Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-28-2012, 11:42 PM

I have been reading the Anonymous Treatise on Baptism and noticed that it makes reference to Peter's baptism. I think it argues that Peter was baptized when the Holy Spirit came down on Pentecost in Acts:

Quote:

To such, then, as approach to a discussion of saving and modern, that is, of spiritual and evangelical baptism, there occurs first of all the announcement universally well known, made and begun by John the Baptist, who, somewhat departing from the law, that is, from the most ancient baptism of Moses, and preparing the way of the new and true grace, both preoccupied the ears of the Jews gradually by the baptism of water and of repentance which for the time he practised, and took possession of them with the announcement of a spiritual baptism that was to come, exhorting them, and saying, He that comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire; Matthew 3:11 and for this reason we also ought to make a beginning of this discourse from this point. For in the Acts of the Apostles, the Lord after His resurrection, confirming this same word of John, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for that promise of the Father which, says He, you have heard from me; for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Acts 1:4-5 And Peter also related these same words of the Lord, when he gave an account of himself to the apostles, saying: And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them as on us at the beginning; and I remembered the word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, He gave them a like gift as to us, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand the Lord? Acts 11:15-17 And again: Men and brethren, you know how from ancient days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knows the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as He did unto us. Acts 15:7-8 And on this account we ought to consider what is the force and power of this saying. For the Lord says to them who would have to be subsequently baptized because they should believe, that they must be baptized not in like manner as by Him in water, unto repentance, but in the Holy Ghost. And of this announcement, as assuredly none of us can doubt it, it is plain on what principle men were baptized in the Holy Spirit. For it was peculiarly in the Holy Spirit Himself alone that they who believed were baptized. For John distinguished, and said that he indeed baptized in water, but that one should come who would baptize in the Holy Ghost, by the grace and power of God; and they are so by the Spirit's bestowal and operation of hidden results. Moreover, they are so no less in the baptism of the Spirit and of water.

If you really think about what is being said here the implications are pretty baffling. The author seems to at first take a position like that which is reported of the Marcosians in Irenaeus Against Heresies 21 - namely that water isn't necessary for baptism. Am I reading this right?

Then the author seems to be aware that some people argue that it has to be water and Spirit:

Quote:

And to these things you perchance, who art bringing in some novelty, may immediately and impatiently reply, as you are wont, that the Lord said in the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whence it manifestly appears that that baptism alone is profitable wherein also the Holy Spirit can dwell; for that upon the Lord Himself, when He was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended, and that His deed and word are quite in harmony, and that such a mystery can consist with no other principle. To which reply none of us is found either so senseless or so stubborn as to dare, contrary to right or contrary to truth, to object, for instance, so to the doing of things in their integrity, and by all means in the Church, and the observation of them according to the order of discipline perpetually by us.

Yet the author's reply is that water is not necessary for baptism. He does this be appealing to Acts and noting that there are numerous instances where the disciples baptized with spirit only:

Quote:

For when by imposition of the bishop's hands the Holy Spirit is given to every one that believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip's baptism, the apostles did to them by laying on of hands; in this manner also they conferred on them the Holy Spirit. And that this might be the case, they themselves prayed for them, for as yet the Holy Spirit had not descended upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

This is now the key - the idea of the Holy Spirit descending on them = 'being baptized in the Lord Jesus.

The author of the Treatise on Baptism seems to be aware that there is a heretical variant of this ritual. So in the next section he argues that the Spirit baptism can only take place with a bishop present for the bishop represents the apostles. In the same manner as the Samaritans waited for the apostles to come before receiving the Spirit so too must people wait for the bishop.

The author again points to a story in Acts which he says embodies the idea of being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ now involving Peter in what immediately follows:

Quote:

And further, as you are not ignorant, the Holy Spirit is found to have been given to men who believe, by the Lord without baptism of water, as is contained in the Acts of the Apostles after this manner: While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell upon all them who heard the word. And they who were of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with their tongues, and they magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:44-48 Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water—as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied—forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

The author seems to posit two forms of baptism - one by the water and after John the Baptist and this 'baptism in the name of Jesus Christ' which is according to the Spirit and ultimately superior to the latter.

Now let's notice what follows next. The author notices that some of the disciples were baptized by John but where ultimately baptized again by the spirit at Pentecost:

Quote:

And this also—looking at it from the opposite side of this discussion—those disciples of our Lord themselves attained, upon whom, being previously baptized, the Holy Spirit at length came down on the day of Pentecost, descending from heaven indeed by the will of God, not of His own accord, but effused for this very office, and moreover upon each one of them. Although these were already righteous, and, as we have said, had been baptized by the Lord's baptism even as the apostles themselves, who nevertheless are found on the night on which He was apprehended to have all deserted Him. And even Peter himself, who boasted that he would persevere in his faith, and most obstinately resisted the prediction of the Lord Himself, yet at last denied Him, that by this means it might be shown to us, that whatever sins they bad contracted in the meantime and in any manner, these same sins, by the faith in them subsequently attested as sincere, were without doubt put away by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nor, as I think, was it for any other reason that the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that they should be baptized in the name of Christ Jesus, except that the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon any man by baptism might afford to him who should be baptized no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation, as Peter relates in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: For there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12 As also the Apostle Paul unfolds, showing that God has exalted our Lord Jesus, and given Him a name, that it may be above every name, that in the name of Jesus all should bow the knee, of things heavenly and earthly, and under the earth, and every. tongue should confess that Jesus is Lord in the glory of God the Father. And he on whom, when he should be baptized, invocation should be made in the name of Jesus, although he might obtain baptism under some error, still would not be hindered from knowing the truth at some time or another, and correcting his error, and coming to the Church and to the bishop, and sincerely confessing our Jesus before men

So clearly the author thinks that the baptism of Spirit (= in the name of Jesus Christ) came upon all the disciples. This would explain why there is no recorded mention of Jesus baptizing the disciples in the gospels. The author would argue that the water baptism of John the Baptist is now unnecessary.

Quote:

so that then, when hands were laid upon him by the bishop, he might also receive the Holy Spirit, and he would not lose that former invocation of the name of Jesus. Which none of us may disallow, although this invocation, if it be standing bare and by itself, could not suffice for affording salvation, lest on this principle we should believe that even Gentiles and heretics, who abuse the name of Jesus, could attain unto salvation without the true and entire thing. Yet it is extremely useful to believe that this invocation of the name of Jesus, together with the correction of error and the acknowledgment of the belief of the truth, and with the putting away of all stain of past conversation, if rightly performed with the mystery of God among men of this kind, obtains a place which it would not have had, and finally, in the true faith and for the maintenance of the integrity of the sign, is no hindrance, when its supplement which had been wanting is added; and that it is consistent with good reason, with the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops; even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel against former decisions after so long a series of so many ages. For not for any other reason Peter— who had already been baptized and had been asked what he thought of the Lord by the Lord Himself, and the truth of the revelation of the Father in heaven being bestowed on him had confessed that Christ was not only our Lord, but was the Son of the living God [Matthew 16:16]— was shown subsequently to have withstood the same Christ when He made announcement of His passion, and therefore was set forth as being called Satan. For no other reason except because it would come to pass that some, although varying in their own judgment, and somewhat halting in faith and doctrine, although they were baptized in the name of Jesus, yet, if they had been able to rescind their error in some interval of time, were not on that account cut off from salvation; but at any time that they had come to the right mind, obtained by repentance a sound hope of salvation, especially when they received the Holy Spirit, to be baptized by Whom is the duty of every man, they would have intended some such thing. Even as we do not apprehend that Peter in the Gospel suffered this alone, but all the disciples, to whom, though already baptized, the Lord afterwards says, that all you shall be offended in me, Mark 14:27 all of whom, as we observe, having amended their faith, were baptized after the Lord's resurrection with the Holy Spirit.

Correct me if I am reading this correctly but it would seem to indicate that:

Peter was baptized by the water before Matt chapter 16. Is this the baptism of John? Where is the author getting this information?

GakuseiDon · 03-28-2012, 11:57 PM

Maybe a rooster did it (:wave: hi Dave31!)

Sorry, couldn't resist. Please continue.

rizdek · 03-29-2012, 04:35 AM

Do you think there is a way to make sense of this? Is it a real process such that anyone could nail down exactly what's happening and why? It seems ad hoc, and as such is very likely inconsistent because each believing person then, as now, is trying to explain something that isn't real. And that includes individuals that wrote the various manuscripts that became the books of the Bible.

sotto voce · 03-29-2012, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

'the Lord said in the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

In this gospel, Jesus used hendiadys, a figure of speech not much recognised in English; his thought was restated more plainly later in the same gospel with his comment that the Spirit convicts of sin. The comment here was addressed to a leading Jew, whose tradition was that water baptism symbolically washed away the (considerable) impurity of the Gentiles at conversion, and that to be a Jew was the final state of blessedness. But this prominent Jew had ideas too presumptuous, because the OT had promised to Jews 'water' that would clean them; never mind 'unwashed' Gentiles. Jesus here used 'water' as metaphor, but also identified that cleansing agent as his own spirit, now imminent, incipient with his death and resurrection. Here was prophetic fulfilment come to Israel.

Jesus' meaning was therefore not "water, with the Spirit," but "water, that is, the Spirit." Jews already had acquired ritual water baptism (not from their own Law), and Jesus was not intending another ritual washing, that would likewise have been totally ineffective.

So Jesus in effect said, "Unless a man is 'born again' or 'born from above' by repentance and justifying faith that comes of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." That 'baptism' is a private and secret decision, that in apostolic days led to water baptism as a means of making the decision public; which could take some courage. However, there is no theological reason for water baptism per se, and no apostolic instruction for it.

This figurative gospel statement was taken literally, as excuse for not-so-courageous antichrists to use water baptism as means of obtaining false followers, and infant baptism, that made personal decision 'unnecessary', of course became the general practice in Europe. Water baptism is therefore of no great significance today.

Sheshbazzar · 03-29-2012, 06:46 AM

יטבלו בשמו׃

andrewcriddle · 03-29-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

.................................................. ...........
Correct me if I am reading this correctly but it would seem to indicate that:

Peter was baptized by the water before Matt chapter 16. Is this the baptism of John? Where is the author getting this information?

My guess is that the author interprets John chapter 1 as implying that Peter was a disciple of John the Baptist. (Andrew his brother is explicitly described as such.)

If Peter was a disciple of John then he was presumably baptized by him.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 03-29-2012, 12:55 PM

Indeed what makes the quote so unusual is that it says that ALL of the disciples had already been baptized - presumably by John - and this seems to be agreed by the heretical opponents too. Moreover both parties agree that Jesus came to bring a 'spiritual baptism' which didn't have to involve water and which was distinct from whatever John did with water. Very odd.

Sheshbazzar · 03-29-2012, 12:56 PM

What the hell. If the wonky texts don't tell us what we want, let's just make up some more shit.

sotto voce · 03-29-2012, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Indeed what makes the quote so unusual is that it says that ALL of the disciples had already been baptized - presumably by John

John the apostle tells us that at least two of them (Andrew and himself) were John's disciples; probably Peter, too. John's baptism was for repentance, a prerequisite for acceptance of the gospel (John's purpose), so it would be surprising if the twelve (and indeed the seventy-two) had not at least wished for John's baptism.

Quote:

Moreover both parties agree that Jesus came to bring a 'spiritual baptism' which didn't have to involve water and which was distinct from whatever John did with water.

As John himself made clear:

'"I baptise you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire."' Mt 3:11 NIV

stephan huller · 03-29-2012, 04:44 PM

Yes, I am aware of these points. I have read and re-rread the text and came to the same conclusion especially with regards to how the author can say that all twelve were baptized by John. The real question is why does he go beyond what is actually written in the Gospel of John? Why would he say that ALL the disciples were first baptized with water and then with spirit? The answer has to have something do with what his opponents - the heretics - were saying about this situation.

I haven't looked at the material in a few hours but from memory there were two basic opinions:

1. it is necessary to undergo water baptism and then spirit baptism

and then the opinion of the author:

2. that it can be either or (namely, that water baptism or spirit baptism are the equivalents of one another and exchangeable rather than being a two step process).

I would think that some heretical groups argued that one only needed to have spirit baptism. I don't remember if that comes up but it certainly does in Against Heresies Book 1 Chapter 21. If the two treatises are related and I think there is clear evidence they are the heretics are the Marcosians

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2012, 11:57 PM	#2
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Maybe a rooster did it (:wave: hi Dave31!) Sorry, couldn't resist. Please continue.

03-29-2012, 04:35 AM	#3
rizdek Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 1,609	Do you think there is a way to make sense of this? Is it a real process such that anyone could nail down exactly what's happening and why? It seems ad hoc, and as such is very likely inconsistent because each believing person then, as now, is trying to explain something that isn't real. And that includes individuals that wrote the various manuscripts that became the books of the Bible.

03-29-2012, 06:46 AM	#5
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	יטבלו בשמו׃

03-29-2012, 12:55 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Indeed what makes the quote so unusual is that it says that ALL of the disciples had already been baptized - presumably by John - and this seems to be agreed by the heretical opponents too. Moreover both parties agree that Jesus came to bring a 'spiritual baptism' which didn't have to involve water and which was distinct from whatever John did with water. Very odd.

03-29-2012, 12:56 PM	#8
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	What the hell. If the wonky texts don't tell us what we want, let's just make up some more shit.

03-29-2012, 04:44 PM	#10
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes, I am aware of these points. I have read and re-rread the text and came to the same conclusion especially with regards to how the author can say that all twelve were baptized by John. The real question is why does he go beyond what is actually written in the Gospel of John? Why would he say that ALL the disciples were first baptized with water and then with spirit? The answer has to have something do with what his opponents - the heretics - were saying about this situation. I haven't looked at the material in a few hours but from memory there were two basic opinions: 1. it is necessary to undergo water baptism and then spirit baptism and then the opinion of the author: 2. that it can be either or (namely, that water baptism or spirit baptism are the equivalents of one another and exchangeable rather than being a two step process). I would think that some heretical groups argued that one only needed to have spirit baptism. I don't remember if that comes up but it certainly does in Against Heresies Book 1 Chapter 21. If the two treatises are related and I think there is clear evidence they are the heretics are the Marcosians

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.