What if....another Baptism question

[Sam]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Thanks, hadn't heard that perspective before.

This might be a good time for Aquila to post some of his baptism information based on the Old Testament washings.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Thanks, hadn't heard that perspective before.

I think the biblical concept of "in of the name of" is grossly ignored by many in the OP movement. Stressing a proper name only.

In addition to the Christian baptism not being a "new" thing but rather a continuation of the mikveh that was performed as an identification of a believer with the message of their teacher, rabbi ... we find that throughout the OT and NT "in the name of" deals primarily with the power and authority of the person ... while never finding that this phrase is a verbal formula necessary to effectuate salvation, remission or regeneration ...

The doctrine of salvific name invocation is one that has been manufactured and is not taught explicitly anywhere in the bible.

If you read the book of Matthew we find Matthew dealing with the central theme of authority throughout his book.

Establishing one's authority to teach and even baptize was in important one in Judaic society.

Unfortunately what's missed by the GET THE FORMULA RIGHT CROWD as it grapples with Christ's "formula" in Matthew 28 is the entire context of Matthew that deals primarily with delegation of authority not with the precision of formula.

We find Matthew sharing how the masses , the religious crowd and even his disciples grappled with the idea of Jesus' authority throughout:

The crowds respond to Jesus' teaching as disciples and crowds often responded to his other acts: with awe (8:27; 9:8; 12:23; 22:33; compare Jn 7:46). What astonished them so much about Jesus' teaching was not his use of proverbs, parables, hyperboles or other standard pedagogic devices of his day; what astonished them was his claim to authority, a theme that climaxes in Matthew 28:18. Other Jewish teachers regularly cited earlier sages' opinions, and though later teachers sometimes came to regard their tradition as tantamount to God's Word, Jesus' contemporaries never would have claimed, like Jesus, that people would be judged according to how they treated their words.

With greater authority than the scribes who expound the law, greater authority than Moses who gave it (5:1), the authority indeed of the One who will judge humanity on the final day (7:21-23), Jesus declares God's word, and the people recognize that he speaks with authority unlike their other teachers.

The writer in Matthew:

1. Stresses, lays out and establishes Christ's authority

`He taught people as someone with authority, not as their scribes.’ Matthew 7,29; compare Mark 1,22.27; Luke 4,32.

`The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’. Matthew 9,6; compare Mark 2,10; Luke 5,24.

`Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things’. Matthew 21,23-24.27; compare Mark 11,28-29.33; Luke 20,2.8.

`Heaven and earth shall pass away, my words shall not pass away’. Matthew 24,35; compare Mark 13,31; Luke 21,33.

`To me has been given all authority in heaven and on earth’. Matthew 28,18;

--------------------------

2. Jesus delegated this authority to his disciples.

“He gave the twelve disciples authority over unclean spirits so that they could cast them out, and heal every disease and every infirmity.” Matthew 10,1; compare Mark 6,7; Luke 9,1.

“If anyone will not listen to your words . . . . , it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town!” Matthew 10,14-15; compare Mark 6,11; Luke 10,10-12

“Amen, amen I say to you. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven.” Matthew 18,18; addressed to all apostles; compare John 20,23.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go out and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have spoken to you. See, I will always remain with you, till the end of time!” Matthew 28,18-20.

In this last chapter, we find a culminating shift in authority from the Father to the Son and then the Son, Jesus, commissioning his disciples to preach, teach and baptize under His granted authority ... not giving a scripted formula that is later "understood" and then properly repeated in the book of Acts.

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

These last words which Matthew tells us were spoken ‘on a mountain in Galilee to which Jesus had directed them’, remind us of how God on Mount Nebo showed Moses the promised land and how Moses authorised Joshua, his successor, to conquer it for his people.

See Deuteronomy 34,1-4; Joshua 1,1-9.

In the name of ... is what is not being stressed or accurately examined theologically as to its significance

.... not just in the context of Matthew but how the expressions such as "in the name of God", "in the name of the Lord", etc are used and understood throughout the entire Bible ... Examine this phrase in the OT, also.

The devil, I think rejoices that he has made the theological argument between Christians over the minutae of technacalities ... rather than an expression of faith under the authority and power of Jesus Christ, the Lamb ... who saves us.

It becomes a matter of puffery, arrogance and exclusivity to possessing the authentic salvational pirate map for some.

The pattern is one of authority and power of salvation through Jesus Christ... not properly administered and scripted baptisms.

Biblically there is also a distinction between the phraseology .... "calling on the name of the Lord" and "in the name of the Lord"

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

You and I have talked about this before.
I don't KNOW that Christian baptism is a carryover from the Mikveh.
That is an assumption usually made.
The mikveh was one of the Jewish "washings" during that first century.
It is usually assumed that John came from the Essene community which practiced multiple mikveh washings in order to prepare for the coming Messiah and that John carried that over to the crowds as he preached the coming of Messiah and the kingdom. John also seems to allude to the fact that just being physical descendants of Abraham was not enough, those folks needed the mikveh just like Gentiles needed the mikveh when they came to the Lord.

I'm not arguing. I think we see this from a little different perspective.

Why would anyone assume that John came from the Essene community? Especially seeing that they had a more dualist perspective, demanded celebacy for every member, and had many other "heretical" beliefs that we'd definately say are ancient Jewish myth and folk magic?

After studying Mikveh and the Essenes independently, I've concluded that Mikveh and water baptism as practiced by the Apostles are not related. In addition, John wouldn't have tolerated the divergent teachings of the Essenes, especially with the Mystical/Gnostic enfluences. The Apostles faught to keep these enfluences out of the faith.

In my opinion, John was a priest (remember he was from the line of Levi) who left the institutional system. He practiced the baptisms (cleansings) as familiar in the Law, but in the wilderness. John wasn't part of the Essenes.

I believe that Christians only try to tie Christianity to Mikveh and the Essenes to justify certain popular theological beliefs regarding water baptism.

[Aquila]

In describing OT washings, the writer of Hebrews used the word "baptismos". Thus equating these "washings" to baptism linguistically. The only problem most might have with considering this OT cleansings "baptisms" is the fact that they were poured or sprinkled.

[missourimary]

I was raised in a denominal church that was emphatic about baptism by immersion.

I learned about the OT washings in secular college classes. Baptism was believed to be a continuation or new connection with those. The man who taught the class was Disciples of Christ. He emphasized (as did the text book he used) that all OT washings were done by immersion.

So I am more interested in this as historiographical than theological.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by John Atkinson

You would have went and dug these folks up...



The quite is from wikipedia, so consider the source, but the reason I googeled anabaptists and Jesus name baptism is because I read it in book several years ago.

Originally Posted by DAII

Looks like one of us has edited this Wiki article.

Originally Posted by John Atkinson

Wasn't me. I'm not even all that wild about using it as a source. But that does mirror what I read...

Strange, I don't find that quote on the Wikipedia Anabaptist article now.

There was no footnote nor attribution for it - plus, on the edit page it appears as a separate paragraph - an obvious interloper to the context that it tried to fake it's way into.

Wasn't going to last long with those tell tale gaffes. It reminds me of the way the UPC page was shut down for about a year while the "contributers" argued over whether or not NBA star David Robinson was a "Prominent Member of the UPC."

Reckart and his people are notorious also for pasting his name into Wikipedia articles as an "authority" or a "Prominent Member" of Oneness groups. See this old article at Search.com that plagiarizes and yet also preserves old Wikipedia articles http://www.search.com/reference/Oneness_Pentecostalism for example of just how messy these interlopers are.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Brother David

Wasn't going to last long with those tell tale gaffes. It reminds me of the way the UPC page was shut down for about a year while the "contributers" argued over whether or not NBA star David Robinson was a "Prominent Member of the UPC."

Although Reckart and his cult following would be fun to toss around for the umpteenth time ....

Pray tell about the David Robinson story ....

[Jeffrey]

You just take a brother and count to 3... dunk each other simultaneously

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

You just take a brother and count to 3... dunk each other simultaneously

May bring up the technicality of being wholely immersed.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by missourimary

I was raised in a denominal church that was emphatic about baptism by immersion.

I learned about the OT washings in secular college classes. Baptism was believed to be a continuation or new connection with those. The man who taught the class was Disciples of Christ. He emphasized (as did the text book he used) that all OT washings were done by immersion.

So I am more interested in this as historiographical than theological.

Your Prof. was apparently a Campbellite and mistaken about about this.

See Exodus 30:18-21; Exodus 40:31-32; Numbers 8:7; Leviticus 14:51; Psalm 26:6 for examples.