toldailytopic: Water baptism: what is it's place today?

[Selaphiel]

Great synopsis, TG. :up:

Selaphiel,
You said, "Ignoring 200 years of academic knowledge of the Bible is hardly the way to go if you want any sort of accurate information." Whose academic knowledge should we not ignore? Considering the many different and opposing scholarly doctrinal positions that have been taken during the last 200 years (and certainly beyond), then whose are we to ignore and whose are we to not ignore? Do we accept the scholar's "academic knowledge" that agrees with you, and reject the scholars' "academic knowledge" that disagrees with you?

Please clarify what you meant by that.

Thanks,
Randy

You have to clarify what is meant with scholarly doctrinal positions. Doctrinal or dogmatic academia is pretty close to an oxymoron.
You are not supposed to accept an academic position without being critical, constantly questioning it and examining its reasoning.

However, to bring up diversity of opinion is not an argument to ignore all professional opinion and methods. This is like arguing that exorcism is a good psychiatric treatment based on diversity of opinion within the field of psychiatry. There are many unified positions in theology as well, and they do not agree with fundamentalist views on the Bible.

It is not a question of who you are going to ignore or not. Rational discourse is what you should not ignore. That means constant effort to improve knowledge and to improve knowledge and understanding you need to be critical and criticize old positions by either finding poor reasoning, give new reasons using other data or applying new methods and expand the old perspectives. That is how all scientific study works.
Diversity in opinion during the history of critical studies of the Bible and Christianity has its reasons, it is not merely bickering among theologians. 200 years worth of study involves new methods and perspectives. Just within literary criticism alone there have been developed a multitude of new methods throughout those 200 years.
To escape from academic analysis (literary, linguistic, historical and social) of the Bible is nothing but blind ignorance which leads to fanaticism. Academic scholarly opinion is not about reaching a final perfect objective understanding (that is simply not possible), it is about always trying to reach a better understanding using a variety of methods and approaches to see the Bible and Christian history more clearly.
If we were to embrace a non-critical approach in other disciplines, we would go back to the dark ages fairly fast. Why disregard critical analysis when it comes to theology while maintaining it in other disciplines?

 

[chickenman]

Thanks, Selaphiel.

But you wrongly assume that MidActs'ers ignore others. Some do, just as some of any persuasion do. But you'll find MidActs'ers with extensive libraries that include language studies, histories, and commentaries. We don't ignore others, we just reject the notion that scholars have the answers. I'm not saying you've said that (I don't know...haven't seen enough of your posts), but it is a very popular opinion. The Bible and the Bible alone is the inspired word of God. So we rely on it and test what we read against it. It alone is steadfast, even as scholarly opinions on how to interpret it change over time.

Furthermore, focusing on culture and language can be good, but it often creates the mindset that we must turn to those things when we encounter difficulties in scripture. The very common result: something clear doesn't make sense (based on what one supposedly already knows), so he seeks out some extra-biblical help to make sense of it. A Church of Christ person seeks help from scholars to make sense of passages that show no requirement for water baptism. A Baptist seeks help from scholars to make sense of passages that show no eternal security. And guess what? They will always find the answers they *need*.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[greatdivide46]

ORIGINAL: TheGraphite

Paul never, ever commands water baptism. His only reference in his epistles is early in his ministry, in which he explains that he did not come to water baptize, but to preach the gospel. In contrast to the Twelve, who were commanded to preach the gospel, which included water baptism (Matt. 28, Acts 2:38).

I appreciate your long post. I can't respond to it in its entirety (I don't have that much time). However, I will attempt a response to the above paragraph.

While it may be true that Paul, himself never actually commanded baptism, he really didn't have to since it was already commanded. And Gentiles as well as Jews were being baptized. Paul did say, though, that he was sent not to baptize but to preach, but that doesn't mean that he thought baptism was unnecessary. Paul still baptized people after all. He admitted as much in the very same passage where he said he was not sent to baptize. Besides baptism is not even the context of that passage.

 

[Selaphiel]

But you wrongly assume that MidActs'ers ignore others. Some do, just as some of any persuasion do. But you'll find MidActs'ers with extensive libraries that include language studies, histories, and commentaries. We don't ignore others, we just reject the notion that scholars have the answers. I'm not saying you've said that (I don't know...haven't seen enough of your posts), but it is a very popular opinion. The Bible and the Bible alone is the inspired word of God. So we rely on it and test what we read against it. It alone is steadfast, even as scholarly opinions on how to interpret it change over time.

I'm sorry if I generalized Mid-Acts dispensationalists, I'm sure there are variances there as well.
I agree that scholars are not in possession of any kind of final answers. To take current scholarly opinion uncritically as a new dogma just gives a you a new dogma. It must be engaged critically and constantly approved. It is adherence to this principle that is important. Adherence to the academic critical principles is important for scripture, since it prevents a petrified stale understanding of scripture which is rooted in a specific historical, social and linguistic context. No text is self-evident, all readings of are ultimately context bound.
You can call that principle a dogma, but it is open for discussion as well through the philosophy of science and the way it argues for the methods and epistemology of the different sciences.
That the Bible is the word of God is a religious opinion, and it has no validity in academic thinking. In academic thinking the Bible must be approached using academic methods and principles.

Furthermore, focusing on culture and language can be good, but it often creates the mindset that we must turn to those things when we encounter difficulties in scripture. The very common result: something clear doesn't make sense (based on what one supposedly already knows), so he seeks out some extra-biblical help to make sense of it. A Church of Christ person seeks help from scholars to make sense of passages that show no requirement for water baptism. A Baptist seeks help from scholars to make sense of passages that show no eternal security. And guess what? They will always find the answers they *need*.

I would claim that there is no such thing as "clear" in a collection of 2000-2500 year old text which arose in a radically different culture. Not only that, the texts are not unified in theological opinion, the Bible as a collection is polyphonic when it comes to the theology it presents, that is something the vast majority of scholars agree on.

This approach has been fruitful to say the least. To read something like for example Paul's epistles as a text outside the context it was written yields strange understandings of it. Don't you agree that the most important thing is to understand what Paul meant by the words he wrote and not what we make of them by reading them uncritically 2000 years later? New Paul studies (often referred to as the New perspective) attempts to read Paul by establishing his cultural, historical and social context to understand the terminology he uses.

We understand now that what he argues is healthy and moral is in perfect correlation with the medical opinion dominating in his time and culture. That raises important questions. Should we adhere to the medical opinions of antiquity or should we adhere to modern medical opinions?
A very good case has also been made that claims Paul uses Stoic terminology and world view to do mediate his theology (so does John). Thus knowing the logic of Stoic thought helps us understand Paul better.
We also know Paul was a Hellenistic Jew which explains his overall universalism perspective (universalism as the Hellenistic dream that all nations could be united) and is also a good case for Paul's use of Stoic philosophy.
All this rather new knowledge greatly influences how one must understand Pauline terminology and argumentation and thus makes some earlier readings of him seem like rather poor incompatible understandings.

Knowledge should form theology, not the other way around. A Baptist that uses scholarly opinion only to validate his preconceived understandings is not being academic at all. We must differentiate between correct use and abuse when we determine the value of academic thought in general.

Thank you for remaining civil and polite. It makes discussions more fruitful and pleasant to engage in :e4e:

 

[bybee]

Well said

Well said

I'm sorry if I generalized Mid-Acts dispensationalists, I'm sure there are variances there as well.
I agree that scholars are not in possession of any kind of final answers. To take current scholarly opinion uncritically as a new dogma just gives a you a new dogma. It must be engaged critically and constantly approved. It is adherence to this principle that is important. Adherence to the academic critical principles is important for scripture, since it prevents a petrified stale understanding of scripture which is rooted in a specific historical, social and linguistic context. No text is self-evident, all readings of are ultimately context bound.
You can call that principle a dogma, but it is open for discussion as well through the philosophy of science and the way it argues for the methods and epistemology of the different sciences.
That the Bible is the word of God is a religious opinion, and it has no validity in academic thinking. In academic thinking the Bible must be approached using academic methods and principles.



I would claim that there is no such thing as "clear" in a collection of 2000-2500 year old text which arose in a radically different culture. Not only that, the texts are not unified in theological opinion, the Bible as a collection is polyphonic when it comes to the theology it presents, that is something the vast majority of scholars agree on.

This approach has been fruitful to say the least. To read something like for example Paul's epistles as a text outside the context it was written yields strange understandings of it. Don't you agree that the most important thing is to understand what Paul meant by the words he wrote and not what we make of them by reading them uncritically 2000 years later? New Paul studies (often referred to as the New perspective) attempts to read Paul by establishing his cultural, historical and social context to understand the terminology he uses.

We understand now that what he argues is healthy and moral is in perfect correlation with the medical opinion dominating in his time and culture. That raises important questions. Should we adhere to the medical opinions of antiquity or should we adhere to modern medical opinions?
A very good case has also been made that claims Paul uses Stoic terminology and world view to do mediate his theology (so does John). Thus knowing the logic of Stoic thought helps us understand Paul better.
We also know Paul was a Hellenistic Jew which explains his overall universalism perspective (universalism as the Hellenistic dream that all nations could be united) and is also a good case for Paul's use of Stoic philosophy.
All this rather new knowledge greatly influences how one must understand Pauline terminology and argumentation and thus makes some earlier readings of him seem like rather poor incompatible understandings.

Knowledge should form theology, not the other way around. A Baptist that uses scholarly opinion only to validate his preconceived understandings is not being academic at all. We must differentiate between correct use and abuse when we determine the value of academic thought in general.

Thank you for remaining civil and polite. It makes discussions more fruitful and pleasant to engage in :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Mark disagrees with you. The Greek in Mark 16 is clear, it means ALL men, not Jews among gentiles.

Of course it means all men! The gospel saved by people becoming part of the nation of Israel.

Graphite clearly spelt this out in his post.

 

[The Graphite]

Mark disagrees with you. The Greek in Mark 16 is clear, it means ALL men, not Jews among gentiles.

Mark 16:15

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει.

eis ton kosmon apanta = To all the world
pase te ktisei = All of the created beings

And what should the disciples tell ALL the created beings in ALL of the world?

Mark 16:16

ὁ πιστεύσας καὶ βαπτισθεὶς σωθήσεται, ὁ δὲ ἀπιστήσας κατακριθήσεται.

Whoever believes AND is baptized will be saved.

Mark predates Matthew. This is the original verse. That is the problem with MAD, they do not consider ANY historical knowledge or knowledge in general we have about the texts in the scripture. The result is that they make absurd connections, which have no historical validity, between texts.
A theology who seemingly does not recognize differences of theology and opinion between the different biblical texts are not really worthy of attention. Ignoring 200 years of academic knowledge of the Bible is hardly the way to go if you want any sort of accurate information.

Just like most people, you reword scripture to fit your preconceptions.

The Mark commission does not say all men. It says "all creation."

Do you share the gospel with cows and chickens? Daffodils and elm trees? Of course not. "All creation" is hyperbole. An exaggeration. Therefore, it does not tell us specifically who the target audience. Only how persistent they must be in accomplishing the mission to ... whomever the specific target actually is. Therefore we look elsewhere to see who and what that actual target is.

Also, like so many people, when someone provides you with scripture (even a whole slew of scriptural passages) your only thought is to try to "trump" that with a scripture that "beats" them. Did you spend even two seconds addressing what I wrote? No, you just found one single sentence elsewhere, no context, and basically said "See? Jacks beat 10s! I win!"

That is not how scripture works. You can't take a non-specific bit of hyperbole in one sentence in Mark to "prove" that my whole slew of scriptural evidences are somehow wrong. It's all true. Therefore you have to reconcile that. Instead, you ignored it.

 

[The Graphite]

And to clarify, Stripe stated that part of it better than I did. Thank you!

Yes, all kinds of people in the world would have the opportunity to hear the gospel that was being preached to the lost Jews, and if they responded to that in faith, would they be turned away? Of course not. And they would grasp the hem of that newly-reconciled Jew and follow him back to Israel.

Israel would be a light to the world, and His glory. Jesus even stated that "salvation is of the Jews!" How much more clear could He be?

However, since Paul, it has been the opposite. Israel has been a lost nation, while the Gentiles have been the focus of the gospel, and if a Jew hears that message, he is more than welcome to respond in faith, because (only since Paul) there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile.

Was there a distinction between Jew and Gentile for Peter, as late as Acts 10? You better believe there was. Peter was not an amnesiac. He was not schizophrenic. He knew there was still a distinction up to that point.

But, not after that point. His going to Cornelius' household was a sign to Israel that God hand changed directions. Paul would continue to give signs and warnings to Israel that she was being cut off, up until Acts 28, in this transitional period. But as for Peter, he went to one Gentile household, and then he and the Twelve went "to the Jews only." That is never abrogated in scripture.

And yes, for anyone who is confused on this point.... that is after the great commission in Mark.

 

[Alate_One]

Show some discussion-related integrity and answer your own question. Jesus commanded, "Do not murder". Jesus also commanded, "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy". Observing both or either of those does not lead to salvation today, but once upon a time both were required for salvation (or the appropriate sacrifice).

And I'm not saying baptism is necessary for salvation, however we are commanded to do it. Do you think "Do not murder" is somehow invalid today? Should we not honor the sabbath despite our celebration of it being moved to the day of Christ's resurrection?

Did Christ not say,

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

If you agree with that then you show where God de-established the requirements of the law.

Obedience to the law has never been the absolute requirement for salvation. Otherwise why would David be a "man after god's own heart" when he was guilty of so much of the law? EVERY patriarch sinned over and over and not accidentally. How could anyone be saved if obedience to the law was the standard?

Perhaps you have not read Hebrews 11? Where the writer clearly states that the patriarchs of the past acted by faith. James 2:23 says "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called the friend of God." Everyone recognized it was God's mercy that saved them and they were looking forward to something, but they did not know what it was.

The Christians you are trying to discredit have given numerous lines of evidence to show very clearly that Paul's gospel dis-established baptism as a legal requirement for salvation. Those Christians use similar lines of evidence to disestablish the entire law as a legal requirement for salvation.

The "disestablishment" is based only on a misunderstanding of the context of Paul's statements. People were getting confused as to who they belonged to based on who had baptized them. While baptism is important, it isn't necessary for salvation. Clearly Paul was practicing baptism.

I am not trying to "discredit" any individual only to correct their understanding. I'm surprised you would take this sort of discussion as a personal attack.

I sincerely doubt there's a way out for many MADists given the dogmatic adherence to this particular belief system. You've (I'm assuming you are included given your next statement) clearly put yourselves in nonexistent boxes that there is no escape from because they come from your own minds.

You either:
(a) agree with what you've been shown that none of the law is any longer of effect, or
(b) you provide your own verses showing God's change in standard that show the same thing, but in a better way, or
(c) you admit you think the entire law is still required in order to be saved.

I'm not going to accept your boxed in view of scripture, as Selpahiel already pointed out, it ignores the history of the texts themselves and centuries of Christian scholarship and tradition.

You realize all of the gospels were written AFTER most of Paul's letters? Luke's gospel is specifically addressed to a gentile individual. The gospels, and the letters all circulated, read and believed by all early churches.

Baptism is one of the two rituals we are asked to practice. I suppose you don't believe the Eucharist is for today either?

 

[The Graphite]

And I'm not saying baptism is necessary for salvation, however we are commanded to do it.

Water baptism is commanded ... but optional.

Got it.

 

[Alate_One]

Water baptism is commanded ... but optional.

Got it.

Obedience is evidence of salvation. If you're actually saved you will obey the Master.

 

[Selaphiel]

Just like most people, you reword scripture to fit your preconceptions.

The Mark commission does not say all men. It says "all creation."

Do you share the gospel with cows and chickens? Daffodils and elm trees? Of course not. "All creation" is hyperbole. An exaggeration. Therefore, it does not tell us specifically who the target audience. Only how persistent they must be in accomplishing the mission to ... whomever the specific target actually is. Therefore we look elsewhere to see who and what that actual target is.

Also, like so many people, when someone provides you with scripture (even a whole slew of scriptural passages) your only thought is to try to "trump" that with a scripture that "beats" them. Did you spend even two seconds addressing what I wrote? No, you just found one single sentence elsewhere, no context, and basically said "See? Jacks beat 10s! I win!"

That is not how scripture works. You can't take a non-specific bit of hyperbole in one sentence in Mark to "prove" that my whole slew of scriptural evidences are somehow wrong. It's all true. Therefore you have to reconcile that. Instead, you ignored it.

Let us see what the Greek says, not what the English says. te ktisei in a context like this refers to "all of mankind". It is not to be taken as an exaggeration as you suggest. This is also evident by the following verse who states "whoever believes", it is a message to all men, not to Jews only.

Greek dictionary states the following about the use of ktisei in Mark 16:15:

"Mark 16:15 "en pase te ktisei", among men of every race"

I did not suggest that one piece of scripture trumps a collection of scripture. You demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the relationship between the gospels. Mark was the source of Matthew which demonstrates there was a redaction in the great commission text since it is different in Matthew. So how do we explain this redaction? Matthew is generally considered to be a gospel written coming from a didache community, which were Jewish Christians. That they refer to Old Testament prophecy and thus specify it to be Jews only only reflects their opinion on the matter, an opinion coming from Jewish Christians.
So which version is authoritative? The original source or the one redacted within a community with a specific theological position?

Your view on scripture is unrealistic. The 4 gospels were written within different churches with different theologies and opinions in general. Forcing them to agree and complement each other instead of recognizing their uniqueness is a fallacy and represents a fairy tale view of scripture. The Bible is a collection of book, not a single book unified in opinion.
This is what I mean when I criticize the lack of knowledge of even the most basic knowledge we have about the Bible. Disagree all you like, but know that when you do you are basically rejecting all intellectual discussion about scripture and in doing that you are digging a hole for Christianity called irrational sectarianism which ultimately will have no root in reality.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks for the exchange, Selaphiel. I do understand some of the points you're making. Just a couple of comments...

I would claim that there is no such thing as "clear" in a collection of 2000-2500 year old text which arose in a radically different culture. Not only that, the texts are not unified in theological opinion, the Bible as a collection is polyphonic when it comes to the theology it presents, that is something the vast majority of scholars agree on.

Here's an example of what I meant. Acts 2:38 is clear. "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Literally every single English version structures the grammar the same way. Same meaning across all versions, even though we can see in those same versions other passages that differ. That tells me there's no uncertainty in the Greek with this passage. ALL the Bible translators saw it the same way.

The best UPC theologians will say it means what it says, apply it to them, and therefore preach water baptism for salvation. Same with the Church of Christ. But the best Baptist theologians don't see it that way. They say the Greek grammar makes it mean something else. Same with Assembly of God theologians. Non-theologian Baptists who don't like what the verse says will "prove" what it means by quoting one of their scholars. Non-theologian CoC'ers will simply point to what it says, or point to one of their scholars if challenged.

You know what I mean. Clear verse. Multiple scholarly opinions. So in the non-scholarly community, what wins? It becomes a battle of: my scholar can beat up your scholar.

Don't you agree that the most important thing is to understand what Paul meant by the words he wrote and not what we make of them by reading them uncritically 2000 years later?

Yes, but I would argue that we can understand what he meant by knowing the scriptures from which he argued. Idioms that he may have used (for example) can affect our understanding of passages. But doctrine doesn't depend upon 1st century culture; it depends upon the scriptures.

When Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, etc., then many have pointed to Him referring to a pass called the "eye of the needle". If that's true (I don't know), then His words might have had a different relevance to His audience than we might be able to understand, but the ultimate meaning doesn't change at all.

We can evaluate scripture against scripture to see what Paul, Jesus, or any epistle-writer meant. Straying from the scriptures in order to determine doctrine seems to be dangerous because it opens the door to too many ways to get around scripture.

Knowledge should form theology, not the other way around.

Yes, I agree. And prior to that, the Bible should form knowledge.

A Baptist that uses scholarly opinion only to validate his preconceived understandings is not being academic at all.

Or, more importantly than not being academic, he is being completely dishonest.

Thank you for remaining civil and polite. It makes discussions more fruitful and pleasant to engage in :e4e:

Likewise, Selaphiel. Thanks!

Randy

 

[The Graphite]

Obedience is evidence of salvation. If you're actually saved you will obey the Master.

Go build an ark... right after you get circumcised. Both are commanded in the Bible. Do you circumcise someone as an outward sign of obedience? I don't think so. But, it's commanded...

To other men, at other times.

What is commanded specifically to us, today?

That's what dispensationalism is all about. That's why I can eat pork... I can even eat meat sacrificed to idols. Even though Jesus in Revelation rebukes believers for doing so. Because that is not addressed to me, today. It is 100% true and accurate... to someone else, somewhere else, "somewhen" else.

 

[Alate_One]

Go build an ark... right after you get circumcised. Both are commanded in the Bible. Do you circumcise someone as an outward sign of obedience? I don't think so. But, it's commanded...

Circumcision was clearly not made a requirement. Christ did not command circumcision. Noah's ark was clearly a specific person and time . . . why would you think otherwise?

To other men, at other times.

There are things that are specific to their times, like Noah's flood but there's no reason to suggest that the word's of Christ are inapplicable today. That's not traditional Christianity. We are followers of Christ, not Paul.

What is commanded specifically to us, today?

If you're going to look at the Bible that way then technically nothing. Paul's letters were all written to specific people at specific times but yet we apply the messages within to us today. The early church and churches after wards did the same. MAD didn't show up until what . . . the 70s?

That's what dispensationalism is all about. That's why I can eat pork... I can even eat meat sacrificed to idols. Even though Jesus in Revelation rebukes believers for doing so. Because that is not addressed to me, today. It is 100% true and accurate... to someone else, somewhere else, "somewhen" else.

You take these differences to the point of nonsense.

 

[Selaphiel]

Here's an example of what I meant. Acts 2:38 is clear. "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Literally every single English version structures the grammar the same way. Same meaning across all versions, even though we can see in those same versions other passages that differ. That tells me there's no uncertainty in the Greek with this passage. ALL the Bible translators saw it the same way.

That is true, the Greek in that verse is clear in terms of grammar. In etymology I would argue that one word is rather complex and that is "metaneo" (repent). That is a typical word that triggers an alarm in my head. Considering that Acts is from the same author as Luke, it is relevant to see what the Gospel of Luke means by repentance and that is a rather complex theological issue

The best UPC theologians will say it means what it says, apply it to them, and therefore preach water baptism for salvation. Same with the Church of Christ. But the best Baptist theologians don't see it that way. They say the Greek grammar makes it mean something else. Same with Assembly of God theologians. Non-theologian Baptists who don't like what the verse says will "prove" what it means by quoting one of their scholars. Non-theologian CoC'ers will simply point to what it says, or point to one of their scholars if challenged.

You know what I mean. Clear verse. Multiple scholarly opinions. So in the non-scholarly community, what wins? It becomes a battle of: my scholar can beat up your scholar.

I understand what you mean and it is an issue that theologians should take the blame for. While the complexity and depth of academic theology is impressive, our ability to mediate it to non-academic believers is horrible. They write their material with no concern of mediating their research to the church (church meaning believers in general), leaving people to do quote wars as you say with no guidance from the authors.
Personally I think that most theologians today need to stop writing material that is so complex and speculative that there are about 5 people who can read and understand what they are saying. That kind of work is simply worthless. Theologians must engage with the believers and do theology that is fruitful for everyone and do theology that can be mediated outside the sphere of professional theologians. And last but not least, answer and respect questions and critique from believers who are not academically trained.

Yes, but I would argue that we can understand what he meant by knowing the scriptures from which he argued. Idioms that he may have used (for example) can affect our understanding of passages. But doctrine doesn't depend upon 1st century culture; it depends upon the scriptures.

When Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, etc., then many have pointed to Him referring to a pass called the "eye of the needle". If that's true (I don't know), then His words might have had a different relevance to His audience than we might be able to understand, but the ultimate meaning doesn't change at all.

We can evaluate scripture against scripture to see what Paul, Jesus, or any epistle-writer meant. Straying from the scriptures in order to determine doctrine seems to be dangerous because it opens the door to too many ways to get around scripture.

Doctrine depends upon scripture, that I agree with. But I would argue that language depends upon culture and historical/social context, so to understand the terminology and linguistic conventions of scripture we must understand its context (at least to the best of our ability). To develop doctrine from context alone would be heretical, and I must underline that I did not mean to imply that. Understanding the context is merely a tool to try to better understand the language of scripture.

And regarding the camel through the eye of the needle. I've heard to explanations, one is that the word camel (in Arameic) can mean thick rope as well, which makes a bit more sense as an image but conveys the same point. The other explanation is that the statement conveys the same point, but that the expression is a humorous one, a sort of serious joke in other words. I like the second explanation, the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ had humor.

 

[Nick M]

He was speaking to a specific group of people when he said that he was thankful for not baptizing, not to everyone in the Body. Just because he said that to some people doesn't mean baptism is bad, only that they made it a bad thing.

It is bad to think that baptism makes a person saved, but it is not bad to be baptized as a symbolic gesture before God.

He said you did John's water batpizm, now be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Two events. Water batpizm is of circumcision. And not to be practiced for any reason. It is a legalistic requirement of the law.

 

[Wamba]

He said you did John's water batpizm, now be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Two events. Water batpizm is of circumcision. And not to be practiced for any reason. It is a legalistic requirement of the law.

For any reason? I don't think that's in the Bible.

I think that's your legalism; you're saying that it is wrong to be baptized for any reason. That is legalism.

 

[bling]

It is interesting how we fight against baptism and neglect the good that could come from being baptized.

Baptism like everything else we are commanded, asked, led or suggested we do is all to help us. Being ideal will just lead to trouble and so we have the privilege and honor of allowing the Holy Spirit to work through us doing good stuff and sharing in the glory of His work. It can be seen as work we are doing, but it is really Him working through us as much as we will allow Him to work.
Water baptism helps us to experience physically and adds to the inward feelings, words and message we have accepted. We know we have died and buried the old sinful self (going down into the water), we know we have put our trust (faith) in the hands of another (the person that will lower us down and left us up), we know our sins have been washed away (the water pouring down off of us), we have humbly accepted God’s grace (submission to the act of water baptism is a humbling experience) and we know we have been raises to a new life with a new family (coming out of water to the hands of brothers and sisters in Christ). We start our new life of witnessing by witnessing our faith to others. It is no more a work than believing or confessing, a very simple act that really helps us, “should any deny those that would like to experience this help from God?

 

[Stripe]

And I'm not saying baptism is necessary for salvation, however we are commanded to do it. Do you think "Do not murder" is somehow invalid today? Should we not honor the sabbath despite our celebration of it being moved to the day of Christ's resurrection?

:doh:

1. Nobody (certainly not I) accused you of saying baptism is necessary for salvation.
2. Do not murder has never been invalid. Its validity is of singular unimportance to this discussion.
3. Who cares if you honour the sabbath or not? Of what possible use is that to the discussion?

Did Christ not say,

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Yes, He did say that. He said it because it was true. He said it because it has always been true. He said it and it will always be true. Every single person may be with the Father solely because of Jesus Christ. Pointing this out does nothing whatsoever for whatever point you're trying to make.

What point are you trying to make?

Obedience to the law has never been the absolute requirement for salvation. Otherwise why would David be a "man after god's own heart" when he was guilty of so much of the law? EVERY patriarch sinned over and over and not accidentally. How could anyone be saved if obedience to the law was the standard?

The same way everyone is always saved. By faith and through the grace of Jesus Christ. You are not talking about anything that is under debate. The fact is that the rules did change. Once upon a time God commanded that people fulfil the law in order to express their faith and be saved. He did that for a reason. Now He commands that we use our faith to commit to Jesus Christ. That's a rather dramatic change!

The Christians you are talking to can walk you through clear passages that rigorously describe this change down to very fine details.

How about you show some integrity and, since you agree that something changed, show us the passages outlining that change. Or if you do not believe anything changed then admit that.

Perhaps you have not read Hebrews 11? Where the writer clearly states that the patriarchs of the past acted by faith. James 2:23 says "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called the friend of God." Everyone recognized it was God's mercy that saved them and they were looking forward to something, but they did not know what it was.

No, I have read it. Perhaps you haven't understood that all men are always saved by faith through the grace of God. What changes is the means by which God rules that faith be expressed.

The "disestablishment" is based only on a misunderstanding of the context of Paul's statements. People were getting confused as to who they belonged to based on who had baptized them. While baptism is important, it isn't necessary for salvation. Clearly Paul was practicing baptism.

Nothing is important in the light of that which saves. Baptism is a total waste of time when it comes to salvation. You might as well thrown yourself in a vat of 3 day old noodles for all the saving power power of baptism. You might as well drown yourself in Coca Cola for all the good baptism will do to save a man. Baptism is utterly useless ... for the purposes of salvation. It might be a nice tradition and it might make certain people happy to see you follow their way of thinking, but the absence of baptism from a church is utterly meaningless to any spiritual status.

Baptism is one of the two rituals we are asked to practice. I suppose you don't believe the Eucharist is for today either?

What's a eucharist? :idunno: