Unconverted worshippers?

General Christian Theology
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Valerie »

EdselB wrote:
Valerie wrote:
ohio jones wrote: On MD, you referred to the book as "True Christianity." I wonder if it might have been this one (certainly 19th century, unless people were writing books and being ordained rather young in those days), probably not this one.

That's the book OJ! Thank you (how did you find that? You never cease to amaze me (us)-
Like the reviewer said in that link, it is really good- I recommend the book- I also remembered since this- that I had offered to send it to any former Amish (on a 'former Amish' facebook group that I was invited on) that would be interested in reading it- several asked me to send it to them so I think I cleaned out Rabers of what they had- & also sent my own copy to someone- I thought it would be beneficial to former Amish who doubted Amish knew the Gospel (that is the claim by some!) I'm anxious to see if I can get another copy now from Rabers- Have you ever been to that store OJ?
Sorry for the sidetrack- this should be in bunny trails I realize-
Back to OP if the original question is still in question-
I had wondered if you were confusing David Beiler's, Das Wahre Christianthum [True Christianity] (written 1857, first published in 1888) with a nonexistent 18th Century Amish bishop's book. Even so Beiler's book has nothing like you attribute to him. He has a chapter on baptism, but its primary purpose is to address the controversy in the Amish church surrounding the issue of stream baptism. Still he makes several statements that are relevant.
Baptism is not the entry into the kingdom of God, but a sign that the old man of sin is laid aside and buried and man made a covenant with his God and Creator, to walk in a new life for the rest of his days. It also is sign that the person is willing to follow and obey the Word and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. For we do not seek salvation in water baptism but rather in the merit of Jesus Christ. [pp. 50-51]
Since Baptism of the Holy Spirit is much more important than baptism with water and the one who baptizes with holiness or in the Holy Spirit so much more noble, stronger, and mightier than the one who baptizes with water, so also is water baptism less than Spirit baptism. Since Spirit baptism is the most important and must be understood as a pouring or sprinkling, I therefore believe water baptism should be understood this way. There are only three kinds of baptism described in the Word of God, the baptism of the Spirit, water baptism and the baptism of suffering. The Spirit baptism is first, the most important, the most necessary, and no one can be a true Christian without it. [pp. 54-55]
All those under the Old Covenant who faithfully served God were blesses with the Spirit of God and were poured upon from above with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. [p. 60]
All these above mentioned were baptized with the Holy Spirit into one body, without a doubt Paul mentions: “Through the Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Greeks, servants or free men; we are all made to drink through or to one Spirit.” I think that Paul does not indicate water baptism here but rather the baptism of the Spirit with which all were endowed who were faithful under the Old Covenant as well as those who served God un the New Covenant according to the direction of Jesus Christ, even though the ceremonies were different [p. 62.]
It is the duty of the True Christian to consider the three baptisms and whether they are working in his own life. All responsible adults must have the baptism of the Spirit, if they want to be comforted and hope to attain eternal salvation. In Christ’s words, “Except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Also except a man be born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.” This is the most important baptism). Baptism by water follows next however, not as important even if there is a lot of uproar and dissention about it nowadays. And yet the Savior says, “The Kingdom of God does not come in an outward manner….”
I suppose you could have been confused into thinking that Beiler’s citation of the scripture “Except a man be born of water and Spirit” endorsed the idea that the Holy Spirit was given at the time of water baptism. I think you are reading your understanding into Belier. You should note that he said water baptism follows baptism by the Spirit.
The 18th century Old Mennonite bishop Christian Burkholder in his Address to Youth, explains the phrase “born of water and Spirit” by citing Eph. 5:26:
Christ cleansed His church with the washing of water by the word, The words of Christ are “spirit and life.” (Jn. 6:36). Now if Christ thus cleanses his church namely, with the washing of water by the word,” then indeed we may say, we are born of the Word and Spirit. By the Word were all things made that were made.” [Conversations on Saving Faith, p. 221.]
It's been several years since I had & read the book- and I think that what I may have wrongly assumed was that he was connecting being 'born again' with baptism- but that is what it seemed to me he was saying- I need to read the book again- actually, at that time, it was new to me to make the connection between "Born Again" and baptism- from where I came from in faith, becoming born again had nothing to do with your actual baptism- it wasn't until I started reading the early church writers/fathers from various parts of the east, who said being born again was your baptism- and it seemed to me when I read Bispop Beiler's book, he was connecting Born Again with one's baptism-
Can you read that entire book online Edsel? What the book really taught me was at least at that time, the former Amish were probably surprised at what all he taught- at this point, most of them feel they (OO Amish) lost their foundation on Jesus Christ
How does one read the book of Acts & draw one conclusion at that? There were those in different places in Acts that had been baptized, but had not received the Holy Spirit yet-
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Read Acts 2, verses 3 and 4 then also verse 17 and 18. The tongues as of fire sat upon each of them and they were filled with the Spirit. "I will pour out of My Spirit".
Thankyou. I had not heard this connection before of the 'pouring out' of the Spirit phrase being associated with symbolic water baptism pouring. In my background the focus was more on the word baptizo meaning immerse and linked with how Paul explained the symbology of water baptism. Dying to sin and being resurrected to new life.

The 'pouring out of the Holy Spirit' in verses 17 and 18 describes the supernatural work of the Spirit that will occur on all who believe, men and women. Verse 18 is a counter argument to Paul saying women should keep silent in church being used to limit women's involvement.

Interesting how we interpret and match scripture with scripture to develop our practises.

I suppose sprinkling then comes from Ezekiel 36:25-27. Yes ?
Didn't the Catholic Church by the time of the Reformation do sprinkling? In the eastern areas of Christianity, immersion was done (unless it wasn't possible, pouring was allowed) but at some point, western Catholicism started pouring instead, an Orthodox priest/friend said he visited the Behalt (Amish Mennonite Heritage/Cultural Center) and during the Q & A someone asked about baptism, which the tour guide explained that they sprinkle (or pour) and someone in the tour group said "Like the Catholics!) - the eastern side of Christianity, even that have started churches in the west, still immerse -
I think that the example of Jesus if we are comparing Scripture to Scripture, was at His baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him- it could be one of the passages that was used to finally determine & start the pattern in the early Church to pray for the person to receive the Holy Spirit at their baptism- I am not sure- but eventually this was the way it was done- NOT to say, the Holy Spirit wasn't involved in their converstion or drawing them to the faith, but as the Apostles did lay hands on a Believer to 'receive' the Holy Spirit so He would dwell in each one, history tells that it was done at one's baptism-
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Valerie »

Sudsy wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Read Acts 2, verses 3 and 4 then also verse 17 and 18. The tongues as of fire sat upon each of them and they were filled with the Spirit. "I will pour out of My Spirit".
Thankyou. I had not heard this connection before of the 'pouring out' of the Spirit phrase being associated with symbolic water baptism pouring. In my background the focus was more on the word baptizo meaning immerse and linked with how Paul explained the symbology of water baptism. Dying to sin and being resurrected to new life.

The 'pouring out of the Holy Spirit' in verses 17 and 18 describes the supernatural work of the Spirit that will occur on all who believe, men and women. Verse 18 is a counter argument to Paul saying women should keep silent in church being used to limit women's involvement.

Interesting how we interpret and match scripture with scripture to develop our practises.

I suppose sprinkling then comes from Ezekiel 36:25-27. Yes ?
I also assumed that this understanding came from Ezekiel- a lot of former Amish I know were not sure if they were 'really' baptized (their Amish baptism) because they were not immersed which is what they believe baptism is supposed to be, but reading Ezekiel 36 I thought that is maybe where the idea came from- but then I realized since Anabaptists came out of Catholocism, and by that time they were sprinkling, it continued? Anyway- regarding when the Holy Spirit is received seems to vary in different parts of Acts- but still in Chapter 2, Peter said "Repent & be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.. For this promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call". (Vs 38, 39). (this is also the passage where some justify baptizing in Jesus' name only, instead of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit- but there is an explanation for that-)

So can one worship without being 'converted'? In Spirit & Truth- it seems probably not- but bowing down & recognizing the Father, Son & Holy Spirit it seems one can do this as we have examples of it in Scripture- without true conversion. What is God looking for in worship?

Sudsy, God is not opposed to Ritual, as He is the author of Ritual- but when one's heart is unattached & you're just going through the motions, that is where we need to realize it's become dead- but that can happen in any setting of one's place of worship.
There is ritual in heaven- we read about it in Scripture (for example in Revelations) so anything God created in form & ritual is not bad- it's our hearts condition at the time is what we need to examine.
0 x
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by temporal1 »

From Page 2:
ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:Did the Church eventually set a pattern, baptism and to receive the Holy Spirit?
How does it happen in the Anabaptist Churches? I mean, for a Believer to receive the Holy Spirit?
Not sure how in the Anabaptist Churches one receives the Holy Spirit-
It's not up to a church to decide when someone receives the Holy Spirit, nor does He read the label before deciding when to move in.
would you share more about your understanding?
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

This last page or two has been fascinating, especially the Beiler piece. Personally, I would probably take issue with his (at least partial) dismissal of water baptism and its placement in his preferred order, but that's another thread entirely. So for you sprinkle or pour types on here, I'm curious about something, and I don't ask in order to start a defensive back and forth on the validity of immersion versus pouring, the deeper issue seems to be the answer of a good conscience before God - you don't need to feel that your original baptism is being threatened - please keep this in mind before you answer! I'm simply curious your thoughts on what seems to be an unbalanced emphasis. It's possible I'm just completely missing something...

I understand how Ezekiel and other OT prophecies and the concept of the Holy Spirit are drawn upon to justify pouring, but why then do you feel it acceptable that the other images and contexts associated with baptism in the New Testament not get equal emphasis, such as "burial" and "being clothed" and baptizing where "there was much water" and going "down into/up out of" the water, etc, etc? Again, we can argue immersion versus affusion later - I'm just curious why affusionists consider this dismissal/overlook to be justifiable.
0 x
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

Valerie wrote:Sudsy, God is not opposed to Ritual, as He is the author of Ritual- but when one's heart is unattached & you're just going through the motions, that is where we need to realize it's become dead- but that can happen in any setting of one's place of worship. There is ritual in heaven- we read about it in Scripture (for example in Revelations) so anything God created in form & ritual is not bad- it's our hearts condition at the time is what we need to examine.
Would we agree that said "rituals" are usually expected of our members? And then at what point does Matthew 15:9 become applicable?
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by MaxPC »

Heirbyadoption wrote:This last page or two has been fascinating, especially the Beiler piece. Personally, I would probably take issue with his (at least partial) dismissal of water baptism and its placement in his preferred order, but that's another thread entirely. So for you sprinkle or pour types on here, I'm curious about something, and I don't ask in order to start a defensive back and forth on the validity of immersion versus pouring, the deeper issue seems to be the answer of a good conscience before God - you don't need to feel that your original baptism is being threatened - please keep this in mind before you answer! I'm simply curious your thoughts on what seems to be an unbalanced emphasis. It's possible I'm just completely missing something...

I understand how Ezekiel and other OT prophecies and the concept of the Holy Spirit are drawn upon to justify pouring, but why then do you feel it acceptable that the other images and contexts associated with baptism in the New Testament not get equal emphasis, such as "burial" and "being clothed" and baptizing where "there was much water" and going "down into/up out of" the water, etc, etc? Again, we can argue immersion versus affusion later - I'm just curious why affusionists consider this dismissal/overlook to be justifiable.
Heir, I agree this has been a very good discussion. Just to share a clarification, Catholics either pour or do immersion. Occasionally when certain circumstances are involved we'll sprinkle, but rarely. We've had immersion in lakes, rivers or large baptistries. We'll pour in the absence of other modes. To sum up, we adapt as circumstances require. YMMV :D
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5222
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by ohio jones »

temporal1 wrote:
ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:Did the Church eventually set a pattern, baptism and to receive the Holy Spirit?
How does it happen in the Anabaptist Churches? I mean, for a Believer to receive the Holy Spirit?
Not sure how in the Anabaptist Churches one receives the Holy Spirit-
It's not up to a church to decide when someone receives the Holy Spirit, nor does He read the label before deciding when to move in.
would you share more about your understanding?
It is my understanding from scripture and experience that the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the life of a believer at the time of the new birth. This may happen at a gathering of the church, or at another time and place, but it has nothing to do with a formal ritual nor does it require the presence of a priest or minister. The church may pray for it to happen, but it is done by God (and on his schedule) not by the church. The end of my comment may have been a bit snarky, but I do not believe that the Holy Spirit delays his indwelling of some people until they ask for it, while immediately baptizing others, depending on the theological tradition the person finds themself in.

Water baptism, then, is a separate and subsequent event of public confession that symbolizes and bears witness to the new birth and the baptism of the Spirit (and in the language of Schleitheim, "repentance and amendment of life").
Heirbyadoption wrote:I understand how Ezekiel and other OT prophecies and the concept of the Holy Spirit are drawn upon to justify pouring, but why then do you feel it acceptable that the other images and contexts associated with baptism in the New Testament not get equal emphasis, such as "burial" and "being clothed" and baptizing where "there was much water" and going "down into/up out of" the water, etc, etc? Again, we can argue immersion versus affusion later - I'm just curious why affusionists consider this dismissal/overlook to be justifiable.
In terms of the symbolism of water baptism, I tend to think about this in parallel with the metaphors for atonement. Some people are quite strident in their exaltation of one view (such as Christus Victor) and rejection of another (such as penal substitution) to the point that they can't fellowship with someone who emphasizes a "competing" viewpoint. But God works in multifaceted ways that are too complex to be comprehensively captured by a single human construct; synoptic similes help us grasp a more complete understanding. So to the question of whether the atonement is a substitution, a satisfaction, a recapitulation, or a ransom, I say YES, and as to whether water baptism represents resurrection or Holy Spirit baptism, I say YES.

Leaving aside sprinkling, which in my experience is uncommon among Anabaptists (baptisms I've witnessed among Mennonites have been at least 2/3 pouring, and the rest single immersion), I would suggest that pouring is a New Testament image foreshadowed in the Old, rather than primarily an OT concept. The symbolism of burial and resurrection is not completely neglected, as pouring is generally administered while kneeling, followed by standing as the minister says something like this:
[url=http://www.biblicalmennonite.com/support-files/ministers-manual-2016-for-website.pdf]BMA Minister's Manual[/url] p.47 wrote:In the name of Christ and His church I bid you arise: Like as Christ was raised up by the glory of the Father, so you also shall walk in newness of life.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
Heirbyadoption
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:57 pm
Affiliation: Brethren

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Heirbyadoption »

ohio jones wrote:whether water baptism represents resurrection or Holy Spirit baptism, I say YES.
I think we might be on the same page except for this bit. The Scriptures seem to be much more distinct between the two baptisms than that... On the other hand, knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. ;) :hug:
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Unconverted worshippers?

Post by Sudsy »

Valerie wrote: Sudsy, God is not opposed to Ritual, as He is the author of Ritual- but when one's heart is unattached & you're just going through the motions, that is where we need to realize it's become dead- but that can happen in any setting of one's place of worship.
There is ritual in heaven- we read about it in Scripture (for example in Revelations) so anything God created in form & ritual is not bad- it's our hearts condition at the time is what we need to examine.
Just starting to catch up on this thread as I've been busy.

Regarding rituals - I don't recall challenging rituals but I agree God looks on the heart in our ways of following Him. Belief and repentance are issues of the heart (heart being our intellect, will and emotions). So how a baby can be regenerated by the act of a parent's heart motive through water baptism, I don't understand. Or am I not understanding this right ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply