Also it is a pleasure to note the continued spirit of friendliness that has prevailed among those with differing viewpoints.
The Baptism of Everett
Re: The Baptism of Everett
This has been a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
Also it is a pleasure to note the continued spirit of friendliness that has prevailed among those with differing viewpoints.
Also it is a pleasure to note the continued spirit of friendliness that has prevailed among those with differing viewpoints.
Suzana
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
_________________________
If a man cannot be a Christian in the place he is, he cannot be a Christian anywhere. - Henry Ward Beecher
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Danny,
Why would it be thought strange for God to act, for Him to bless someone upon the occasion of their obedience to His command? He has a clear record of doing so:
John 9 (New King James Version)
1. Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3. Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. 4. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. 5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6. When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. 7. And He said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing. 8. Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?”
9. Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.”
He said, “I am he.”
10. Therefore they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?”
11. He answered and said, “A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and I received sight.”
12. Then they said to him, “Where is He?”
He said, “I do not know.”
You wrote:
I am reminded of another occasion when God acted in response to a seemingly useless act that He commanded. An excert from an old sermon, circa 1869 (the arguments haven't changed):
While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they spake against God and against Moses, inquiring, "Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." The people came to Moses, making confession. They said: "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us." The wickedest and hardest-hearted people will repent when a calamity comes, war, or pestilence, and desire prayers. Moses listened to them and prayed for them. See Numbers xxi. 7. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when be looketh upon it, shall live."
Moses made the serpent of brass and put it upon a pole, What think you of this for an "outward performance," an "external rite?" etc. What think you many preachers in our day would have said of this pole and serpent? They would want to know whether there was virtue in the pole, in the brass, in looking, etc., etc., and whether they could not be saved some other way. Could not God save a man without looking? What good could it do to look at the brazen serpent? The wisdom of God was in this appointment. He intended that all men should know that there was nothing in the pole, the serpent, or looking, in itself, to save them. He intended that all men should see that it was not what they did that saved them, but that God saved them. Yet he did not please to save them without the pole, the serpent and the looking. He required them to submit to this appointment, as a test of their faith, a trial of their loyalty, in an act of submission that had nothing in it but submission to him. When they submitted, he demonstrated his approval by healing them.
Why would it be thought strange for God to act, for Him to bless someone upon the occasion of their obedience to His command? He has a clear record of doing so:
John 9 (New King James Version)
1. Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind from birth. 2. And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3. Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. 4. I must work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day; the night is coming when no one can work. 5. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6. When He had said these things, He spat on the ground and made clay with the saliva; and He anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay. 7. And He said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which is translated, Sent). So he went and washed, and came back seeing. 8. Therefore the neighbors and those who previously had seen that he was blind said, “Is not this he who sat and begged?”
9. Some said, “This is he.” Others said, “He is like him.”
He said, “I am he.”
10. Therefore they said to him, “How were your eyes opened?”
11. He answered and said, “A Man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed, and I received sight.”
12. Then they said to him, “Where is He?”
He said, “I do not know.”
You wrote:
You are correct that He is not limited, as nothing can limit Him. This does not mean that He will not limit Himself, as there is ample record of Him doing. He has made it a habit.God is not limited in His ability to perform this cleansing by our performance of a procedure whereby one person dunks another person into water.
I would say it differently. The immersion is the occasion when God acts, as Peter proclaimed on the Day of Pentecost. God is the chief baptizer.The dunking into water is a symbolic enactment of what is occurring at a deeper level in the inner man.
You will not find this idea anywhere in scripture. Nowhere is this stated, and in none of the conversion narratives does anyone act as though this was the purpose. No attempt to gather an audience. Baptism done in the middle of the night.Likewise baptism served as a public statement of a committment.
Where do you read this?The inward baptism is not dependant on the performance of the outward ritual.
I am reminded of another occasion when God acted in response to a seemingly useless act that He commanded. An excert from an old sermon, circa 1869 (the arguments haven't changed):
While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they spake against God and against Moses, inquiring, "Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread. And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." The people came to Moses, making confession. They said: "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us." The wickedest and hardest-hearted people will repent when a calamity comes, war, or pestilence, and desire prayers. Moses listened to them and prayed for them. See Numbers xxi. 7. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when be looketh upon it, shall live."
Moses made the serpent of brass and put it upon a pole, What think you of this for an "outward performance," an "external rite?" etc. What think you many preachers in our day would have said of this pole and serpent? They would want to know whether there was virtue in the pole, in the brass, in looking, etc., etc., and whether they could not be saved some other way. Could not God save a man without looking? What good could it do to look at the brazen serpent? The wisdom of God was in this appointment. He intended that all men should know that there was nothing in the pole, the serpent, or looking, in itself, to save them. He intended that all men should see that it was not what they did that saved them, but that God saved them. Yet he did not please to save them without the pole, the serpent and the looking. He required them to submit to this appointment, as a test of their faith, a trial of their loyalty, in an act of submission that had nothing in it but submission to him. When they submitted, he demonstrated his approval by healing them.
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Suzana,
You wrote:
You wrote:
Yes, We came home from church excited about the 96 year old man getting baptized, and just wanted to share the story. I never expected this discussion!This has been a very interesting and thought-provoking discussion.
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Yes, that's what prompted the whole discussion! The 96-year old man being baptized!
Was it really necessary for him to get baptized? Couldn't he have gotten right with God without being baptized?
Was it really necessary for the man to wash in the pool of Siloam in order to be healed of his blindness?
Was it really necessary for the people to look at the brass serpent in order to be saved from the fiery serpents?
Was it really necessary for the priests to march around Jericho seven times in order for the walls to be destroyed?
Was it really necessary for Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River in order to be healed of his leprosy. He himself said the rivers of Damascus were better, and went away in a rage.
Was it really necessary for Adam and Eve to refrain from eating from the tree of knowledge of good an evil in order to live forever? The serpent told them, "You shall not die."
The whole question is not whether God could have accomplished his purpose without people performing these "external rituals" . Rather the question is whether we are willing to do what God has asked us to do, so that He will act in response to our obedience.
Was it really necessary for him to get baptized? Couldn't he have gotten right with God without being baptized?
Was it really necessary for the man to wash in the pool of Siloam in order to be healed of his blindness?
Was it really necessary for the people to look at the brass serpent in order to be saved from the fiery serpents?
Was it really necessary for the priests to march around Jericho seven times in order for the walls to be destroyed?
Was it really necessary for Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River in order to be healed of his leprosy. He himself said the rivers of Damascus were better, and went away in a rage.
Was it really necessary for Adam and Eve to refrain from eating from the tree of knowledge of good an evil in order to live forever? The serpent told them, "You shall not die."
The whole question is not whether God could have accomplished his purpose without people performing these "external rituals" . Rather the question is whether we are willing to do what God has asked us to do, so that He will act in response to our obedience.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: The Baptism of Everett
I have an aversion to parsing proof-texts. It becomes an exercise in futility (as the discussions revolving around Universal Reconciliation made clear). It doesn't take long to devolve into arguments about the meaning of a particular Greek word or going around in circles, talking past one-another and not wanting to be the first to fold. Sometimes it seems to come down to who can dig up the most proof-texts that support their position:I noticed you didn't bother responded to those absolutes concerning Baptism.
"I got five scriptures!"
"Dang! I only got three! I guess you win."
Or:
"I've got Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunich."
"I'll see your Ethiopian eunich and raise you one thief on the cross."
The whole exercise strikes me as uncomfortably reminiscent of a group of scribes and Pharisees scouring the scriptures yet missing the point. I'm not calling you a Pharisee, by the way, I'm just saying we can all begin to slide down that slope, so I'm trying to learn not to get too close.
Since we have some fundamental differences on how we approach and apply scripture (I'm not an "inerrantist" or an "infalliblist") I doubt there we're going to be satisfied by one another's answers. But it's still fun to dialog! To echo Suzana, I've enjoyed the friendliness and liveliness of this discussion.
Having said all that, as you request, here are my quick takes on the verses you quoted:
1 Peter 3:21
Peter seems to be making a point which I've been trying (awkwardly) to make which is that true baptism is an inner work, not an outer one. The water can only wash away dirt. Interestingly, it was Peter who witnessed Cornelius and the gang being filled with the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism. That seems to support the idea of water baptism as a symbol of what the Spirit has already done.
Acts 22:16
Paul seems to make clear in Galatians 1:11-12 that he received the Gospel directly from Christ on the Damascus road and became a believer at that point. Acts 9:17 seems to indicate that Paul then received the Holy Spirit as a result of Ananias' ministry. The water baptism recommended by Ananias is a commemoration of what has already occurred in Paul's inner man. By the way, I notice that Ananias was a bit of a faith healer. Since you believe this text is instructive for today, do you also believe in faith healers?
Acts 2:38
Is this where we start to debate the meaning of the Greek word eis (for/because)? Or should I say, "I'll see your Acts 2:38 and raise you an Ephesians 2:8-9."
Mark 16:16
Hmmm. Do I bring up the point about verses 9-20 possibly not being in the original document and therefore not a good place to hang one's doctrinal hat on? Or should I ask if you practice snake handling? And what about "He who has believed but has not been baptized"? This text doesn't seem to address those folks. The point of this text is belief, not baptism.
By the same token, where in the Bible does it say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved?I'll tell you what. You point to me that one place in Scripture that tells us that Baptism with water is merely symbolic and thus elective. You do that for me, ok?
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Hi Homer,
However, it would be typical of us humans to try to turn that into a formula. "If we do this, it makes God do that." Therein lies the root of religion.
I think your other points I generally responded to in the post I just wrote to Allyn. I don't want to keep repeating myself or it will become tedious for all.
Hi Paidion,
I don't think that would be strange at all.Why would it be thought strange for God to act, for Him to bless someone upon the occasion of their obedience to His command?
However, it would be typical of us humans to try to turn that into a formula. "If we do this, it makes God do that." Therein lies the root of religion.
I think your other points I generally responded to in the post I just wrote to Allyn. I don't want to keep repeating myself or it will become tedious for all.
Hi Paidion,
Do we now tell everyone who wants healing to wash in a pool?Was it really necessary for the man to wash in the pool of Siloam in order to be healed of his blindness?
Do we now carry brass serpents into the desert to ward of snakes?Was it really necessary for the people to look at the brass serpent in order to be saved from the fiery serpents?
Do we still march around cities seven times in order to conquer them?Was it really necessary for the priests to march around Jericho seven times in order for the walls to be destroyed?
Do we now tell everyone who has leprosy to dip in the Jordan seven times?Was it really necessary for Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River in order to be healed of his leprosy. He himself said the rivers of Damascus were better, and went away in a rage.
You lost me on this one, perhaps because I don't take this story literally.Was it really necessary for Adam and Eve to refrain from eating from the tree of knowledge of good an evil in order to live forever? The serpent told them, "You shall not die."
No, the question is whether we put the emphasis on the performance of a ritual or on the Truth which the ritual symbolizes. Are we obediant to the Living God on a moment-by-moment basis (as the people in the examples above were) or do we just follow rituals.The whole question is not whether God could have accomplished his purpose without people performing these "external rituals" . Rather the question is whether we are willing to do what God has asked us to do, so that He will act in response to our obedience.
My blog: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read’st black where I read white.”
-- William Blake
Re: The Baptism of Everett
By the fact that every time the Gospel was preached, Baptism was never left out of the equation.Danny wrote:
By the same token, where in the Bible does it say that if a man is not baptized then he will not be saved?
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Allyn wrote:
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. I Cor. 10:1-4
They werent REALLY baptized; they walked through the sea on dry ground. a cloud cant qualify as water. It seems to be talking about something symbolic, or spiritual. Then again i could be totally off base even bringing up this scripture.
Also, I think it is a mistake to say that simply because something is symbolic then it is also elective. I believe that baptism is a symbolic gesture, but I dont think that it is elective if there is opportunity to be baptized. No, i dont think that the baptism does anything mystical, but I do believe that Jesus commanded that we be baptized, just like he commanded that we participate in communion.
As far as the discussion regarding whether God speaks to us outside of scripture, we would have to disregard the testimony of many many great men and women of God who have claimed that God spoke to them, sometimes even audibly, or seemingly so. Have you read the journal of George Fox, or the story of Brother Yun, or any of a very large number of Christian brothers and sisters who say that God DOES speak to them?
I know for a fact that God has spoken to me in a dream, and I have talked with others who say the same thing. Of course God speaks to us in scripture, but I think it would be grave error to say that we cannot hear God speak outside of scripture. of course what he speaks will not contradict scripture. if it does it is someone else who is speaking.
TK
I'm not smart enough to figure out if this scripture applies, so you'll have to tell me:You point to me that one place in Scripture that tells us that Baptism with water is merely symbolic and thus elective.
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. I Cor. 10:1-4
They werent REALLY baptized; they walked through the sea on dry ground. a cloud cant qualify as water. It seems to be talking about something symbolic, or spiritual. Then again i could be totally off base even bringing up this scripture.
Also, I think it is a mistake to say that simply because something is symbolic then it is also elective. I believe that baptism is a symbolic gesture, but I dont think that it is elective if there is opportunity to be baptized. No, i dont think that the baptism does anything mystical, but I do believe that Jesus commanded that we be baptized, just like he commanded that we participate in communion.
As far as the discussion regarding whether God speaks to us outside of scripture, we would have to disregard the testimony of many many great men and women of God who have claimed that God spoke to them, sometimes even audibly, or seemingly so. Have you read the journal of George Fox, or the story of Brother Yun, or any of a very large number of Christian brothers and sisters who say that God DOES speak to them?
I know for a fact that God has spoken to me in a dream, and I have talked with others who say the same thing. Of course God speaks to us in scripture, but I think it would be grave error to say that we cannot hear God speak outside of scripture. of course what he speaks will not contradict scripture. if it does it is someone else who is speaking.
TK
Re: The Baptism of Everett
Hi TK,
No I don't think it is the same thing at all. The NT Baptism is now what saves us.
As far as God speaking to us, I hope I didn't come across that way. I do believe He speaks to us and I have examples in my own life, but He never told me anything different from what was already in the word. That's how I have always understood it.
No I don't think it is the same thing at all. The NT Baptism is now what saves us.
As far as God speaking to us, I hope I didn't come across that way. I do believe He speaks to us and I have examples in my own life, but He never told me anything different from what was already in the word. That's how I have always understood it.
TK wrote:Allyn wrote:
I'm not smart enough to figure out if this scripture applies, so you'll have to tell me:You point to me that one place in Scripture that tells us that Baptism with water is merely symbolic and thus elective.
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. I Cor. 10:1-4
They werent REALLY baptized; they walked through the sea on dry ground. a cloud cant qualify as water. It seems to be talking about something symbolic, or spiritual. Then again i could be totally off base even bringing up this scripture.
Also, I think it is a mistake to say that simply because something is symbolic then it is also elective. I believe that baptism is a symbolic gesture, but I dont think that it is elective if there is opportunity to be baptized. No, i dont think that the baptism does anything mystical, but I do believe that Jesus commanded that we be baptized, just like he commanded that we participate in communion.
As far as the discussion regarding whether God speaks to us outside of scripture, we would have to disregard the testimony of many many great men and women of God who have claimed that God spoke to them, sometimes even audibly, or seemingly so. Have you read the journal of George Fox, or the story of Brother Yun, or any of a very large number of Christian brothers and sisters who say that God DOES speak to them?
I know for a fact that God has spoken to me in a dream, and I have talked with others who say the same thing. Of course God speaks to us in scripture, but I think it would be grave error to say that we cannot hear God speak outside of scripture. of course what he speaks will not contradict scripture. if it does it is someone else who is speaking.
TK
Re: The Baptism of Everett
It would seem from your argument that you think the command to be baptize all nations was no more universal than the command above.Danny wrote:Do we now tell everyone who wants healing to wash in a pool?, etc., etc.,etc.
My point was that obedience is essential. For where God has commanded (whether specific as in the case of washing in the pool of Siloam, or universal, as in the case of making disciples of ALL nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe ALL that Christ had commanded) and man does not comply, neither does God act in the way that He would have if obedience had been forthcoming.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.