🎙️Welcome to the Progressive Primitivist!📚
🤔🙋🏻♂️QUESTIONS? Contact us at: TheProgressivePrimitivist@gmail.com
📺WATCH: “BAPTISM & KOOL-AID: Responding to Bad Arguments Against Baptism” (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLG4lmwaJpVRLQWYNzaJm05gnY77YSWt4N)
📲FOLLOW OUR SOCIAL MEDIA!
Facebook: (https://tinyurl.com/Progressive-Primitivist)
Twitter: (https://twitter.com/ProgressivePrim)
Hashtags:
#churchofchrist #bible #theology #primitivism #stonecampbellmovement #bible #churchofchrist #christianchurch #restoration #baptism #newtestament #church #newtestamentchurch #jesus #god #holyspirit #biblestudy #biblereading #biblical
Has to do with whether or not there is such a thing as a category sacraments and we introduced this question last week and we said that most of Christendom has assumed that there is this General category which are called sacramental ordinances or something of that nature and there are certain ceremonies that
Belong to that category which by virtue of belonging to the same category have the same meaning some extent they had the same amazing and effect and we’re questioning whether or not that is an appropriate concept we’re ready for Point C the Biblical teaching relevant to this question is there any Biblical teaching that
Allows us or requires us to look at particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper as being two representatives of a single category well there are some new testament passages or some new testament reasons some believe for linking these two things together and so my point one there underneath this heading is
That baptism and the Lord’s subjects do have some things in common and there’s no question about that we have some things in common for example both baptism and the Lord’s Supper were commanded by Jesus Jesus commanded that we take the Lord’s Supper this do in remembrance of me he said he commanded
Baptisms let’s go into all the world to teach and baptize teach so they are commands of Jesus or should we say ordinances of Jesus he ordained them well the question then would be are you going to put everything that Jesus commanded in a single category and call
Them whatever and say they have the same meaning then you would put prayer foot washing and taxes among other things in the same categories that mean you’re safe by paying taxes I well Render unto Caesar I don’t think just the fact that Jesus commanded them warns us and
To create a category and say these are all the same kind of things well how about some other common meat somebody might say that the sacraments are those things which have a special relationship to the death of Jesus this is a common explanation since both baptism and the Lord’s Supper do pertain
To the death of Jesus they are put together in in a single category well that that’s all right with me to say that they both have a relationship to the death of Jesus because I believe they do but that does not necessarily mean they have the same relationship
I think you have to have further teaching concerning each one of them to say they have the same kind of relationship to the death of Jesus it seems to me the teaching concerning each one separately does not warrant are saying they have the same relationship to the death of Jesus
Unless you go to the next point which is that they involve the use of material objects or elements I really should spell this out a little further as a symbol as some kind of symbol of other realities that is the sacraments quote unquote are physical or visual symbols material symbols of other realities
Not necessarily spiritual realities of other realities in other words they they are object lessons or they they depict something besides themselves they have a symbolic nature what do they symbolize well death and resurrection of Jesus from what I might say that both baptism and the Lord’s Supper symbolize
The death and resurrection of Jesus therefore they are warranted as a common kind of act that belonged to a common category I could be comfortable with that if that were the only thing that the scripture says these actually symbolize I quite agree that the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the death of Jesus
It doesn’t quite symbolize his resurrection very clearly I quite agree that baptism symbolizes the death and resurrection of Jesus but is that the limit is that the uh is that all that would be symbolized by these actions No in fact if you look further you there are other things that are symbolized
For example baptism symbolizes the individual’s own death and Resurrection when a person is baptized that symbolizing not just the fact that Jesus died was buried in Rose but it also symbolizes the fact that the individual himself is dying to sin is being buried into the death of Christ and is rising
Walk and use a lot that I don’t say symbolized in the Lord’s Supper on the other hand the Lord suffered symbolizes deliberately symbolizes something that doesn’t seem to be represented by baptism namely the unity of the body the very symbolism according to First Corinthians 10 is that even though we
Are many when we partake of the one bread we become one body we all could take one cup which I’m guessing he really says that at least the one brand so there’s a symbolism uh involving the unity of the body here now I know that First Corinthians 12 13
Says we are one body because we were all baptized with the one baptism but that that’s not given as a symbolism in baptism just a fact it’s not symbolized by the event itself whereas in the Lord suffers the very taking of the word so symbolizes Unity
If you’re going to go just on symbolism and the fact that here you have some physical physical visual symbols of other realities you would also have to include some other things because let’s say foot washing symbolizes something that symbolizes humility symbolizes service so if you’re going to lump together
Things just because they are symbolic you might get more than you really wanted there’s some other answers that have been given here why these things should be lumped together by a baptism or suffered or lumped together and I don’t have them listed here sometimes you see somebody say well
These These are similar because only the clergy can perform see only the clergy can administer the Lord suffer only with clergy can administer baptism so therefore they must have something in common well you recognize that as a kind of post facto rationalization who says only the clergy can do this anyway and that
Whole idea arose only after they’ve been put into a common category something even more uh far out would be the idea well these two things similar because they can only be done on Sunday well I think we could go on with things like that but you see we’re getting a little frivolous now
The only way really to answer this question of whether or not baptism of the Lord’s Supper form a category of things which are by God’s design intended to have the same meaning is to look at the New Testament and see whether there is any kind of specific New Testament warrant so 0.2
Are there any new testament passages which seem to lay baptism and the Lord’s Supper alongside one another where they’re where they are spoken of is the same or a similar way foreign I think if they are we may not be surprised since baptism in the Lord’s Supper are both
Commanded by Christ and they are both things that are done by the church they are both symbolic of the death resurrection of Jesus and so on but if they are intended to be thus related not just in these ways but in terms of their inner meaning we might expect them
To be discussed together quite often in the New Testament and that’s the question I have here do we have them do we ever have them discussed together as far as their meaning is concerned some passages are pointed to as evidence of this or incidents of this and I’ve listed the more
Probable ones here or the more likely ones First Corinthians 12 13. which says by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body whether Jews are Greeks slaves are free and we were all made to drink of one spirit well obviously there you have it baptism and the Lord suffered mentioned together
In one verse all they we were all baptized and we were all made to drink drinking being uh indicative or representative of the Lord’s suffered do you have any reaction to that yeah you do well good the drinking there is the the water the Wellspring of Life The Water of Life
Spiritual strength that they’re relating to there isn’t it okay you’re saying it’s not the Holy Spirit but the holy spirit is there ever was there ever a point of time when we rank of the holy spirit says we were all made to drink of one spirit is that an event that has happened
Thank God Sanchez foreign rivers of Living Water and John says in verse 39 he was speaking about the spirit and those who believe in him were to receive the spirit was not yet given at the time he made the statement because Jesus is not yet glorified but it was going to take place
All right Jesus also talked about living water John 4 when the one’s well I’ll give you living water Hebrews 6 4 refers to tasting of Holy Spirit the time when we receive the Holy Spirit a one-time event and this is an heiressed tense here in this verse it’s
Refers to a one-time event in the past not to the continuing practice of the Lord’s Supper but to something that happened at one time in the past just the same as the baptism namely what happened in our Christian baptism when we received the gift of the Holy Spirit in other words
In this verse being baptized into one body and being made to drink of the one spirit are the same event for the same event not two different things but they both refer to our initiation as it were into Church by one Spirit we were baptized we were
Made to drink of one Spirit that’s not two different things it’s the same thing the line of thought that Sanchez raised is the appropriate one I think for understanding this we’ll have that first Corinthians 10. verses one through four Paul said I don’t want you to be unaware
Brethren that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea they all ate the same spiritual food they all drank the same spiritual drink they were drinking from a spiritual Rock
Which followed them and The Rock was Christ now here you have baptism on the one hand and eating and drinking on the other hand now no one is arguing here that Paul is talking about the Lord’s Supper specifically when he says they ate the same spiritual food they drank the same spiritual drink
The point is that in the mind of Paul baptism and the Lord’s Supper were so related and similar that he is just using those as a framework or referring to the spiritual life of the Old Testament Saints they were baptized just like you when they were baptized by going through the
Sea and the cloud and they had spiritual drink and food just like you and the the arguments would be well here’s an example where in the mind of Paul and thus in the Holy Spirit who is inspiring him baptism and the Lord’s Supper seemed to be brought together
If you have any reaction to that I don’t have much reaction to it myself it may well be as that is what led tall to say this in the way that he did I’m not going to try to say that that isn’t what he had in mind I can say that it’s not
Necessarily what he had in mind because there’s uh point about spiritual food and drink which is a rather common idea in scripture above and beyond the Lord’s Supper I’ll give you some examples particularly of the spiritual drinking in just a moment but I would Grant
Just just for the sake of not having to argue about it that it’s possible that Paul is thinking both about baptism and the Lord’s Supper here but that to me would not be decisive unless he were talking about it again they’re both having a common meaning another verse that’s raised is Acts 2
38-42 The Passage Acts 2 38 is a reference to baptism of course Peter’s sermon we can be baptized and so on verse 41 says those who receive his word were baptized about 3 000 people and verse 42 they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles teaching fellowship the break of bread into prayer
Well all right here you have obviously baptism in the Lord suffered breaking a bread must be the Lord’s Supper so here they are together you have a reaction to that isn’t the branch of bread of a constant symbol for Fellowship for the Lord says I stand at the door
And knock If any man answers I will come in and stuck with him isn’t it a symbol of Fellowship and isn’t that what he’s talking about here as opposed to communion books there’s no mention of a cup I guess I would I would agree that it’s it’s a symbol of Fellowship
I would probably disagree that that’s all it means here since he’s already mentioned Fellowship but it seems like he would want to be adding something rather than say fellowship and fellowship so on the one hand might be Fellowship in a worship setting and the other Fellowship around the common meal
As well as possible I think you would not be wrong to say that breaking the bread though wasn’t a term that came to be used to the Lord’s Supper you may wonder whether the question whether it was at this early date I’m not ready to go into that
Uh you you could be right on this and if you are then you have destroyed the argument Force which would make me happy but I I would say that even if it does refer the Lord’s Supper that still does not show some kind of inner Unity between the Lord’s supper and baptism
That you’ve got any further than I would go or would feel necessary to go in order to answer this this tendency if you’re going to put baptism the Lord suffered together on the basis of their proximity here you’d also have to add the fellowship and the apostles teaching
And prayer into the same category it seems to me to be rather obvious however that they don’t belong in the same category back in verse 38 he’s mentioned repentance and baptism for receiving permission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit and that is simply mentioned again down
In verse 41 as something that they did in reference to the promise in verse 38. the things in verse 42 seem to be in a different category namely things that Christians do once they become Christians these are the things that are together listening to the apostles teaching having Fellowship breaking bread praying together
Those are things they continue to do in other words as part of their sanctification whereas baptism is specifically linked to justification verse 38 for remission of sins so it’s just not a very fruitful Pursuit it seems to me to refer to such passage in this in this connection
But at least one other yeah Mark 10 38. has also been named as reflecting a common meaning to baptism in the Lord’s Supper this is Jesus response to James and John when they asked if they could sit one on his right hand the other on his left Jesus said to me
You do not know what you’re asking for are you able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am Baptized foreign bingo obviously Jesus or whoever wrote this was thinking about the sacraments drink the cup being baptized you see from our perspective
From within the church looking at a statement like this that might be what would come to our minds but the question is what did Jesus have in mind when he said this they hadn’t really had the Lord’s suffer in the instituted yet at this point what was available
To the mind of any of the Jews to which Jesus would be talking here James and John specifically what kind of imagery would be available to them I think it’s supposed to symbolize Wrath okay the Old Testament you have the idea of cup as representing wrath and or
Suffering at least on the part of an individual let me give you a few examples of that foreign 51 verse 17 and 22. Isaiah 51 verses 17 and 22. this is the cup of his anger at this point verse 17. [Applause] cup or Chalice of his anger in verse 22
Jeremiah 49 verse 12. another Jeremiah 49 verse 12. those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it are you the one who will be completely acquitted you will not be acquitted for you will certainly drink it judgments Judgment of God’s word see also Jeremiah 25 15.
Jeremiah 25 16 and Psalm 75 8 couple verses from Psalms Psalm 75 verse 8. Psalms 11 verse 6. their passages also in the New Testament if you look after this accordance if you want that to carry this idea further take Hebrews 2 verse 9 for example in reference to Jesus and his death
Says tasted death for everyone the idea there’s a drink from a cup Taste of death for everyone so my point here is on the in the Old Testament and in the new the idea of suffering particularly suffering the wrath of God is commonly referred to as or eaten from a cup
It seems to me that’s the most obvious background for Jesus reference in Mark 10 38 to drinking from the cup are you able to drink from the same cup that I’m going to drink from the name of the suffering of God’s Wrath and the baptism idea would be familiar
To them of course or their religious connections John the Baptist but the idea there is that of being overwhelmed it’s baptism means immersion to be immersed in suffering again so there doesn’t seem to be any warrants for reading the Lord’s supper and baptism into this and what we come up with
Oh by the way if you want other passages that are supposed to be relating baptism the Lord’s Supper you get John 19 34. I’m not even comment on this John 19 34. when the soldiers pierced his side immediately there came out blood and water blood water baptism also first John 5 6.
Which is in that same category spirit and water and blood Suggestion is made by no less than jar sloth Pelican who is famous history of historical Theologian Yale University this is in an article that he wrote before the rgg which is the encyclopedias in German that’s equivalent to a shop herbstog or Hastings that I taught from last week
That particular art was translated into English by the way they just wondered but these are passages that have been suggested I find most of them having no impact at all for developing a common category called sacraments foreign my conclusion but it is not at all certain that the key passages here and
The two key ones seem to be First Corinthians and uh First Corinthians 12 13. to me obviously mean something else the only one that can be pointed to at all as possibly indicating both Lord’s supper and baptism together is 10 verses 1 to 4. but my point here is
That the key passages is not at all certain that they are referring to baptism Lord’s supper and even if they are this in itself does not create a special category for these items you would have to go a lot further than that it seems to me the proper procedure is
To examine the Biblical teaching regarding each item to see if the Bible does indeed give them the same meaning and our position is our conclusion is that it does not any common meaning that is given to baptism or suffer is one that is imposed upon them by speculation [Applause]
Well how did people come to think of these these two items as being together and having a common name to start with is our point on page six the historical development category Sacramento very briefly on the first two points in the early centuries the concept of a
Sacrament and you remember this is a word that arose only in the Latin speaking church because his Latin word is in the early centuries the concept included a wide variety of elements of Ceremonies because it seems that to someone like turtleian the sacrament was simply a sacred thing
Sacred ceremony perhaps and he included a number of things that we’ve already looked at and others did too this does not mean that each of these sacred things would have the same meaning but they had it a common relation to God it was the common relation to God rather than us
Their relation to man that warranted them to be called the sacraments these are things reflected Divine things and the point two in the medieval Catholic church and the concept becomes more crystallized we have seen already the term Sacrament and the concept of Sacrament continue to apply to a broad number of sacred things
But then toward the latter part of the Middle Ages the number was officially reduced to 7 1439 I’ve already mentioned that and the specific common nature of the sacraments was agreed upon in the Catholic theology it’s not my first year to go into how the Roman Catholic Church
Viewed the sacraments but it was during the Middle Ages that the category was limited to seven and was specifically defined as to meaning each one of these seven items was seen as a vehicle by which God bestows grace on the individual not the same kind of Grace but nevertheless some kind of Grace
And they all operated in the same way they all had a certain form the form being specific words that had to be said and specific element that had to be used like water or oil or red and wine or something like that but all this was spelled out in detail
And these seven things were the sacraments now our main concern here is to point out what happened within Protestants for most Protestants the Reformation is a breath of fresh air Sunshine into a dark place the Dark Ages to being dispelled with light from Martin Luther King Langley and Calvin great performers
Not everyone considers every aspect of the Reformation to be beneficials that’s particularly true from our perspective I think in the restoration movement we have had some real problems with the augustinianism both Luther and Calvin namely the concept of the well Five Points of Calvinism idea down this predestination augustinian
Predestinated this is part of the Reformation this is part of the doctrine but even though it was part of the Reformation maybe it was not the best if you maybe the Catholics themselves had a better View even though we probably would agree with the Catholic on this matter of sacraments
Which by the way was one of the principal um topics for reformation is it necessarily so that the right Reformation was made with regard to sacraments can we assume that can we assume that the reformers even though they recognize that the Catholic doctrine of sacraments needed reforming and we assumed that they made
The right kind of reforms I don’t think we can I think we have to raise this question um they did make some specific changes they changed the number from seven to two the Catholics had seven the reformers said no there are only two sacraments they also changed the meaning perhaps in
Some ways to the good for example the Catholic View of sacraments was that as long as the priest is going through the right form using the right form as long as his intentions are right and as long as the person receiving the sacrament is not putting up some kind of deliberate barrier
The sacraments will work almost automatically the doc the term that they used was X Opera operato probably seen this which means something like by the very working of the work but by doing this though the person being or receiving the sacrament does not even have to understand what’s going on he doesn’t
Have to have any positive faith as long as he’s not putting up a negative barrier foreign ERS to a man renounce this idea and I think properly so after all justification is by faith [Applause] but one thing the reformers did not change one thing that they did not alter with
Regard to the doctrine of sacraments they kept the concept of sacrament they kept the category with the old old assumption that this is a proper legitimate scriptural category and even if they have a different number two instead of seven and even if they have a different meaning as compared
With the Catholic Church nevertheless the assumption is these two items baptism the Lord suffered are the two items that belong to this broader category of things which which have a common mean huh I have a thesis on this that this point in itself namely the assumption that both baptism and the Lord suffer
Have economy is one thing that helps lead to the division between the lutherans and the reformed camp because really the thing they divided over was sacraments the reason for the main reason I would say you have lutherans separate from Presbyterians today because they did not agree on the sacraments Lutheran zwingley who were
Contemporaries were the fountainheads of these two streams the Lutheran reformed in the late 1520s I think it was 1529 they had a conference together it was at Marburg where they tried to reconcile their differences and bring the German reformation and the Swiss Reformation together which would have been a mighty Force
They couldn’t do it they they had 15 things they were trying to reach agreement on and they agreed on about 14 and a half but they could not agree on that occasion specifically on the Lord’s Supper Luther went away thinking that swingley was still a heretic so England was ready to accept Luther
But Luther wouldn’t uh and I don’t have all the Dynamics Verified or anything like that this is just a thesis I say maybe I should say hypothesis at this point that one of the reasons why they never got together is because of this assumption that baptism in the Lord’s Supper must have the same meaning what happened is for Luther and the lutherans
They tend tended and tend toward a nearly biblical view of the meaning of baptism because I understand it anyway the lutherans understand baptism as necessary for the remission of sins they give it a very strong sacramental interpretation in other words assuming then a common meaning for the with the other sacrament
Lutherans also have tended to give the Lord’s Supper the same strong meaning of remission of sins now I don’t want to make try to press this to the exclusion of other things but I can’t help but think that in Luther’s mind since he was so committed to this view of baptism
That he had to see the Lord’s Supper as having similar strong meanings Let’s say that’s not the only thing because Luther had a hang up on the words this is my body which led him to believe that the actual body and blood of Jesus are present in the Lord’s Supper and that when a person takes the Lord’s Supper he is actually partaking of the
Body and blood of Jesus and if he’s partaken to the body and blood of Jesus then they must be praying about remission of sins in some way because why else would you partake of the body and blood of Jesus nevertheless this idea that both baptism support suffered would have the same meaning
Would at least strengthen just his own understanding of the Lord the very understanding that New England could not accept wouldn’t it have been nice if Luther could have kept his understanding of baptism without thinking that well the Lord’s Supper must go right alongside that with the same name where he could have
Accepted so English understanding of the Lord’s Side then you would come up with something pretty close to Ideal but look at it from the other point of view from the point of view of Langley and Calvin real sense the successor to zwingley zwingly broke the ground here
Calvin plant well he didn’t even plan I think William broke the ground and planted Calvin ascended and reaped could not have a lot of originality in this case what you have in these people is a fairly biblical view of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper see this is just
The opposite of the Lutheran side which has a what I consider quite biblical view of the meaning of baptism not formal subjects but the reforms have a quite good understanding of the meaning of the Lord’s Supper there’s some revision that Calvin gave to zwingley’s view but it’s all in the same general pot
So what do they do well assuming then that uh baptism and the Lord’s Supper must have a common meaning they give to baptism the very same meaning they give to the Lord suffering so what is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper according to zoingly Calvin in addition to being a commemoration of
The death of Jesus what does it mean for the person taken well it at best is a faith strengthener I mean at best and that was England himself started out with that idea about 1523 she abandoned he abandoned that 1525 and doesn’t come back to it until
15 30 or 31 just for his death and then just briefly but at best it is a means of strengthening one’s faith of giving one assurance that he is saved that’s the most that the Lord’s Supper can do it also has the other ideas of being a witness to other people
That you are a Christian well that’s what the Lord’s Supper is then that must also be what baptism is this is the assumption so you can’t separate it in this mindset and mindset of the history of a thousand plus years of thinking if you’re going to give one of these this
Meaning you’ve got to give it to the other one also and that’s exactly what swingly did I wouldn’t say either that this is the only reason why zwingley and Calvin come up with this view of baptism there are certain things in their doctrine that prohibit them from taking a Biblical view a third-going calvinist cannot have a Biblical view of Baptist communities because I understand
Uh this is in Japan with their concept of election and irresistible Grace particularly but nevertheless the equation of baptism for supper is where the positive meaning of baptism is derived from as far as language is concerned this is what the Lord’s Supper means so this is what the baptism also means
Wouldn’t it have been nice if zwingley could have kept that view of the Lord’s Supper but could have agreed with Luther on being a bad person but that’s been ideal but you see they just couldn’t do it that way because in their mind they have to have the same
Now the tragic thing is well let me put it this way have you had your choice let’s say you were starting a new denomination around 1600. and you had the Lutheran tradition over here on this hand where the lutherans had this particular view of baptism and review the Lord suffering but with it
And you had the reformed a few over here on the other hand their view of the Lord’s supper and would be a baptism to go with it and you were going to start a new denomination and you were just kind of weighing strong weak points of each which one would you go with
Would you go with the Lutheran view of the sacraments or the reformed view of the sacraments because those were the basic choices unless you want to go back to the Catholic well don’t ask me why but most Protestants went with the reformed view rather than the loser sounds like the
Hardest thing to swallow would be uh swallow would be Luther’s view of the Lord’s Supper maybe that’s it yeah maybe that’s why most of them didn’t because of his view of the Lord’s son foreign because of the view of Christ that it entails say that the Lutheran christology in and
Of itself is unique their view of the What’s called the communicatio idiomatum speaking terms communication of the attributes the big argument between Luther and Langley was how can the body of Jesus be at the right hand of God and you have to be scattered all over the world and Lord suffers
And so English said obviously that’s not physically impossible because we’re talking about a human body here we’re not talking about the divine nature of Jesus we’re talking about human nature and the Bible says it see that the right hand of God and if it seated at the
Right hand of God it cannot be down here on some altar somewhere case closed foreign thing he said right-handed God is symbolic of the power of God so wherever the power of God is that’s where the body of Jesus is but how can it be in more one place at
The same time okay so it’s on your altars that means not on mine because ordinarily bodies can only be one place at a time now if you were divine that’s another question if you were God more than one place at a time because God is om depressed God’s ubiquitous no problems
Because the Incarnation brings this about the divine nature shares some of the qualities of human nature and vice versa in Jesus so in Jesus his human nature has communicated to it the attributes of divinity so the human nature of Jesus is omnipresent folks well let’s as you say you’re talking about
The Protestants in general having a difficult time with losers do the more suffer that would be one of the real difficult problems and it really is you know most prizes today you pick up a Lutheran Systematic Theology they have a big section of christology and this is their crowning glory is
Their view of christology because they believe we have the proper view of christology mainly this communicatio idiomatic but most of that is mainly to serve this view of the board so justify the Luther’s view the body and blood of Jesus are present in the Lord’s supplementary
That you may be right I hadn’t really thought about that Rick that maybe this is one reason why most Protestants we’re not comfortable listening to you that’s why they went with the reform there’s probably some other reasons but be an interesting study to see if one could uncover that
Any other questions or comments on this point you understand what I’ve just gone through here and do you understand why I’m concerned that we re-examine this whole idea that there is a common category called Saxony it seems to me that in itself at least has contributed to the division and protestantism
And to the fact that most Protestants have access to the wrong view of baptism namely The View that makes baptism equivalent to the Lord’s cycle if they’re if the reformers just had abandoned the category I don’t know but it’s all speculation but I wonder where we would have been today
It’s interesting just as an aside here for New England in connection with some of his other Doctrine he not only equated baptism the Lord suffered but he equated the quote the New Testament sacraments with the quote Old Testament sacraments so what are the Old Testament sections circumcision
Tyson yeah so in the Old Testament he has to equate circumcision as a Passover as having a common meaning which uh may be a little bit of a problem in itself but all four of these things are put into one pot of stirred these are introductory questions we’re
Dealing with here I hope you see this that we are talking about baptism and we know this these are introductory questions we’ve had a couple of things so far number one just a very terminology of sacrament ordinance and means of Grace number two the one we’ve discussed today
The category of Sacrament is it valid my answer is no and to recognize this to help straighten this out on our Doctrine baptism I’m ready to go to this third and final introductory question here on page six what is the relation between physical elements and spiritual results
Do you have any questions on what we’ve just covered before we go on to this point three the questions that should always be in your mind are did I understand what he said and so what always be asking these things you should always want to know exactly
What the teacher said he didn’t didn’t come through it’s clear ask for clarification the second is she’s also always ask the teacher now why are we going into this what’s the point of this what’s the importance of it you can’t teach you can’t answer that you ought to be embarrassed and it should
Revise his lecture notes I’ve tried to answer both of these already they didn’t come through come through Bear’s voice challenged me on it okay I can’t do any more than flower at you trying to ridicule you shouldn’t be worse than that so what have you got to lose I’m just kidding Point three what is the relation between the physical elements you’re taking the sacraments together which most protestantism does water bread improve the Vine what’s the relation between the physical elements we can think of water here because our top expenses and the spiritual results that are produced in the ceremonies use them
The specific question is can physical elements or actions have a necessary relation to spiritual effects yeah this is a a major stumbling block for many people in coming to what seems to me to be the biblical view of baptism baptism is a physical thing physical matter water and we’re saying that in baptism
Spiritual effects take place forgiveness of sins a new birth regeneration how can this be or can it be can physical elements can a physical ceremony like baptism produce such spiritual results can there be any necessary relationship between such a physical action and such spiritually things let’s clear up one thing at the
Beginning point a the Bible itself never presents a physical element or act as in itself being the cause for Source or origin of the spiritual effects of Salvation see that the word cost the word Source or origin these are the key words seeped into the soul and leech the sin out of it
Butter is not applied to the soul like it is to the body so that the sins or the pollution of sin is scrubbed Away by the water of baptism the Bible never talks that way there are very few theologians that speak that way that’s quite a caricature in fact
As I recall first Peter 3 21 says specifically that’s not the way it works it’s not like washing dirt off the body baptism saves but not by a metaphysical contact between water and the soul but that’s not the point [Applause] John 3 Verse 6 after Jesus is talking
About the necessity of being born of water and spirit does he say in verse six questions new translation yes yes it’s the corrupt version correct version corrupt version you’re not quoting me that which is born of the flesh is flesh that which is born of the spirit is Spirit
Also John 6 63 which is swingly golden text flesh profits enough it’s the spirit is life that was the first he kept referring to over and over the spirit gives life the flesh prophets and snacks only God through his spirit and bestow these spiritual blessings this is a Biblical teaching I don’t have
Any question about that but all the effects that take place in baptism all the saving effects that is I guess you get wet in baptism that comes from water but all the saving effects are God’s word they happen because God is working here they do not happen because there’s some
Kind of power in the water so let’s put this in a proper perspective because we’re still the bottom page six why isn’t so that Waters of baptism are not seen as cleansing the soul is it just because there’s some kind of metaphysical difference between physical matter and spiritual matter
No it’s not just this there’s something much more important than this I say here the inability of Flesh in terms of matter to produce the spiritual effects of Salvation is not due to some kind of inherent antithesis between matter and spirit inherent activities I don’t mean just difference because we
Acknowledge an inherent difference between matter and spirit but I’m talking about antithesis think of it this way think of the magnets or think of two magnets and remember the magnets have a positive and negative Pole remember what happens when you try to join two negatives or two positives
If you hold the two positive ends of a magnet up together what do they do they repel you know it’s fun isn’t to do that and feel your hands jerk around like this because you just can’t get them to go together they just gives you highness Think of that force that invisible it’s amazing some people think of modern spirit that way matter and spirit are you know not just different but they’re they’re anti-identical they’re contradictory and you try to make them join together in some way there’s just no way they just bounce away from each other particularly Spirit
No no no no no no no I don’t want anything to do with that stuff that’s why the Waters of baptism cannot take away sin well no it’s not it’s not really that the bottom of the page the inability is due mainly and simply to the inherent impotence of anything less than God
Himself to effect the kind of spiritual changes that are in view what are the spiritual changes you do remission of sins forgiveness Resurrection is a spiritual death being born again regeneration these are the changes what is able to accomplish these changes no less than God it’s not just because God is spirit that
He is able to cleanse our spirit hey there there are other Spirits besides God angels are out there too you know why couldn’t we just feel some Angel to come in and forgive our sins or cleanse our souls their spirit flesh props now the spirit of his life
Here’s an Angelic Spirit come in angel cleanse my heart from sin regenerate me forgive me Shouldn’t an Angelic Spirit be able to accomplish these because after all he’s a spirit or it’s a spirit for she’s a spirit whatever and if if all it takes is Spirit to give me spiritual blessings and Angels ought to be able to do that there’s a difference there’s a difference between Angelic spirits
And God who is Spirit angels are creatures it’s like we are they’re creatures no creative thing matter or spirit is able to say it’s to give us the things we need it’s not just because we’re talking about material stuff here it’s because we’re talking about creative stuff whether it be matter or spirit
No created stuff or being can save it’s God Alone who can save before I leave this one thought at the top page seven [Applause] though God Alone is the source of all spiritual blessings there is no inherent metaphysical reasons why the material elements or acts may not be used as
Proper and appropriate means or occasions of bestow English lessons see we acknowledge God as the one as the only one who can bestow the Blessed salvation acknowledge that but having so acknowledged this does the so-called matter Spirit antithesis mean that God himself will not or cannot use material being
As a part of the process or part of the occasion we’re taking away sin I mean that’s kind of this comes back to this duelist this comes back to the antenna Society is matter somehow they need God’s dignity for use in this great work of Salvation is matter somehow unworthy is matter somehow
Tainted or polluted in itself so that certainly God wouldn’t use that stuff that nasty stuff in his great spiritual work and salvation folks I see nothing at all in Scripture that would lead us to that conclusion that the god of the universe The God Who is Spirit The God Who created this world
Of matter would disdain the use of matter or material stuff to carry out its purposes no reason at all unless you’re pagan who has the idea that matter and spirit or somehow and enemies or uh in a antagonistic relationship to one another that is a pagan idea not a Biblical idea thank you
Do you see the difference between God as the source of the Salvation and the use of the material element or event as part of the way God may be stowed that salvation it’s one thing that really bugs me about greetings wingly I don’t know how many times over and
Over I probably got them all this not all of them but a lot of where he makes this point he says the soul cannot be cleansed by water internal things cannot be cleansed by external things the conscience cannot be purged by material things over and over and over again the only point is
Saying that that’s not what people are saying anyway that’s not what I’m saying what I am saying is time for a break as the actual cause of spiritual blessing of Salvation only God does this nevertheless there is no inherent metaphysical reason why God cannot use material elements as proper and
Appropriate means or occasions if they store in these lessons now point B their top page seven for the first 1500 years of Christian history very few people questioned to this point that is very few questions of propriety of the use of the physical elements as a necessary part of ceremonies which are
Essentially spiritual in their results you get that point I’m talking about up to a zwingly actually when I say for the first 1500 years a very view went to the opposite extreme and seemed to attribute to the baptism the water itself the ability to cleanse the soul
I say a very few I really don’t know of more than one at least one prominent person that was true Colleen around 280 around 8 200. and tertullian ortalian’s Views seem to be controlled more by his total cosmology or metaphysics than anything else he held what
Would be called the stoic view of matter or the cosmos stoic view of the cosmos which taught that everything is made out of substance a similar kind of substance ranging from the very course which is mattered to the very fine which is Spirit and he’s this is basically a stoicism
In the stoic view which is pantheistic by the way all matter comes ultimately from the cosmic fire is the element that is transmuted into all other dogs as far as the stoics are concerned there are two main categories then there’s matter and there’s Spirit but it all
Comes from the cosmic fire to begin with and the spirit or logos as they called it is just finer more refined kind of stuff whereas matters coarser it’s retellions I had a view very similar to this and so he said when a person is going to be baptized the Holy Spirit
Which remember is himself very fine matter comes down to the baptismal Waters and kind of mingles with the water and even transforms the water into some sanctifying element so when a person is baptized that is lowered into this water it’s not just his body that’s affected
But his soul also remember his soul is also mattered Real Fine matters and so when the body is lowered into the water there is a kind of actual contact between his soul and either the holy spirit in the water or the water itself that’s been given this special property
I gave you just a couple of folks here he says the Holy Spirit descends and hovers over the waters thus sanctifying them by his presence the waters so Sanctified becomes so to speak impressed with the virtue that’s power to sanctify themselves for the nature of the waters Sanctified
By the Holy Spirit has received the power of sanctifying man in the sacrament so that he says the act of baptism itself too is carnal that is fleshly or material in that we are plunged in water which is a fleshly material thing but the effect is spiritual in that we are
Freed from sins he uses the term in one place that’s translated the medicinal water like medicine washes both the spirit and the body now Lester Italian now if that’s who’s wingley had in mind when he kept saying over and over the soul cannot be cleansed by material stuff
That is exactly was thinking about tertullian that’s fine because I would agree with zwingley against fertility up here but so would most other people with Chris very few as I say ever went this wrapped because very few ever had a stoic type of metaphysic to begin with
And so I say here this view was never widely held I couldn’t even tell you anybody else held it because most people did assume a metaphysical difference between matter and spirit in other words more people were influenced by a Plato than by the stoics but it was almost universally assumed
That the use of a physical element as a necessary item in a ceremony of spiritual cleansing was not at all improper not that the physical element did the cleansing as her Italian seems to say but that its use in conjunction with Divine cleansing would not be improper
Now there were some objections to this in Christian history first 1500 years there were people who renounced the use of physical elements at all in connection with spiritual cleansing can you give me any examples when you get into the Middle Ages you have some of these dualistic sects like
The politians and the average NCS and the photo meals who had the idea that matter is evil therefore you know not only do you not need these ceremonies but you should not use them because that’s that’s contrary to spirit yes even the politians I know you thought they were the true restoration
Movement in the Middle Ages I’m sorry they were Heretics they were dualists their christology stank could you use less technical terminology I created my own theological terminology I’ll Define it later Cynthia scenes do I did not get scenes hold that same point of view relevant to everything being evil All Flesh and evil not to my knowledge that scenes for Jews I um but isn’t that what Paul was writing against no I’ve never narcissism
Well yeah I thought the essenes were also involved it may be I’ve never heard it presented that way Lightfoot gives a lot of attention at the beginning of his well they certainly did not reject material ceremonies they had daily baptisms the essenes did so if they had any rejected that no it
Wasn’t a ceremony I was saying that all matter being evil yeah well possibly if they did they didn’t it didn’t affect their use of matter in any way so I can say at the time but you get into these other Christian sects in the Middle Ages their view that matters evil
LED them to reject the material ceremonies that’s what I was getting at here and I call attention to this only to say that this is the only kind of context that I’m aware of where anybody questions the propriety of using material elements like baptism like water and baptism as a
The occasion where God form of spiritual work only in a context where they had a view of the universe that tended toward the metaphysical duelist where matter is evil and that was these were people that were always considered to be Heretics the people in the mainstream Christian from the very beginning
Did not question the propriety of the use of physical elements bottom face seven the Roman Catholic doctrine of the sacraments was not affected it seems by this alien concept of some inherent antithesis between the physical and the spiritual their own Catholic Doctrine made full use of physical elements and ceremonies
And it was open to all four of the possible ways of relating physical and spiritual now I say all four of the possible ways you probably could think of others just to ruin my outline here that’s okay I thought of some others that might go in
Here myself but these are the main ones and I would have some discussion or argument whether there really could be any other but I’m not close to that but at least these four possible ways of relating physical and spiritual all of them seem to be admissible by the Catholics
Let me try to explain what I have in mind here going from the physical there on the left to the spiritual result on the other one possible relation between a physical element and a spiritual result is obviously just symbolical the physical symbolizes the spiritual as the Lord suffered for example the
Physical element of bread symbolizes Jesus dying on the cross the eating of the bread symbolizes our faith in his death on the cross there’s nothing else that needs to be involved beyond that the symbolic relationship can stand in and of itself okay that that’s barely innocuous I think not very controversial
You see what I’m talking about physical elements can symbolize the spiritual truth or event or anything now the next l or the next point there the psychological relation is a little stronger the point here is not just that the physical symbolizes the spiritualism but the point here is that my
My life has somehow changed the physical element or act somehow produces a spiritual change in me can that be well yes and even zwingley would agree if I said it just that way certain times in his life anyway and the reform view generally would agree that the physical act does produce
Some spiritual effects or change but that change is of a psychological nature a psychological change in other words a change in my state of mind a change in my conscious attitude State of Mind now this is going a little further than the first point maybe I didn’t even go
Back and collaborate a little bit on the symbolical relationship between physical and spiritual what kind of effect would that have upon the individual but it’s witnessing this or that’s actually from taking up one could say that this is a an intellectual in fact that is I may understand it
Better by saying it this way it may help me to understand the death of Jesus when I actually go through but so it’s just a matter of understanding teaching through symbol or object lessons and in this second level we’re talking about more than just an intellectual
Change or an increase in my level of understanding we’re talking about some well I call it state of mind not just quantitative increase in knowledge and understanding of some kind of quality change perhaps or at least a change in some different elements within me than my simply my understanding
And what would you say could be some cycle what would I have in mind here as far as psychological events are concerned prayer prayers uh something I would actually do I’m talking about something that happens to me not something I do necessarily what what’s the result Sanchez changing motivation means okay
We’re getting into the right category here it motivates me let’s say people to live better to live my Christian Life with more intensity so a motivational change okay anything else assurance assurance my my own feeling of Assurance is strengthened as I remember that Jesus died for me
His blood is what’s covering my sins feeling of guilt okay I I feel this sense of freedom from guilt which I guess is a lot like the feeling of assurance here because that’s that’s part of knowing that of having the Assurance is knowing that your sins are forgiven your guilt is gone
Okay yeah one of my faith is strengthened is another way of putting this faith is strengthened I have a stronger faith because I I see this enacted before my eyes of baptism or the Lord’s supper and I guess I get a firmer grip on Christ all these are psychological changes
Changes in my state time that happened when I am aware of the baptism for the Lord’s Supper I’ll speak here from the standpoint of protestantism in general who can use both of these things together I’m wondering if they would think about this when we say that you’re baptized Baptist Church Will be much different than if you are bound ties for the forgiveness The Holy Spirit that’s a different question I’m only asking here what is our understanding of what’s Happening yeah yeah right and that’s what I’m saying because you’re like I was taught that when I was baptized I was baptized for to show the congregation that I was
You know now going to be in my life and I’m just wondering this is and psychologically therefore I was thinking all right now I have to show these people yeah whereas if I’d been the other way I would have felt a relief of guilt another thing so is that is that where
It’s at what how I feel and to how you feel is is what I’m talking about here on a psychological level you see some people would stop at this point and would not add anything else some would go further and say well these other things happen also but that doesn’t exclude the psychological
So your second illustration there I take it you’re not speaking autobiographically but they’re giving uh speaking from first person just for example I don’t know one way or the other because you said both you said if I am taught that I receive remission sins and baptism that that then the psychological change
In me would be this great freedom for Guilt yeah but that would rule out an actual remission of sins at the same time but there would be a psychological difference a change so what if you ruled out three and four or anything else you see too many people
Like the first illustration you gave if I’m taught that this is a a witness I’m giving to other people that’s it there’s really no psychological change in you it’s more it’s just symbolic the action is symbolizing your commitment so you haven’t even got up to number two
On that view because as far as you’re concerned you don’t need anything it’s the people out there that need it they need an assurance that you’re one of them this was Langley’s main teacher in the middle part of this theological career that’s the extent of it for both
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper it was not done for your sake there wasn’t even any psychological change that took place in you you don’t need it Holy Spirit works all that faith alone is all you need but you do it just for other people that’s symbolic
It’s a symbol of your commitment for the sake of other people and the psychological change would be what you generally have in reformed theology I said swingly started out with this second level with the idea that when I am baptized or when I take the Lord’s Supper that’s insurance that strengthens my faith
He seemed to come back to this in his very last writing just touched on it he knows wingley was killed in a battle he was kind of a chaplain chaplains took the risk in those days I guess he rode right out there on the horse with the rest of them
And he was killed I don’t know where he would have come to but Calvin took this over and he gave more emphasis to the psychological side the strengthening of faith and assurance and I’m applying this both to the Lord’s supper or at least it is in this context
Both to the Lord’s supper and to baptism when I take the Lord’s Supper you can see this now this is very real for us in the Lord’s Supper when we take the Lord’s Supper it is a psychological change that we’re hoping takes place as a change in
Our state of mind it could increase our repentance for example something wasn’t mentioned a while ago the state of Sorrow for sin uh the state of Assurance as was mentioned could increase our faith in Jesus could strengthen us motivate us it’s very real when you’re talking about
The Lord’s Supper it’s obvious to see how this could be when you apply it to baptism then you may have to strain a little bit to get these things out in the same way but you could see that there may be some of them also there psychological changes that take place
One I mean just as an aside one reason swingley gave up this the middle part is theological careers because he couldn’t reconcile this within the Baptist how can uh the infants experience a psychological change through baptism so he said he was struggling also at this very same
Time to to explain in the baptism to give a reason for it and this made it harder how should I baptized this baby if this is what it means I think that’s one of the main reasons he gave up the whole psychological side because it just didn’t fit in baptism it’s a sign
To the congregation more than anything else but this baby belongs to this group of people the safety it’s a symbol of belonging so he was limited to that first one there all right uh the third level takes it a step further not only is there symbolism physical symbolizing the spiritual
Not only is there a psychological change that takes place from the physical to the spiritual but there is a chronological connection between the physical and the spiritual now this needs to be explained a little further because in a sense all of these are chronological but we’re talking here
About something uh just a little bit more significant and heavy than the others we’re talking about the specific occasion during which God works the work of salvation the occasion the time that’s where the word chronological comes in the specific time when spiritual effects are worked now you see we’re talking about a
Different kind of spiritual effect at this point talking about more than just a change and understanding we’re talking about more than a change in state of mind we’re talking about change in one’s saved state of change from being unsaved to saved changed from being unforgiven to forgiven a change from being
Dead incense to being born again and raised from the dead being made alive and these may be things that we’re not even immediately conscious of in other words I don’t say I felt that yep there came forgiveness of sins deposited right there but it’s not a question of
Experiencing is not a change it may not even be a psychological change immediately probably will be but it’s not the same as that the psychological effect will be different from what I’m talking about here I’m talking here about change that God is working forgive our sins where he himself goes
From considering us to be understood wrath to being under his grace in the blood of Jesus can that take place in connection with a physical event is the question and that’s what this third level would say namely yes God can use a physical event like baptism as the point of time during which
For the occasion during which he himself works the spiritual effects and does that happen regardless of what um significant significance is attached to it see what I’m saying by the individual himself yeah I’m not ready to tackle that question yet that’s a very real question I know
I would just just say briefly up to a point yes I would say it does I think that the individual to be specific being baptized can be of such a weak understanding that it doesn’t happen but I’m not really ready to go into detail on that
I’m not ready to say in other words yeah that the application of the water of baptism will work no matter what state level of understanding firsthand that gets almost into x-operate Alvarado maybe not quite maybe it’s the wrong person how far do we carry this from electrical
Supply do we narrow it down to a precise second of when we look backwards and say that was the point of time when God enacted the change but if God looked down upon it precisely or will there be some overlapping this way there if you’re baptized in Christ you’re baptized for remission sins
Baptism saves you they’re baptized to wash away sin how long does it take to baptize is that a split second does it say how long do you leave a person under the water foreign can you extend it some point prior to baptism maybe to some point after is this what you’re asking yeah
Yeah it is a reference point but I don’t see any justification for it if it says baptism why should we pour how can we say well it doesn’t mean just the actual event of baptism but maybe the teaching the whole teaching or the faith for the whole process maybe it began
Back here as soon as a person began to have some faith in Jesus oh that’s just not my belief anyway sometimes I know there’d be those that disagree and think there’s a process that begins as soon as one begins to have some any kind of faith I see no biblical warrant for that
In fact or so it seems that you saw Tarsus who had three A’s to cook up Faith it would have been in a lot better shape than that he says be baptized and washed away your sins but that’s just my belief this will come out more as we go along I’m thinking of
A specific point to me it’s a Split Second time they would be comparable let’s say to Lazarus in the Tomb Lazarus in the Tomb is dead and dead for four days Kay having already set in Jesus is standing outside of Tomb people are Weeping himself is weak people are speculating what’s he going
To do what will happen if he does all during this time Lazarus is just as dead as he had been for the whole four days until Jesus said Lazarus come forth there’s a point of time in which he is now alive I don’t know I can’t even picture in my
Mind all that would be taking place at that point in time the Rejuvenation of almost takes a new creation here to get the body cells back into a living condition I don’t see process involved or Lazarus walks out still stinking for example but when he comes out he’s alive
When a person goes down into the water of baptism still dead in sins when he comes out he’s alive that’s my view that’s the way I understand scripture these persons free and responsible for developing his own understanding chronological a fourth View causal causal view which does connect the
Actual physical event in a causal way with the spiritual results now there might probably are distinctions even within this view that could be made but in a general sense the working of the work the physical work causes the spiritual effect now the only thing that one would want
To be aware of here is that most people who hold this view including some of their own Catholics are not saying that it’s the physical act or the physical water alone which is causing this because the Roman Catholic teachers would be very uh them in their assertion
That it’s God in the blood of Christ that is actually causing the salvation but we all know Aristotelian philosophy and even from Alexander Campbell that there are a lot of kinds of causes efficient cause it’s one thing what the others are there are other kinds of causes so we’re saying here
That the physical event in some sense actually causes the spiritual effect and I see that as being part of the whole concept of x-operate operato in the Catholic Doctrine so I’ve sent here all of these ways would be open to Roman Catholic theology at the time of the Reformation specifically
So what happens at the Reformation page eight changes brought about by Protestants by the Protestant Reformation [Applause] Luther challenge the fourth level that is the causal relationship between the spiritual and physical but he was comfortable with the other three Luther certainly believed that baptism is symbolic symbolic of many things for him
Even the idea of symbolic of a pledge it’s the person’s pledge to be a Christian to live the Christian Life very similar to this lingley’s view of the Assassins at this point symbolic of the death and resurrection of Jesus symbolic of the person’s own death resurrection and so on he also had the
Second view that produces psychological changes and continues to produce them even after it’s over or Luther baptism is one of the greatest sources of comfort and assurance that the Christians could have he says what after all what is God doing in baptism he’s forgiving your sins he’s promising to continue to forgive your
Sins God himself is making pledge to you in baptism that he will not hold your sins against you sir so whenever you begin to doubt whenever you begin to waver in your assurance remember your baptism that even years later is the memory of that physical event can have a profound psychological effect on
It and give you a renewed assurance the Luther also accepted the third one chronological or occasional view that baptism is the occasion during which God forgives sins and the Holy Spirit regenerates there’s nobody that I know of the history of theology that makes a stronger case for or give stronger
Statements to this infection he says for example you receive in the water promised salvation quote unquote you receive in the water the promised salvation but he’s very clear that the water doesn’t do it the action doesn’t this God is doing it but he has chosen to do it in connection Baptist
It’s a kind of concession to our weakness that God would tie himself to this action of baptism so that we would have some place to go some concrete event that we could continue to remember during our lives Luther is not consistent on this of course and see continue to teach infant
Baptism and infants themselves would not have any such memory of their baptism would not be able to do the very thing that he says want ought to do in connection with their baptism but he says this is the case anyway this is where God Saves us but he rejected the final connection
They cause a relationship with it the ex-off ray operato Catholic concept I’m I personally can identify with Luther’s Doctrine baptism on this that all three of these connections to spiritual are warranted by scripture but zwingly was of a different mind zwinkley in 1523 and you can pinpoint it to the year
At least as far as his ex’s writings are concerned 1523 he as far as I can see is the first Christian teacher Theologian outside these medieval sects and others who were the dualists the first to deny both the causal and the chronological sanctions between the material and the spiritual
It was wingley who rejected any necessary connection between baptism and God’s work salvation you don’t really have too many of his writings at 4 15 23. anyway there are a few but apparently up to this time he really wasn’t questioning this it hadn’t entered his mind to question it but I
Don’t know what it was in 1523 he may have been his connection with the Swiss Brethren that is the anabaptists they were cooking up Reformation there in Zurich baptism was a Hot Topic because of the baptism question so somehow in that whole discussion in 1523 he came to reject
Not just a causal but even a chronological relations and you can see his statements from that point on then particularly in 1525 a couple of his writings he specifically mentions both of these he says there is no causal connection water does not take away sin
And there is no he doesn’t use the word chronological but he’s talking about losers view he says it doesn’t happen at that same time in fact also at that same time he rejects the second level he’s also gone against that it does not strengthen faith very clear on this
Is the reason I’m going into this is because sometimes in contemporary world you may tend to feel a little lonesome on your view of Baptist if it’s similar as mine anyway and you may be tempted to look out there as evangelicalism in general and see and not very many people agree with me
On this View there must be something wrong with Matthew well I’m trying to help you put it in a larger perspective not just of what people are believing today but what people have believed ever since New Testament times and if you understand that for the first 1500 years of the church
People had the view of Baptists that’s usually associated with cannibalism people had the view of baptism that this is the time when God takes away sins for 1500 years and even since that time all of Catholicism and even the Lutheran side of the Reformation still believe that in continuity with
The first 1500 years it’s just this one segment here the reformed Society the reformation and those who follow them to disagree and that started in 1523 and you can document it to me that uh that makes me feel a little more comfortable with my view not that I need that
Intellectually if the Bible teaches it then I’ll believe it even to Bear the whole world rejects it but psychologically it helps to know that to get it in that perspective 15 23. one main reason or okay I was wondering if is Ringling went on to say at what you
Know whether a certain point where a person you never know what that point is I’ll come to that around Point uh C down here under this uh the first couple points under this A and B have to do with this Lord’s Supper Doctrine remember for swingly the Lord
Suffered in baptism means the same thing and I think one thing that was moving him in this direction was his his repugnance toward Luther’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper where Luther says you actually take the body and blood of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper and that is a spiritual
Feast for you that is through taking the body and blood you are spiritually strengthened and even forgiven so his view was expressed at least often during his career regarding the sacraments in general in his polemic against Luther’s doctrine of the real bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper
His main proof text as I said was John 6 63 I think I’ve got these reversed the flesh profits nothing it’s the spirit who gives life I think in the Texas the spirit gives life flesh prophets nothing so he says nothing bodily can have a spiritual effect but his main theological rationale that
The drive comes to Mr Mayfield’s question is made theological rationale in reference to baptism that is to his view that baptism is not the place where God gives salvation was his concept of the sovereignty of God God is sovereign obviously God can do this when where he wants the holy spirit is free
He is free to work regeneration or irresistible Grace whatever he places in the womb if he wants to a newborn baby if he wants to a 12 year old to a 50 year old and he appeals to John 3 8 and the wind blows when where it wants to
You can’t do anything about it underlying this is the doctrine of unconditional election it’s primary even to this well it’s the primary expression of the sovereignty of God God even in all eternity has chosen whom he’s going to save and whom he’s not going to save and whomever he’s chosen somewhere along
The line he’s going to regenerate baptism doesn’t have a thing to do with it so it’s the sovereignty of God man did that uh you know answer your question is it no particular time at all just whatever the Holy Spirit chooses I mentioned his metaphysical basis for
This view namely that the flash profits nothing that there’s no connection between material spiritual the major metaphysical basis for this view was a kind of platonic dualism and antithesis between spirit and matter in saying this it seems what I’m affirming here is that he goes further toward an actual dualism
Than others had done besides these actual Heretics that we mentioned I say a platonic dualism rather than let’s say agnostic dualism because it’s not really that far it’s not over into matter is evil but to play in the platonic type of dualism matter is well tolerable but much much inferior spirit and uh
The sooner you can get away from it the better back the material fights against the spiritual and he has statements like this so it seems to me this is what’s working in his mind I’m just trying to put an interpretation on this point that there is a dualism at work where he
Sees an antithesis between spirit and matter therefore it would be it would be improper or God to use something physical in connection with his spiritual work again most protestantism is chosen to follow us as wingly rather than lose her and thus most protestantism continues to deny any necessary by necessary I mean
That even God himself could not say this is what I’m going to do and then stick to it there is no necessary causal or chronological connection between physical Acts or elements such as water baptism and spiritual results for Mission Center regeneration the sacramental elements are limited to symbolical and psychological significance
The basic principle of sacramental Theology and all reformed groups what are the reformed groups Presbyterians methods that does some factors very few there is a Reformed Baptist Church usually the term reformed is limited to presbyterianism and those groups called reformed like Evangelical and reforms or Dutch reformed Reformed Church of America
Churches that come out of Holland and Scotland now there are other groups other groups do hold some of the views of reformed theology such as its Theology of the sacraments and this would be the Westlands for example the Wesleyan churches including the methodists with not being reformed in general but their doctrine of
Sacrament because they accept these wingland Calvinists approach to Sacramento same with the Baptists the Baptists are not necessarily a form in fact you have the whole spectrum of bad consolidation full Armenian to full calvinistic but they do have the reformed doctrine of sacraments because I use those as examples you’re
Most famous Western groups have accepted that well some Episcopal groups there is a reformed Episcopal Church for example the low Church failures generally have this View High church because families are different they’re more Catholic congregational churches what there are left of them would fall into this category also
Please remember I’m talking just about the meaning of baptism you’re not the subjects for example form view of the subject of baptism is infant baptism but Baptists for example reject that idea they would baptize only the believer so they do not agree on subjects baptism but they do agree on
The meaning and that’s what we’re talking about here so what is the proper view of the relation between the physical and the spiritual in relation to baptism you understand whenever I say something like this what is quote the proper view unquote I’m talking about my interpretation of it I don’t have a
Direct quote from Jerry Falwell or anything like that here to give you the official View but I’m just given my understanding of it you understand it that way well we once and notice the question we’re talking about is the use of physical things or or ceremonies in relation to spiritual events the place
To begin is with the proper view of creation a proper view of creation yeah the problem with the dualistic sense like the politics I know there was they didn’t have a proper view of creation they were Duelists mainly they believed that there are two Eternal principles or categories of being
Good and the evil and matters on the evil side eternally people not created by God not good because it’s created by God but the proper view of God himself as created from nothing everything else that exists outside himself including all created spirits and all physical stuff and the physical stuff is no
More evil or no are less good than the spiritual stuff he created he created angels He created our spirits he created our bodies it’s all created stuff and the matter side of creation does not have some inherent inferiority or taint or pollution the spirit side does not have
We agree with this Mr Thompson he did a thesis on creation I believe after I skipped out on you but I believe you compare the biblical Doctrine with the Hindu kind of said you can do this I’m just quite different isn’t it yeah at least there are different forms
Of Hinduism but for most of it the matter is quite inferior but if it exists at all it’s not delusion it’s not just illusion so a proper doctrine of the creation of matter is where you get your view where you begin with your view of the sacraments quote unquote or baptism as
We’re discussing here material stuff is a part of God’s good creation Genesis 1 31 God saw all the history and behold it was very good there’s no inherent antithesis or opposition between spirit and matter man himself is composed the spirit and the body which form a harmonious units another thing to remember
We are spirit and body they’re different but the body is not somehow tainted third element there is no inherent metaphysical reason why God himself cannot use material elements or acts as the instruments or occasions for his own Works we’ve already talked about this but I give this additive proof that the
Incarnation itself shows this how does the Incarnation show this well that’s another question the word became flesh and growth Among Us now I I really don’t think that it was like this oh Pew I’ve got to get in that nasty physical stuff Jesus Took a human Spirit as well as the human body
If he was a full human being he had both sides of full Humanity The real Paradox here is not that God who is Spirit became a man who is matter the real Paradox is that God the Creator became preacher period or at least to form the preacher or took upon himself the creatures not and this is between Spirit matter it’s creative creature that’s the
Paradox eternity in time infinite and finite if anything or do any of the reformed Advocates even approach this to understand for the Incarnation impact physical spiritual not that I’m aware of and you have beastly Murray who comes from the Baptist background who is trying to speak to these and I think
He’s done as good a job as anybody in wrestling with the implications of this so I’d give him for an example of somebody who is wrestled with it and come out on the right side stop page nine when am I ready for that oh I skipped the point didn’t it
Skip pointy I was wondering where that was the supremely consistent Advocates of The Flash profits nothing principle was advocated by his Langley are the Quakers who have discarded material elements in the sacraments altogether they tend for a firm metaphysical dualism as the basis for their view they’re not following
Swingly in other words they’re not being influenced by his willingly in this they have other influences but if you were going to be really consistent on this flesh profits nothing you as doing we taught it then you might want to consider quakerism because they see you were at Quaker
School I believe Mr Craycraft how do they practice Lord’s Supper for example well I visited a Quaker Church in Canton there and they don’t they don’t practice it at all there in fact some Quakers go to the extreme to say that if you want to go baptism or particular Lord’s Supper it’s sinful
Because it shows lack of faith but there’s a there’s a some new light Quakers who are making baptism optional there’s a this is their basic teaching they say it’s a sign of weakness one Professor calls says Quakers are dry clean [Laughter] ing they teach that it’s a sign of we
Have wheat turkey to need the externals so they just tend to do without them all together fallacy I guess I’ll put that back in then go back to the top page nine then continue this [Applause] still answering the question what is the proper view of the relation between physical and spiritual
And here I come to Donald Bailey’s Theology of the sacraments which is one of your readings for today for his main point is that in biblical perspective the basic element in the spiritual is personhood that is a spiritual relationship is a personal relationship and what day is making in the section I
Ask you to read is that physical elements or acts are often used to implement and enhance personal relationships in other words there is no reason why physical elements or actions are contrary to or contradictory to our interpersonal relationships in fact they are I think it’s safe to say unnecessary
Part of our interpersonal relationships I’ve just kind of summarized failure here in these next five points Bailey asks if the use of material elements is contrary to the spiritual nature of Christianity you’ve read this embarrassing question for some of you I didn’t look at the cards that were
Turned in but I think this was due for today wasn’t it and I hope you understand that this is an important question because this is what our zwingley and friends out there today are using as an objection to the view of baptism that I would consider biblical
That the use of material elements would be contrary to this spiritual nature because Bailey says no that isn’t so because in the New Testament spiritual is not the antithesis of bodily or material I think it’d be safer to say not always the end is just because sometimes spirit and matter are
Contrasted for certain reasons but there’s no antagonism between spirit and body or between spirit and nature as such he says the main distinction in the Bible is between spiritual and fleshly that is sarcasticas after the New Testament noun for flesh sarks but in this distinction the fleshly is
Usually not the body as such but Fallen Human Nature in other words this term sarkicas fleshly or even the noun sarks as it’s used in the New Testament takes on a totally different connotation after the fall than it would have before Adam and Eve sinned you can talk about
Their flesh and that would simply be this physical body but after sin enters the flesh has a connotation of well sinful flesh that is flesh that has been invaded by and dominated by sin not inherently so because of the choice to sin so the spiritual would be contrasted with fleshly
In that sense Fallen Human Nature which I think would involve even improper Human Relationships but the spiritual at this point see this is the key point the spiritual is the personal as opposed to the southern personal is the realm of personal communion the relationships with other persons
Like between you and me here right now or between us and God who is the Supreme person then point D here’s here’s the element I’m getting to there is no reason why if there’s no reason why a true spirituality should renounce the aid of material instruments
If they are used in a personal way as instruments of a gracious personal relationship in fact Bailey says for human beings who are after all body and spirit for human beings all personal relationships are expressed through the material such as speech organs the fact that I’m speaking right now is using the material
And you are listening using your your apparati apparatuses whatever not only that but pen and paper he received a letter from home recently letter from your sweetheart very personal what would you say if it’s not personal can I read it I don’t know personally very personal
But it’s just a piece of paper just a material thing no you know it speaks to my heart personal thing handshakes very physical somehow it’s more physical than others because you know but very personal gifts Embraces I think he may go a little further than that in his illustrations
Of the way physical events can Express Personal relationships see it’s page 49 particularly you could look at it but his point is here we are human beings through our spirits and after all is somehow the physical is less significant or spiritual than Spirit we all try to avoid the physical as much as
Possible in our spiritual relationships with one another shouldn’t we shouldn’t we try to forego all physical contacts and keep our relationships as platonic as possible um go home and try telling your wife or husband that No he says in his point my point e here God is Spirit but we are spirits body because God has so created us and for us who live in the body there is nothing unspiritual in the use of material AIDS sacramental symbols so long as we use them in a way that personalizes
Instead of depersonalizing our relationship to him what would be some ways that we could use the physical in a deep in an impersonal or depersonalizing way well he said physical Act of self-reactive baptism itself was was could give one salvation without Saving Grace all right getting toward the Catholic ex-operate
Operato idea they might have built quite as far as you did that would be an example here a person doesn’t even have to have faith it doesn’t have to be thinking about God necessarily as long as you’re not putting some barrier in the way he doesn’t have to be
Reaching out personally consciously to God that’s an impersonal sub-personal thing I was thinking also everything is accusation against thermos in a lot of times before separate things becomes commonplace okay mechanical abuse where you’re not putting yourself in it I was thinking about the baptism also as a sub personal
Thing where the person being baptized is not involved personally in this so it can be less than personal or sub person it doesn’t have to be that’s the point it doesn’t have to be at all it can be very personalizing well one other point there that feeds the
Murray I do want to bring that out so I’ll come back to that and then next time we’ll start with the Biblical teaching on the antecedents of bad terms here it is not obviously that’s my opinion because I don’t say it in that way but I do not see any evidence whatsoever
For the idea that God gave circumcision the Old Testament as an intended Forerunner of parallel to baptism in the New Testament now the passage that we just looked at in Colossians is often used it’s a misused to establish a link between Old Testament certification and New Testament
After all that we mentioned both of them together here verse 11 he talks about circumcision verse 12 he talks about baptism and this then shows that there is a connection between circumstation and baptism this is a very common argument but you notice in Colossians 2 In this passage the only circumcision
Associated with baptism is the inner spherical circumcision of regeneration which as we’ve already shown is in itself not intrinsically related to physical certainty just because he mentioned spiritual circumcision does not mean that he is thinking about physical circumstances there is no necessary link between the physical and the spiritual circumstance
One is just an illustration of this which one does Paul have in mind in Colossians 2 11. he says the circumcision made without hands he has denied the spiritual services that is what is connected the baptism not the physical circumcision the very same thing that the Old Testament prophets were talking about
When they said circumcise your heart or what Deuteronomy 30 has talked about when it says this is what Paul is talking about the inner spiritual circumcision this is what takes place in Baptist s were buried with raised up with verse 13 talks about being dead in your transgressions and the unsurfacing of
Your flesh and God Made You Alive together with him when you were in that state of being uncircumcised In the Flesh God Made You Alive that’s just another way of saying circumcision made without hand spiritual circuits rage from the dead there is no as far as I can see there is no
Intention of calling into the picture here the physical circumcision that is irrelevant to his arguments too important again using the uh parallel of John 3 3-5 as in the case of birth baptism is related only to what is symbolized not to the symbol itself you see that just because Jesus refers to
Being born in a spiritual way in connection with baptism or if you don’t like that reference of the baptism there may we find something else let’s assume it for now just because Jesus is referring to the spiritual birth that takes place doesn’t mean that it’s been that you’ve got to
Go back and think about physical first you’ve got to connect physical birth somehow with the whole picture I don’t think anybody even if you agree that Romans 3 is talking about baptism degree has pointed out that not everybody does but even if you agree to that it’s talking about baptism you would
Have to say that the only comparison here is between spiritual birth and baptism of the physical birth is not does not have any necessary links to the spiritual birth and therefore to the baptism I’m not sure how clear that’s coming through I’m revising this outline this is the
First time I’ve said some of these things so I test them out I guess to see how clear they are and if they’re not coming through clearly I’ll have to provide the future Generations in this fight first time around is always the hard for those of you who have conducting the first
Trial balloon as a way of saying something that physical circumcision recovers was a forerunner of our possession of the security physical Services no no I don’t think you did any certain scene in the Old Testament has any news that’s parallels right then why Paul’s voice reviews Farm Market I mean circumcision
Said we did not did not Hindu physical Israel her birthday he was just a sign that they belong and he had such a participated benefits that came as well the whole articles were increasing baptism for investing this the spirit is given to us is well all I can say is
Um if there’s parallel is not an intended parallel it’s more the less more or less again teaching your body but I may be wrong I don’t see any evidence apparently okay the word steel is used maybe want to draw something from that I cannot personally see that the Old Testament
As compared with the New Testament warrants any connection now maybe I’m overreacted distinctly and if so putting guilty from those people here So within the Old Testament this you know physical things spiritual age guys um attempting to take in those terms and you can see how people have been tempted
To think of baptism as being somehow parallel which is my next point about the page 12. all right so can you say this making the law it was something that was like and then the prophets leave later only really took in the significance of it that is almost that although there’s not any
Such aspect of it as essentially this year profits but even most himself won’t say he’s a profit I guess is using this to build on not because there is an inherent spiritual aspect to circumcision myself but it lends itself to the spiritual point it’s a spiritual point which the
Prophets make that is what Paul is making their life of the true Old Testament background Colossians 2 would be that lists packages up under 2B spiritual circumcision concept that is in the old sentence we had a good actually in the actual services but I resist that way of speaking that it had
Had its root there as if it grew naturally out of it I don’t think it grows naturally on Earth as if God when he gave circumcision intended this to have inherently some spiritual side but I guess what I’m saying is the actual Circumstances had never been commanded in this problem okay
Why is it important to understand it because since very early in Christian history circumcision has been seen as the main Old Testament Tennessee the Baptist usually in reference passes in the earlier centuries and I don’t mean first or second century but in earlier centuries when this was released
Circumcision was given the meaning of baptism and those they were considered to be the same circumcision baptism was considered to be the same but circumcision was interpreted to have the same meaning as New Testament baptism namely it was interpreted as the remedy for Original Sin in the Old Testament
Which is the way ends of baptism was understood from the time of its Inception that the times you’re telling about 280. we do not have any clear or I think any definite record at all events of baptism prior to her Italian some people try to point to a statement
Here and there like an iron as one statement but they’re very strained inferences the first clear reference in baptism is and he brings it in in reference to the original sin which is about the first clear reference you have to Original Sin too so about the same time that the doctrine
Of inherited sin is growing up so also is the doctors and baptism interviews they go together since baptism was accepted as for the remission stands in the New Testament and all through the second century then when people began to think of children as Sinners and needing remission sins or at least cleansing
From them Central State it was natural that they would begin applying baptism to children from their original sin but the interesting thing is that this is the way they began to think about circumcision too because they said oh these things are similar a couple of examples of that Augustine
Is riding on marriage and participants and one thing he points to is that statement in Genesis 17 14 where it says the person is not circumcised it’ll be cut off from his feet take that to me it sins are not forgiven he’s lost so obviously one has to be circumcised
To have intense forgiven to your Lombard we met evil theologians I think just preceding Thomas the quietest to make the same point in fact he closed obviously he says circumcision confers the same remedy against sin with baptism nowadays circumcision was for the purging of original sin just as baptism does since
It was instituted that in these words it is clearly conveyed that through circumcision from the times of this institution the remission of original and actual sin for young and old was offered by God just as now it is given in baptism yes what about people before circumcisions instituted and what about
Women even afterwards as well Peter Lombard children were justified by their parents Faith adults are justified by their faith and good works especially their sacrifice says after circumcision was instituted any all the uncircumcised children if they died before they were circumcised now that’s a very strong language to
Apply at the circumcision we know now the Catholic Church began teaching that about baptism that they were also teaching this apparently I don’t know if all of them taught it that way it’s not one of their main doctors but at least here you have some pretty important representatives of that idea
Now my main point is here they were saved or they were saying that circumcision baptism mean the same thing only they started with the New Testament and read that back into the old I don’t like it impediment start with mutant baptism and read that about the Old Testament
That’s the way they were doing it then beginning with dwingly an important change zoingly 1523 still equates baptism circumcision but now he began start with the Old Testament circumcision and read its meaning into the assessments just the opposite of what has been done in other words he saw that the Old
Testament teaches the circumcision is a sign of the belonging to the Covenant people and the fact of the matter is towards Langley this is the only Bible source for understanding the meaning of activity he ignores every new testament reference to baptism and draws the complete meaning of the term the old testamentation
His main argument stays here is fully developed argument that since Abraham’s time there has been only one Covenant of Grace one Covenant the idea of two Covenants he dismisses therefore there has been only one kind of Covenant signs circumcision baptism are completely equivalent then this point the old testamental circumstation is used
To establish both the subjects of baptism namely infants the meaning of baptism namely a country so folks this this alleged parallel between old types of conservancies and Utah to baptism to Extrusion because this is what determines the baptismal doctrine of many of the major denominations today starting between when he reversed this
Idea and said Old Testament circumcision is what new types of baptism is all about and that is used well it was used before him to justify baptism of Interest but it has been used since swingly also to give a totally new meaning the idea of a sign of belongings to the Covenant
People God I’d say both approaches are false you cannot read the Old Testament meaning of circumcision in the New Testament baptism nor vice versa because of the two simply are not parallel baptism is not meant to take the place well it’s mainly enough to explain the way the news has passages rather than
Explaining because there’s no way you can explain that into into is well yes definitely oh no he comments like most of the comments are in there to explain what they mean but they don’t mean what they obviously look like I’m in the middle of right here you know this right now about it
So this is the tour was this idea of of the unity of the government and theoretic framework to come along until about 1525. then 15 25 late 15 25 that he and he begins emphasizing the community of Kevin’s idea now he had already had the idea of instruments and he had
Already given up the idea of baptism is having any relation to the mission of sin but the establishing of the real positive meaning for it was something that was in flux until about 15 25. it’s interesting to see the things pattern here that you saw in the section
On Sacrament that you linked two things that don’t belong together and one of them have to get another thumbnail they had the Lord’s upper and back to be connected and one side messes up one one segment is at the other here’s the same thing happened they went through things that way
At the end of the course if we have time I want to come back to this Covenant idea talk specifically about whether there is one or two cousins there are one or two whatever place that don’t have time I want to say a little bit about it now foreign
But I want you to see from this how important this approach is and how important is that we understand this whole relation between Old Testament circumstances and use that capacity particularly on this idea of the means your family I’m very emphatic about this so English new approach
That has set the tone for most practices today what’s so sad to me is that even in the restoration movement in our churches we seem to have those who in the interest of economism want to join forces those who follows wingly rather than trying to go back to the
Original thing through the original they are following completely lying altogether okay anything else on the Old Testament the next section is non-biblical lending ceremonies and it’s time on this hopefully we have this please with Murray if you notice what the categories are baptisms and washing in the Pagan religions is quite common
When I say non-biblical there are two sides of the non-bitical one here Pagan the other would be Jewish taken washing non-biblical Jewish the first category is Pagan religions which did have various cleansing rituals point two there at the bottom page 12. folks particularly on baptismal rituals and there were
Baptismal rituals some have taken religions even some have preceded us with Christianity focused on the Hellenistic mystery religions particularly these things be the most favorite candidates or some alleged Christian copy you read about the various ones if you want to know more here’s the way to hear
Some things to look up to dynastian Mysteries worship with activists mysteryism the aliensinian Mysteries and the worst of Osiris I will not try describing these here I do point out some of the ways in which these these Pagan rights differ from Christian baptism and from each other
They don’t all have the same meaning as among themselves but notice these points at the beginning the bottom page 12 often these rights are only Preparatory for the real entry into the mystery Christian Baptist is not just preparation it is what I mean there is the initiation ceremony
Would involve a kind of religious washing or fascism but that would only be one part of it and it’s kind of Preparatory thing they would have to go through several more stages before they were actually considered to be fully involved in the mystery Christian baptism is more of a climactic
Event which introduces you into Christians status rather than a kind of preparation for the real thing 13 sometimes the Pagan rice brings do Divine Life they deified as for example in this mystery of happiness the baptismal ceremony sowed Ness upon a person belief that’s what they believe Divine Life
Well it’s certainly different Christian baptism which is not So Divine life rather is restored and heal to human life through human life in different stories uh number three sometimes such rights brings this Divine Life automatically in a way similar to the Roman Catholic x-operate operato idea or some would say they are sacramental
They actually affect what they represent for example in the mystery of Isis and Osiris even little children could be baptized and even dead bodies have to be baptized they would have expected which doesn’t seem too likely from our point of view and it’s certainly not the same as the Christian baptism
Not even Mormons were baptized dead bodies you have to have an actual Living spirit for another actual living person baptized for a dead person and of course in the Bible the baptized person itself has to have a conscious participation in what’s going on a fourth of taken right is based on this
Christian baptism based on the historical reality of the death and Resurrection Jesus the Pagan rights number five is often elaborate and bizarre and they care about the power of volume for example which is found a number of these myths ones that worship the Bulls especially is where they dug a pit and the
Initiative gets in the pit they like boards over it holes in them cracks them and then they water a bull over the pit and let the blood draining down in on the person he moves around traffic to get as much blood on it as possible those Divine Life
And you thought Christian baptism was awkward what’s up thank you Christian baptism is compared to these events like it is simple right I’m not going to say more about those we do need to turn briefly through some of the Jewish non-diblical backgrounds one of the candidates is the Jewish prosely Life Baptist
Sometimes referred to as the place where the Christians got there on practice of Baptist but what can we say about it had four points here the Antiquity of the right how old is it how far back did the Jews baptize their Converse now we know that from the Old Testament Converse were accepted
Into Judaism the only thing required of them there was circumcision but somewhere between the giving of the law and New Testament times the Jews not only began to actively seek converts these are some of the references in the gospel like Matthew 23 15. but they also began to baptism in addition to circumstances
They had an actual baptismal ceremony now this is how far back can this be traced some people say this has no relation to Christian baptism because the Jews did not begin this until after Christian baptism so if anybody got it from anybody the Jews got it from the Christians that’s one possibility
What makes it a possibility is the first actual record of Jewish Prophet baptism is public Christians as far as I can understand that is in the latter part of the first century but here the question is just because that’s the first record we have does that mean that’s the first practice
And others say no it was already being practiced even before you have this record of it so that there is a question in other words you need to be aware of this there is a question of whether or not it actually precedes Christian baptism or policies let’s assume for the sake of the
Argument that it does precede so is it a likely candidate for the origin of Christian bastard but what was how did the right go what what happened during cross-light baptism so just very briefly summed up here following catechetical instruction the candidate immersed himself is basically it was immersion
Read about that in the Jewish writings one of the writings says there had to be a minimum size for the baptizing tank it had to be at least 60 to 100 gallons translated into gallons the candidate for baptism will stand in the water nude while he was taught and questioned
During his sincerity concerning his knowledge of Jewish faith when they were satisfied that he was sincere and that he knew what he’s doing then the person immersed himself in the water what was the meaning or significance of 2.3 the meeting of the right well it was a right purification
And this sentence seems to have been similar to the Old Testament purification ceremonies as far as they understood as far as they intended me after all who’s being baptized the Gentiles and all Gentiles are by Nature unclean so there’s just no way they came to think anyway that is a
Gentile could become a Jew without some kind of cleansing ceremony you might be clean if one writer says that a gentile would need purification before he entered the Commonwealth of Israel was an accident that you really thought I don’t know how far back an action is apparently not
Too far back or also has been baptized since the Old Testament itself it was also a rise of initiation into the Covenant Community here it has different significance from the Old Testament ceremony as an initiation right the package that brought the person in or ushered them into the Hebrew Nation
Now the third point there there is a disagreement as to whether it was regarded as having any moral significance some say it was intended to bring forgiveness of sins and New Birth when language similar to this is found in some of the Jewish rights especially the new birth concept
The most likely conclusion and you can assert this out yourself if you want to see more it was not meant to be some of these places it was not considered as sowing these blessings but only was a symbolize I really don’t have time to try to go anywhere that any further
It doesn’t seem in other words that the Jewish Prophet baptism is a very fruitful source for understanding the meaning of these baptism but how about the fourth point there the subjects the price of Life baptism foreign the German Lutheran Theologian fairly disturbing she has a little book called into
Baptism in the first four centuries in which he or other things tries to use the Jewish cross-like baptism prove or Justify into the baptism in the church he and another German theologians went around and around on this the other was named Curtis Allen a-l-a-n-d you want to look at bibliographies on
Baptism you’ll see their names coming up a number of times because they all I’ve wrote a book in response to Jeremiah and then Jeremiah’s wrote a book in response to all of us I don’t know how much further They carried it from there so Jeremy is his point was
That’s Christian baptism was copied from Christ life baptism so it must have included about dogmatism that’s his argument Christian baptism was simply taken over from the Jewish prostate Baptist do his friends like that too included in profession so Christian baptism must have even though it’s not mentioned that’s the Nature’s Garden
Well very briefly the parallel is invalid however for this reason can the Jewish prosely like Baptist yes it’s true that initially when a person was converted usually if he’s a man who’d be converted in this whole family has come along with it when a man was converted his whole household was baptized and
Putting it in if there were that was the end of the baptism for that family no further baptism to any infant or born into that household or even to Future Generations from that you get that now that is quite contrary to the whole idea events of baptism as most people
The whole point of this baptism is it you should baptize everybody when it’s born especially if it’s born into a Christian family you don’t look back and say oh yes my great great great grandfather was baptized tired 60 years ago so I don’t need to see my children don’t need to be
So there really is a breakdown in the alleged parallel here Alexander Campbell pointed this out a long time ago you see the reference there a fuller discussion of it would be found in a more formed by HH Broly the unity of the Bible chapter six very good reading on this so
Another point in the top of page 14 . those who try to argue from frost white baptisms into baptism seldom have ever argued from it to immersion things that consistently Georgie and Jeremiah’s good Lutheran that he is wants to prove or Justify him for baptism by appealing to the Jewish
Prosely practice quite as we try to justify immersion as far as I know he’s never tried to do this it wouldn’t follow things like Midwood if the two were connected that’s the assumption that you have the questions my point is if Christian baptism is derived from christ-like baptism
Or from any other non-revealed right then Christian baptism is itself is not a design institution and it’s not binding anyway