affusion does not appear to be very strong. The earliest recorded instance that I have found thus far is that of Novatus (c. 250 AD), who was baptized in bed by affusion due to illness. Upon recovery from this illness, he was recommended for priesthood office (presbyterate); however, the whole clerical body, and many laymen too, objected that the rules did not permit anyone baptized in bed by affusion to receive any (clerical) orders -- Eusebius Ecclesiastial History 6:43. The same source mentions that Novatus also failed to receive confirmation: "Without receiving these, how could he receive the Holy Ghost?" -- ibid.

    Novatus was later listed among the Christian "heretics".

    The fact that there were separate "rules" for immersion versus affusion baptism, is evidence that affusion was in practice by 250 AD, but it is significant that those receiving affusion baptism appeared to be ineligible for ordination.

    The Didache, an early Christian text, mentions sprinkling as an alternative to baptism by immersion. Scholars disagree widely as to the date of this document, some placing it in the latter part of the first century AD, while others place it firmly in the third century AD. There is textual evidence of multiple authorship, so different parts may have been composed at different times. This makes its witness for the early dating of affusion baptism troublesome.

    Baptism by immersion has much stronger texual and historical support as an acceptable practice in earliest Christianity than baptism by sprinkling. I am a firm believer in the necessity of immersion baptism, and usually cite the same NT texts that Bill Grover did in the other thread as support (so I will not repeat them here--see Bill's excellent summary). The powerful metaphor utilized by the Apostle Paul of death and rebirth appears meaningless outside of immersion baptism.

    Tony
     

Share This Page