Hilston,
Thank you for your reply. I will attempt to be a bit more direct in this post for clarity sake. I hope you will continue to ascribe a friendly tone as that is what I intend.
You said:
Originally posted by Hilston
That's because you mistakenly assume harmony is the absence of distinctions. If you come to a verse in which Paul tells you that certain information had been held in silence, completely hidden from the Jewish prophets (Ro 11:25 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16), shouldn't that tell you that there is a difference between their message and Paul's?
Absolutely. But you assume that the differences constitute a discontinuity from the Jewish prophets, I do not.
When you read the New Testament straight through, the differences between Peter's teachings and Paul's teachings are glaring, unless, of course, you're determined to mash everything together into an amalgamated lump of confusion and murkiness.
I disagree, but then the same could be said that unless you’re determined to see differences, those differences don’t seam so glaring.
First of all, it isn't an importation. The word and concept (oikonomia = household law, 1Co 9:17 Eph 1:10 3:2 Col 1:25) are patently taught in scripture.
The concept of dispensation is patently taught in scripture. However, shifting from an understanding that a dispensation is a commission or a responsibility to an understanding of the term that assumes it is a temporal economy of God is not patently taught in scripture.
I’ve had many conversations with some very sharp dispensationalists on TOL and I have not yet been given reason enough to conclude that oikonomia means anything other than BDAG suggests it means.
1. A responsibility of management
2. A Plan.
3. Program of instruction or training.
In order to accept a dispensational theology, one must apply a temporal dimension to the word that I don’t think can be substantiated. In fact, if one looks at dispensational charts, one will see that dispensations are
primarily seen as era’s of time.
Furthermore, of the 7 or 9 or 12 dispensations that many dispensationalists claim exist, only one of those is even hinted at in scripture as being called a “dispensation”, and that is if you stretch the meaning of the word oikonomia.
Paul said the grace given to him was to the intent that he make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (Eph 3:9). How can you miss this?
You can’t miss these verses. What you
can miss, and should notice is not there, is the conclusion that Paul was given a divergent gospel than Peter to preach among the gentiles.
Furthermore, what you call harmonization, I call eisogetical shoehorning. The true harmonization of scripture is achieved by rightly dividing the Word of truth, making exegetically clear and logically sound distinctions between Israel's scriptures and the Body-of-Christ's.
I think this particular interpretation of “rightly dividing the word of truth” is eisogetical shoehorning, considering the fact that
orqotomew means “to cut a path in a straight direction.” (See LXX proverbs 3:6 and 11:5 where it cannot mean what you want it to mean)
So one can certainly rightly divide the word of truth but
orqotomew doesn’t mean sectioning off parts of scripture as inapplicable given a current era of time.
One baptism. How much more clear can one be?
One baptism, and of course that means that there cannot be both a baptism of the Holy Spirit and a water baptism ‘cause that would be 2 baptisms, right? Except for the fact that such wrangling of scripture can only be done when one ignores the context of the passage.
Paul is speaking of the unity of the body. There is one Spirit, one Lord, one faith and one Baptism, and one God. Incidentally, mid-acts dispensationalism violates the context of the passage in my opinion, claiming that there are two faiths (one faith in one gospel and one faith in another gospel). Two baptisms (one of water for the circumcised and one of spirit for the uncircumcised). But beyond that, if we accept the methodology by which you interpret this passage, we cannot conclude that anyone to whom Paul wrote in Ephesians could ever die physically by way of persecution, since Jesus made clear that the persecutorial death that He suffered was a type of baptism (Mark 10:38). So if they are ever persecuted unto death, then they would have had
two baptisms, one of the Spirit and the other a baptism of death, which clearly can’t happen and there be
one baptism.
Now if you will claim that such logic is ridiculous and we are now comparing apples to oranges, I would agree. And the same ridiculous comparison of apples to oranges must be done to say that one cannot be both baptized of the Spirit and also be water baptized.
The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?
Was the body of Christ instructed to shun the Lord’s Supper?
Isn’t that a “religious ceremony?”
Are all Christians supposed to get married by a justice of the peace or by Elvis in a chapel in Vegas since getting married in a church with a pastor would constitute a “religious ceremony?”
The Body of Christ is seated above angels, and therefore above ritual ceremony (1Co 6:3 Eph 1:20 2:6 3:10).
Where in 1 Cor 6:3 does it talk about ritual ceremony? Where in Eph 1:20? You must have a different version than I do since my bible doesn’t mention religious ceremony in Ephesians 1 whatsoever.
And again, if you can please show me where I can find that we are above ceremony in 2:6 or 3:10 I’d appreciate you posting them since my bible doesn’t mention our being above ceremony in any of these passages.
Did you read the aforementioned link?
Yes, it is an argument from a chiasm and it is only one interpretation of the apex of the chiasm. Personally, I don’t even think it is the best interpretation of the apex of the chiasm.
Not only does it make the case for eschewing water baptism, but for shunning all ceremonial rituals and practices as well. You have more than one "single verse" saying "stop baptizing."
How about we start with that one verse that explicitly and literally says, “stop baptizing” and then work our way toward chiastic arguments that have more than one viable interpretation.
There's a whole host of biblical principles that apply. Furthermore, yours is an argument from silence.
It is an argument that says that if scripture doesn’t say it, I am not going to believe it.
The purpose of the Greek scriptures outside of the Pauline corpus is to record the historical narratives of the Messiah's life, death, resurrection and ascension, the decline of the nation of Israel, and prescriptions for future Israel.
Unfortunately, that is not why John told us he wrote his gospel.
John 20:31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
What about that is untrue? Given that John telegraphs his purpose, how much of John’s gospel can I say is not applicable to me?
Now concerning 1 Cor 1:17, you asked:
Ask yourself this question: In light of Mt 28:19,20, could Peter have uttered those words?
We must first take into consideration the fact that Paul was not dismissing the Corinthian’s practice of baptism but rather that he was dismissing the identification they held with the person who was doing the baptizing. There was an inordinate loyalty to the one who presided over the baptismal ceremony. Nowhere in the passage does Paul rebuke them for practicing baptism, only for their lack of understanding of what baptism symbolized…
1 Corinthians 1:13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Clearly they were not baptized in the name of Paul, or of Apollos or of Cephas, but rather had been baptized in the name of Christ.
Interestingly, the context of the passage raises more of an argument against the mid-acts dispensationalists position than it does for it. Why do we see that even up to the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians that baptism was practiced? And among gentiles! Paul established the church in Corinth during his second missionary journey. During that time, Paul baptized Crispus, the synagogue official (Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 1:14). Gaius and Stephanus. But what is an important detail and one that is quite telling is that many of the Corinthians who heard Paul.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the official of the synagogue, became a believer in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul became believers and were baptized.
. If we are to take Paul at his word that he did not baptize anyone other than Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14) To the best of Paul’s recollection, then we must assume that the many who were baptized in Corinth were baptized by someone other than Paul. It would seam a bit strange to characterize Crispus, Gaius and Stephanus’ household as many. Especially for a commercial center of the Roman empire.
This historical contexualization tells us first, that Paul probably meant that he was not sent to personally baptize but to preach the gospel ( 1 Cor 1:17). In other words, Paul’s primary commission was not to get into the river and dunk ‘em personally, it was his commission to preach the gospel. This does not preclude the fact that many people were baptized under the ministry of Paul, but probably not dunked by Paul himself.
Second, and more importantly, this brings up a huge historical problem for the mid-acts dispensationalist. As you have cited above, you argue that Galatians is one book from which we can gather the scriptural principle that baptism was made obsolete.
Remember this?
The Body of Christ is instructed to shun religious ceremony and ritual (Gal 4:8-11 Col 2:8-23). How much more clear can one be?
Well if it cannot be any more clear then why is it that Paul, writing to Galatia circa 48 A.D., is certain that religious ceremony should be shunned (including and especially baptism according to you), but that Paul, during his second missionary journey (A.D. 52) personally baptized Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanus (1 Cor 1:14-16), and witnessed the many baptisms of Corinthians who heard his message (Acts 18:8), and didn’t say one single word to stop them???
Did Paul just forget that 4 years earlier he had argued that baptism was put away as a result of all religious ceremonies being shunned?
And then, while in Emphasis when he penned 1 Corinthians (A.D. 55), why didn’t Paul straighten the whole mess out, and tell the Corinthians to stop doing all that crazy water baptizing? Are we to believe that 3 years after Paul flubs up and allows all those Corinthians to be baptized he wouldn’t clearly tell them to stop all that baptizing nonsense?
Instead, Paul takes a different tack. He refocuses them on Who they have been baptized into and because of and in the Name of, and takes their focus off who has done the dunking.
He doesn’t rebuke Appolos for baptizing or Peter (Cephas) for baptizing or even apologize for baptizing anyone when he did so 3 years ealier. Rather, he points out that their baptisms weren’t done in his name or anyone else’s name other than Christ (1 Cor 1:13).
Mid-acts dispensationalism is riddled with historical problems, this is just one of many, but this one is far from insignificant. Mid-acts dispensationalism is simply at a loss to explain why Paul would repudiate baptism in 48 A.D., turn around and personally baptize 2 folks and a household 4 years later in Corinth in 52 A.D. (and allow the baptisms of many other Corinthians during that same visit), and then turn around again in 55 A.D. and make a statement that you interpret as repudiation of water baptism in 55 A.D. Do you really think Paul was that schizophrenic?
I appreciate the irenic tone of your post. Please let me know if you have further questions or require further elaboration.
And I appreciate your irenic tone in your response. I hope that my directness has not deterred you from thinking that I intent our conversation to remain irenic. I would appreciate it if you would address the historical problem posed by your interpretation as I have outlined it above. I do that that warrants further elaboration
CariV kai Eirhnh
