Apr 20, 2008
Discussing Baptism
Note from Moderator: Participants in this discussion must not stray from the topic. IOW, no rabbit trails! Failure to adhere to this rule will result in your comment being deleted, and possibly, your permission to comment permanently revoked.
Introduction
- First task is to define the meaning of the word “baptism.”
- a. O.T. Jewish background.
- b. Between the testaments.
- c. 1st century Judaism.
- d. Greco-Roman meaning of the word in secular and religious contexts.
- e. The baptism of John.
- f. The baptism of Jesus.
- g. Early Christian baptism.
- Second task is to define the mode of baptism.
- O.T. Jewish background.
- Between the testaments.
- 1st century Judaism.
- Greek meaning of word in secular contexts.
- The baptism of John.
- The baptism of Jesus.
- Early Christian baptism.
- Third task is to ask: Which mode best represents the meaning of baptism?
- Fourth task is to define the subjects of baptism.
- O.T. background.
- Between the testaments.
- 1st century Judaism.
- The baptism of John.
- The baptism of Jesus.
- Early Christian baptism.
- Is there a spiritual effect or what is the spiritual result of baptism?
- What does it do to the person?
- What does it do in the person?
- What does it do for the person?
- The difference between symbol and reality.
- Is baptism a positive or moral law?
- Is the New covenant new or a continuation of the old covenant?
- Does baptism symbolize the blessing or cursing of the covenant?
31 Comments, Comment or Ping
Jean Cauvin
This is an interesting topic. Though the outline you printed would require a medium sized book.
Before we begin the topic just a few clarifications.
1) To ask one to define baptism seems to beg the question. I would argue that the Old Testament has several different types of baptisms. Perhaps a discussion on this would be suitable to falsity this claim or verify it. The burden of proof would be on me at this point I understand.
2) The way it is phrased I am assuming that you are talking in this instance about water baptism only (not spiritual baptism such as Romans 6 and Ephesians 4:5 suggest).
3) Since paedo-baptism is completely based off the argument of silence (via a post hoc of circumcision), then I assume that this is not to be discussed since no scripture can be used to support this (mainly church tradiition is used to support this with a few exceptions).
4) Under point 6 under subjects, we would also want to differentiate between “sign” and “symbol” and “reality”. The difference between sign and symbol seems to be a confusion for some reason to a lot of people. This is a significant issue to understand.
5) And finally. I would add that we should show the relationship between the reality of the regenerate being sealed and the symbol of baptism thereof. Note that the apostle Paul uses the word “seal” in two different ways (sealed and sealing). Would we infer that water baptism symbolizes both or one or none at all (something different).
With this let’s try to pick it apart. My library is in storage so I will be limited with my tools. But it will be a good exercise for everybody.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 20th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
The purpose of Jesus’ Baptism?
(The baptism referred to is the water baptism which Jesus experienced at the hand of John the Baptist, not Jesus’ baptism mentioned in Luke 12:50)
The Lord Jesus was perfect and needed no cleansing, yet He was baptized. Was it necessary for Him, as the sinless Son of God, to be baptized for repentance of sins or for a good testimony?
“But John forbad Him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto Him, suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered Him” (Matt. 3:1~15).
Did John understand these words of the Lord? What did Jesus mean by “all righteousness?” Does “all” mean all without exception wherever the word is used? If so, how would one explain Acts 13:29? -
“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a sepulcher.”
Of course, “all” was not fulfilled concerning Him when He was taken down from the Cross, only the particular “all” of prophecy concerning His suffering. Therefore, the “all righteousness” in Matthew 3:15 does not mean all without exception. It concerns a specific righteousness which Christ came to “fulfill.” In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said,
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets: I came not to destroy but to fulfill.”
The apostle Paul, by the Holy Spirit, tells us:
“For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law that the man which doeth those things shall live by them.”
In Luke 2 we read at least five times that
“all things” were done “according to the law” (Lk. 2:22, 23, 24, 39, 43).
Christ’s fulfilling of all righteousness at His baptism, therefore, involved a specific requirement demanded by the Old Testament law.
That He was 30 when this happened has great Jewish significance. Does anybody know why? Are we at agreement up to this point?
Jean Cauvin
Apr 21st, 2008
Johnny B
Baptism, is after regeneration, Peter says, “There is also an antitype which now saves us–baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” The writer of Hebrews says, “how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”.
Jesus’ baptism at 30, was because that was the age, that men entered the priesthood. I’ve been read a book on the Trinity by Robert Letham, I’m reading the history of the early Church concerning the Trinity right now. Some of the Church fathers, thought that it had something to do with the deification of the human body. So that we could be partakers of His Divine nature. I have read enough about it to discuss it at length.
Apr 21st, 2008
agogley
This will be a tough topic to discuss. Dr. Morey’s CD set on this subject is pretty long…I am not sure we could do it justice in this small space.
Apr 21st, 2008
Johnny B
I’d like to know if I answered, Jean Cauvin, question right, on Jesus being baptized at 30
Apr 22nd, 2008
Johnny B
MCUMC,
how do you know that the jailer had babies, in his household? If I was to come to Christ at this very moment and my household as well, there would be zero, babies. We cannot assume that all, households have babies in them, I say no, basing my answer on my own household. Do you have some type of information, that would prove that the jailer has babies, in his household?
For me, that would not be a good proof text, that would cause me to have babies baptized.
How does a baby have “a good conscience toward God?” That’s what baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” 1 Peter 3:21.
Apr 22nd, 2008
MCUMC
Johnny,
Thanks for the invite to the discussion but I am hesitant to waste much time here. I have experienced first hand how Bob treats people who disagree with him and I didn’t initially get involved here because baptism encompasses much more than the rigid framework he gives it and requires everyone to march by. When you make the rules for how one can talk about baptism, as he does here, then it is easy to ensure the direction and outcome are what you already wanted rather than admitting there may be something yet to learn.
But to offer a simple answer, “household” as used in the NT does not refer to just me and my wife and whether we have kids or not (our case it would be 2, soon to be four - both of my boys were baptized as infants). Rather, household refers to a whole family of people including servants living among them, their families, relatives, etc. Anyone who read Luke’s Acts of the Apostles in the 1st or 2nd century when coming upon “and the entire household was baptized” would never consider this did not include children.
With that said, you could argue that still, there might not have been any children there. Perhaps. But then Luke, who claims at the outset of Acts to give an accurate account of the beginnings of the church has failed us. Why? Because as already stated, everyone reading the plain text when coming upon the term household would assume children. IF indeed Luke held to a belief that children should not be baptized than he, being the gifted writer and communicator that he was, would have said that children were not included in this act so as to prevent future confusion. Luke does not, however, and seems to have no qualms about kids being baptized - that’s the way they did it, and its the way the early church did it. Why? Because the apostles, from whom they received the faith, taught them as much.
As for the reference to 1 Peter 3:21, baptism does indeed entail that, but that is not to say it is ALL it entails. We cannot pluck a verse here and there and think that is all that is to be said on the issue.
Like I said, the theology of baptism has far more reaching implications than Morey allows in his moderated post. To get into this further would require less censorship. I might be convinced to discuss this further if the so-called dogs are called off
grace and peace,
Chad
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Johnny B.
30 years old was the time frame for men to enter into the priesthood. That’s correct. Jesus lived via Old Testament practices, for exampe:
1) Circumcision on the 8th day
2) Presentation at forty days
3) Confirmation at twelve years
4) Baptism at 30 Years (Luke 3:23)
To answer why Jesus was baptised is to some degree to answer why he did points 1-3 above to fullful all righteousness.
We read in the preceding verses (Luke 3:23) that Jesus had just been baptized by John. To the sincere truth-seeking child of God, the thirty years of age when Jesus was baptized must raise certain questions. Surely, whatever takes place at this thirty-years-of-age milestone in Jesus’ life must follow the very same principle as the other three aforementioned ages, that is, “according to the Law of Moses.” Several reasons have been given for the baptism of Jesus:
· To be numbered with the transgressors.
· To be set apart to His Messianic ministry.
· To take His supposed lot with the remnant.
No doubt these are all included in the reasons why Jesus was baptized, but they are not the whole or the greatest explanation. Why not be satisfied with Jesus’ own answer:
“…it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt.
3:15).
To the sincere truth-seeking mind, the logical procedure is to search
and diligently try to find out what righteousness He was fulfilling on this
occasion. Since His circumcision, presentation, and bar mitzvah were in fulfillment of the law of the Lord, so His baptism can also only be according to His law. But what does this baptism of Jesus have to do with the Law of Moses?
Righteousness brought Jesus where sin had brought Israel—to John’s
baptism. In whose name did John baptize? He baptized in the name of Him who was to come (Acts 19:4). Did John baptize in his own name? No, for Jesus was the One who was to come. Was Jesus baptized in the Triune Name? No, for “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col.2:9).
What was John’s baptism? Let the Word answer: “John did baptize in
the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4). But Christ had no sins to repent of or to be remitted, so His baptism could not be for repentance or remission of sins. Then why was Jesus baptized?
How would you like to have been in John’s position when Jesus came forward to be baptized? Little wonder he cried out, “Forbid it to be so, I have need to be baptized of thee and comest thou to me?” John knew he could not baptize that sinless One with his baptism, for on that day he looked and said,
“Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world” (Jn. 1:29).
How could Jesus be baptized “for repentance for the remission of sins” when He had no sin? Jesus’ baptism by John must be for a different purpose than John’s other baptismal candidates. In fact, Jesus Himself tells us what the purpose of His baptism really was—”It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” What righteousness?
“Moses speaketh of the righteousness that cometh by the Law” (Romans 10:5). But what law?
If need be I may elaborate on the function of the priesthood in relation to baptism next. I am doing this out of order as Dr. Morey outlined. This is due to my limited resources at the time since most of my library is in storage.
It’s always good to start with Jesus anyway. : )
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Israel’s Priesthood
Biblical laws had been established in the Old Testament concerning water baptism. “Now therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant, then you shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And you shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shall speak unto the children of Israel.” Here we have the promise that the nation of Israel is to be “a kingdom of priests.” This is what Peter is referring to when he says, “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people”
(1 Pet. 2:9). Surely no discerning Bible teacher would confuse this special privilege of the nation of Israel with any promise given to the Body of Christ.
Because Israel as a nation did not keep the statues of the Lord, however, God chose one tribe out of the twelve tribes as “priests unto the Lord” to represent the entire nation of twelve tribes. This was the tribe of Levi.
The Lord gave specific Laws for the induction into the priestly office.
“Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation and shalt wash them with water” (Ex. 29:4). The Hebrew word for “wash” is rachaz, which is a term for one of the ceremonial washings referred to in Hebrews 6:2 and rendered there as “baptisms.” Thus we see here the origin of water baptism and the reason for its practice. Water baptism was an induction into the office of the priesthood for the tribe of Levi.
There is another law of the Lord concerning baptism. He who served in
the tabernacle of the Lord must be thirty years of age. “Take the sons of Levi.
. . From thirty years old and upward, even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation” (Numbers 4:1-3). Remember, Luke 3:21-23 says: “and Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age.”
Thus we see the full force of Jesus’ words when He said, “It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness,” namely, “the righteousness that Moses describeth in the Law.” Here, then, is the Law of baptism. Perhaps you will say that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah and that the law spake of no other tribe serving as priests. Indeed, Hebrews 8:4 says: “For if He were on earth He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the Law.”
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Regarding the above:
I understand that the above post is extremely controversial. I would assume nearly 100% of the people on here would absolutely disagree. I’m positive that Dr. Morey disagrees with this.
I understand that my rejection of the “priesthood of all believers” is contrary to reformed/protestant thinking. Luther established this point first and to my knowledge it has not been accurately challenged.
Instead of allowing tradition to kick in at this point I would encourage a healthy analysis of this issue. I welcome solid refutation from those who can do it properly. If I’m wrong, I willl be the first to admit it upon examination.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
The last controversial piece
John came preaching “Repent, for the kingdom is at hand.” Jesus also
began his preaching by saying “Repent, for the kingdom is at hand.” The twelve apostles went forth preaching the same message. What kingdom was at hand? Is this not the kingdom of which Jehovah promised the nation Israel as a kingdom of priests?
So then,Christ in His baptism was not representing merely one tribe, Judah or Levi, but the entire nation, all twelve tribes, since they are to be a priestly nation to all other nations. “You shall be named the priests of the Lord: Men shall call you the ministers of our God: you shall eat the riches of the Gentiles and in their glory shall you boast yourselves” (Isa. 61:6; compare with Rev. 1:6 and 5:10). When Peter preached at Pentecost, his message was, “Repent, be baptized, for the remission of sins, and God will send Jesus back and the times of the restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” [per Acts 2:38 AND later Acts 3:19-21, a few days after this Pentecost]
Incidentally, what about the restitution of the judges in Israel (Isa. 1:26;
Jud. 2:18)? Did not Jesus promise in Matthew 19:28, “Verily I say unto you, that you which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
It is certain Israel will be inducted into her priestly office by water
baptism in the future, with Jesus Christ as King and Messiah. Since no other public ministry prescribed its age limits, it is reasonable to conclude that the baptism of Christ was for His consecration to the priestly office, in personification of the entire nation, to which He was inducted with water baptism in accordance with the law of Moses.
Conclusion
In this dispensation of the grace of God we are not instructed to be baptized into the office of the priesthood but into the Body of Christ. How? “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). Also consider the words of Paul, apostle to the Gentiles: “I thank God 1 baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius… lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name” (1 Cor. 1:14). And again in verse 17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of
Christ should be made of none effect.”
By rightly dividing the Word of truth we rob no one of any blessing but
leave each of the programs of God in its respective place. How blessed to know the one Spirit baptism of Ephesians 4:5 which blesses us with all Spirit blessings in the heavenlies (Ephesians 1: 3-
4). ”
Buried with Him in baptism wherein also you are risen with Him, through faith in the working of God who hath raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12).
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I need to take a break. Since I’ve done most of the issues as of yet I will wait for others to participate.
What I have written causes some people to get very upset. Ad hominem arguments begin to fly. Reformed thinking does not usually dine with dispensational thought.
I pose my arguments as a theory. I am not 100% confident but pretty close. I am reformed in some ways however I see dispensational arguments as sound in other ways (see Morey’s book on “How the Old and New Testaments relate to each other). Morey is the same way on some issues, but not this one.
I have posed a dispensational argurment on Jesus’ baptism in relation to baptism today and the priesthood. Refute it if you can. But be sound in your reasoning.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Dr. Morey
Fellow Truth Seekers,
I hoped to find one person who understood that baptism is JEWISH!!!!!! But all I see are typical Gentile ideas. The Gentile “fathers” were half pagan to begin with and filled with magical ideas from their heathen past. The Orthodox and Catholic ideas about the “sacraments” (pagan terminology) of baptism and the “Eucharist” (pagan term) were riddled with ideas drawn from the Gentile pagan magical arts. No Jew ever viewed circumcision or Passover in terms of a magical transformation of the elements or magical effects upon the subjects. Such claptrap is pure paganism.
The Babylonian Captivity of Christianity took place when the Gentiles stole the church from the Jews and paganized it from top to bottom. You don’t seem to understand that Church history is a shame, disgrace, and embarrassment. The biblical church of the New Covenant has very little in common with historical “Christianity.” I don’t defend Christianity as its crimes and heresies are too many to number much excuse. I defend Messiah Jesus and his new Covenant congregation as found in the New Testament.
I remember one example of Gentile error. Jay Adams was my advisor as well as professor at WTS. One day in class he launched into a tirade about the mode of baptism. He was dogmatic that the original mode was sprinkling. To prove his point, he took us to Mark 7 where we read about the Jews “baptizing” beds, pots, and pans. He had a lot of fun about how stupid it was to think that the Jews immersed such things.
I raised my hand and asked him about the Mishnah. He dismissed my question. What he did not know was the Mishnah mandated the immersion of items purchased from the markets. The great Yadin even discovered immersion tanks in the basements of first century Jerusalem houses. The immersion tanks had steps going down one side and steps going up the other side. Yes, they immersed pots, pans, and themselves after they came back from shopping. Why?
To touch a woman or a man who had sex recently or who touched a dead body or some other unclean thing made you unclean. If an unclean person touched the fruit before you, you became unclean. Thus the Mishnah commands that you and whatever you bought be immersed completely because you don’t know what part of you or the item came into contact with someone or something unclean.
This is the mode of 1st century Jewish baptism. It is the context for John’s baptism, the baptism of Jesus and Christian baptism. Does anyone see what I am talking about?
Apr 22nd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Jewishness!
My Mishnah is in storage. I understand your position and I think that most Bible students would agree with you. Thus I only have my Scriptures and a few other books before me.
The fact that baptism is so Jewish was my argument against the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers.” The Body of Christ is NOT Jewish at all. Paul’s use of this concept is completely new via the mystery (Eph 3:9). So it is interesting to note the Jewish concept of baptism to a completely non-Jewish concept towards the Body of Christ.
I understand the Priesthood of all believers is a different topic matter and I wish not to change the topic, but it is connected to baptism I believe only in terms of its intent.
My rebuttal towards Pauls baptisms within the Body of Christ would be one of progressive revelation. It is interesting that the concept is not found in the late Pastoral epistles in which you would expect to find them.
So yes, the fact that baptism is Jewish should be obvious. Especially to the connection to Jesus’ baptism at the age of 30 (Numbers 4:1-3, Luke 3:21-23).
This is a little off topic/intent of your point above I know, but I wanted to tie in the Jewishness you reiterated with the points I tried to stress.
This is barely scratching the surface on the subject.
No need to respond unless one wishes too.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 22nd, 2008
Dr. Morey
Dear jean,
I am astounded that anyone would think that the New Covenant doctrine of the priesthood of the believer was not a Jewish doctrine long before Jesus was born! I must have misunderstood you on this point. Were you suggesting that the priesthood of the believer was an unknown concept before the coming of Messiah?
1. John (Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6), Peter (1 Pet. 2:5-9 ) and Paul (Rom. 15:6) based the doctrine on Exo. 19:6; Isa. 61:6; 66:2.
2. Since I deal with the biblical concept of mystery as part of my refutation of Natural Theology, I am quite up to speed on old and new research on that subject. Eph. 3:9, etc. are to be understood in terms of progressive revelation. While a doctrine was revealed in the Old Covenant Scriptures in bits and pieces (Heb.1-2), it awaited the New Covenant Scriptures for its full and final exposition. We are talking about degrees of revelation, not the non-existence of it.
Apr 23rd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
My argument was that the priest of believers was 100% Jewish. It is only met for the Jewish people. (I do not believe that the Body of Christ is the New nation Israel like some do, this too is a big subject).
The Body of Christ is a 100% non-Jewish concept. That’s not to say that Jews are not part of the Body of Christ, they are. The fact that the pastoral epistles are silent on the role of the priesthood adds the the arguments.
When Peter refers to the priesthood of believers (1st Peter 2:5-9) I would argue that He is talking in this since to the futuristic Jews in the book of Revelation that are scattered via the persecution (1st Peter 1:1). The intended audience is futuristic though its applications are for today as well. This is a different topic that we can talk about in which I would make my argument more complete. For now I will only say one thing to make my point:
–Note Isaiah 1:1 via Matthew 5:14a. Jesus is addressing multitudes from: Galilee, Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, from beyond the Jordan, but primarly to His disciples. Matt 4:25, 5:1, that Gentiles are apparently excluded, Matt 5:47, 6:32, thus He taught Jews and Proselytes which were of or were the multitude - Matthew 7:28, 29. John Peter and James were among the disciples. If need be I will extend this argument in another post to complete my thoughts. But I thnk at this point you know where I am going.
The Body of Christ is only 1 aspect of the Mystery in Eph 3:9. It was hidden in God. Some traces of it is found in the Old Testament but it was not revealed (at all) until Paul. I will elaborate on this also if need be. Trying to stick with the topic.
So the priest of believers is 100% Jewish. Since the Body of Christ is 100% non-Jewish, I would argue that the priesthood is not for the Body of Christ (Christians right now, you and I), but only the nation of Israel (the Jews).
This is extremely short space to make my arguments but I’m trying. This is probably completely absurd to hear. I believe if I’m given the chance to make my argument fully you find it valid, though perhaps disagree with its soundness.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 23rd, 2008
Reformed Mama
Jean~
I don’t pretend to have your knowledge in any way but am puzzled over a portion of your comment…
“Since the Body of Christ is 100% non-Jewish, I would argue that the priesthood is not for the Body of Christ (Christians right now, you and I), but only for the nation of Israel (the Jews).”
Do you mean to say the Body of Christ contains no Jews?
Apr 23rd, 2008
Reformed Mama
Ooops…just saw your statement in the second paragraph…sorry!
Apr 23rd, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
I’ve written an essay on the Mystery. If you are relating that to natural theology I would be more than happy to share it with you. If you have an e-mail address or if there is a way to upload it on this blog that is fine (I don’t know how).
Or I can just place pieces of it on this blog if you’d likie. Your probably haven’t seen the subject from the angle I presen it.
Jean Cauvin
Jean Cauvin
Apr 23rd, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Jean, I just emailed you some instructions for that essay.
Apr 23rd, 2008
Dr. Morey
Jean,
You wrote:
“My argument was that the priest[hood] of believers was 100% Jewish. It is only met for the Jewish people…So the priest[hood] of believers is 100% Jewish. Since the Body of Christ is 100% non-Jewish, I would argue that the priesthood is not for the Body of Christ (Christians right now, you and I), but only the nation of Israel (the Jews)…When Peter refers to the priesthood of believers (1st Peter 2:5-9) I would argue that He is talking in this since to the futuristic Jews in the book of Revelation that are scattered via the persecution (1st Peter 1:1).”
Your comments reveal some serious hermeneutical errors as well as serious heresy. As a test to see if I am on target, I am sending off your comments to several theologians to see their response. If they agree with me that you are teaching heresy, I will respond in detail to your statements.
Apr 24th, 2008
Travis
The previous statment from Dr. Morey is very encouraging, not because someone is in danger of heresy but because how Dr. Morey handled the comment, he wasnt quick to throw down. This would be a good post to direct back to, for anyone claiming we here are so quick to cast someone aside, that is never the goal but to restore someone from false teaching or to be used to bring someone out of darkness.
Glory to the Lord who is sitting on His thrown.
Apr 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Dr. Morey,
If the friends that you ask are hard-core Reformed (PCA, OPC, Baptist Reformed), they will all agree with you. Justin Alford will also agree (Calvary Chapel). He knows Greek, but not very much theology. James White will agree with you because he is reformed Baptist. John Frame may or may not agree with you, he will probably say it is within orthodoxy,
Before you present the case to your friends, you should give me a chance to present my arguments on the subject completely. You read a very brief note.
I have completed my arguments on the intended audience of Peter, James, and John. It is off topic of baptism directly so I did not post my argument completely.
If it is heresy, it is not essential heresy because it does not direct itself to the central theme of the gospel. This is indeed an issue of hermenuetics and is indeed a secondary doctrine. Even you have said that Paul’s epistles are for the us via Explanation, while the General Epistles are for us via Application. You have said that the Gospels are a manifestation and that Acts is a proclamation. You used Baxter’s book for this.
I am agreeing with you that Paul’s epistles are only to be used for explanation for the Body of Christ. If you were to relay this to your friends they would probably pose that also as heresy. I am taking it a step further and posing a theory regarding the primary audience of Peter James, and John.
If you give me some time, I will begin to post my arguments completely. This will take a few days.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 24th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
I am having problems uploading my documents digitally. I will have to physically mail you the articles via the address on your website.
THe one on the mystery is about 40 pages
the one on the primary audience of Peter, James, and John is around 20 pages.
I apologize. I will try to have it in the mail soon.
Jean Chauvin
Apr 24th, 2008
Daniel Chew
Dr. Morey,
you mentioned that Baptism is Jewish and that “all [you] see are typical Gentile ideas”. So does your hermeneutical method consist of flowing from the thought patterns of Judaism into early Chrisitian ideas? Do you dispute the traditional Reformed method of reading the Old Testament in light of the New? Also, with regards to usage of Jewish sources of information like the Mishnah, what is their role with regards to biblical interpretation? How do the use of such non-canonical, 2nd century AD Jewish sources tie in with the doctrine of the Analogia Fide and the sufficiency of Scripture?
Apr 28th, 2008
Denise
Dear Robert,
I for one know what you are talking about re: immersion baptism. I’ve seen several photos of the ancient as well as modern mishnahs.
The hocus pocus that is part of baptismal regeneration in the RCC and LCMS is truly pagan and anti-biblical–absolutely! I’ve read both the RC catechism and Luther’s Larger Catechism on Baptism and they are nearly identical in their views of baptismal regeneration (Luther hails Augustine, the pagan philosopher as his proof its right). Your point is right: whether in OT or NT days, baptism was by immersion AND symbolic: it never did anything mystical (aka “spiritual”) for anyone.
Baptism is for believers only: those in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is described as: new, better, other. It always is in reference to being IN Christ Jesus where one’s sins are forgiven (the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin) because of HIS death on the cross.
Jesus is the Mediator of the better covenant. It is impossible to be an unbeliever in the New Covenant,for Jesus is mediating on behalf of those in the New Covenant which He enacted by His shed blood and their sins are taken away (I hope no one here thinks Jesus mediates on behalf of unbelievers!). Hebrews 8-10 is excellent on this whole issue. Galatians 5 destroys the notion of baptism as the “new” circumcision. The only “sign” or “seal” of being in the New Covenant is that the believer is sealed with the Holy Spirit of God (Eph. 1:13-14). Its not baptism that is the “sign”.
Those who were baptized (immersed) were always those who confessed Jesus Christ as Master and believed in their hearts God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9-10; Gal. 3:25-17; Acts 10:48-48;Acts 2:14;8:12; Matt. 28:19).
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. Considering the paganism of Rome’s baptism, I am disturbed that some Presbyterian churches recognize its baptism as valid. Unbelievable!
Apr 29th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Daniel Chew,
You ask an excellent question. It will be very interesting to see Dr. Morey’s response.
Dr. Morey use to recommend Michaelson’s book on hermeneutics. I’m not sure if he still does. Morey’s outline was somewhat different in some aspects (expecially the test given to determine a persons spiritual gift).
What exactly is the New Covenant Theology hermeneutical approach to Scripture?
Great Question.
Jean Cauvin
Apr 29th, 2008
Dr. Morey
I just returned from a trip that involved meeting with various leaders. They all urged me to focus on the book refuting Natural Law, Theology, and Religion. Thus I will have to withdraw from blog discussions at this time in order to focus on the book. It is already around 400 pages but will double in size by the end of the year, God willing. I apologize for not being able to answer your individual questions. I thank all those who have a Bible and a brain and love to dig into the Word.
May 3rd, 2008
Travis
Go get um Dr. Bob we will be praying for you and the church, Press on, Its great how one persone (not just dr. Bob) can do something that affects hundreds if not thousands of people, thank God for using his children.
May 3rd, 2008
RevK
Seems like there’s been a bit of a Sabbath on this topic! Thought I’d chime in a bit.
“c. 1st century Judaism.”
John 1:25 = They asked him (John the Baptist), “Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
Note: These Jewish inquirer’s equated John’s baptism with an eschatological figure.
John 1:31 = I myself did not know him, but for this purpose I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Note: John’s purpose in baptizing was to reveal the Christ to Israel.
John 1:33 = I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Note: John is receiving partial revelation from the Lord. He is told to look for a person who has the Spirit descending upon him, and this one will also baptize… but differently.
There’s more,
Peace!
Aug 4th, 2008
RevK
John 3:22 = After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
Note: We do read that Jesus himself did not do any of the actual baptizing (John 4.2) but we do have at least some sort of endorsement by Jesus to be associated with this practice (and encouraging his disciples to promote the activity… practice for the Great Commission [Matthew 28.19]? Something else?)
John 3:23 = John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because water was plentiful there, and people were coming and being baptized
Note: John the Baptist preferred to be around a lot of water! Jesus? (in the Judean countryside?)
John 3:25 = Now a discussion arose between some of John’s disciples and a Jew over purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you bore witness- look, he is baptizing, and all are going to him.”
Note: The fact that a ‘discussion’ arose over purification gives us some indication of what baptism means — some connection to Jewish purification laws. Why this ‘discussion’ spills over to the ‘baptizing’ ministry of Jesus and his disciples is not made entirely clear (For that matter, who is this one Jew with issues?) How does one conjecture rightly? John the Baptist’s response should help us. John the Baptist states that he has completed his mission and will promote the one who, “…gives the Spirit without measure.” The baptism topic concludes in the beginning of the 4th chapter of John and then switches to Jesus’ telling a Samaritan woman about, “…living water…welling up to eternal life (4.14). Jesus then speaks about worship being a matter of “spirit and truth” (4.23). This Samaritan woman immediately speaks about the Messiah (the Christ — eschatological figure previously mentioned in 1.25!)
Conclusion of sorts: The Jewish leaders, John the Baptist, and a Samaritan woman all think ‘Messiah figure’ with this water/spirit/baptism context — “The Anointed” of the Lord is here! (Should I bring up those 6 huge water containers of John 2, used for purification rites, and how Jesus’ miracle in Cana is really a Messianic announcement for what Jesus was really going to do for Israel (provide change and plenty of it)???
More later,
Peace!
Aug 5th, 2008
Reply to “Discussing Baptism”