Comments on: Baptism and Christian Identity

By: Kyle Strobel

Kyle Strobel — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:00:30 +0000

Interestingly, this book is written from a Presbyterian perspective. I imagine that we’ll see his thought unfold when I get to the rest of the book, so I’ll hold off my thoughts until then. I’m not sure, as of yet, that Eucharist would be more appropriate than baptism, but we’ll see what he tries to do with it. Baptism, if nothing else, provides a framework for the Christian life, both mortification and vivification in a way that the body and blood does not – not to diminish it in any way.

By: Derek Resler

Derek Resler — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 05:03:18 +0000

Interesting volume Kyle. The method sounds intriguing and the questions are very good questions to ask. But as for the object, baptism is an awkward focus for the entire project. Joe brings up good points, and though I am not Southern Baptist, his questions regarding the vitae of Jesus ring true. A better object to apply the method seems to be the Eucharist, where there seems to be a stronger ecclesial and trinitarian tie in to the project.

Am I wrong in is?

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:30:42 +0000

Anthropology affirms that various “rites of initiation” and “rites of passage,” help initiates bond to various organizations, by dramatically marking the moment of transition. Baptism at one time, may have been such an effective marker.

The central dialogue on baptism, is in the Gospel of John; which is said to be by the apostle John, but focuses after all, in the beginning, on John the Baptist.

Baptisms and annointings seem related; and both of them to attempts to give Jesus firm, official status. John for example is said to have in his own way, in effect, annointed Jesus. Thus giving him 1) a sort of authority; “Christ”ening. And a role in the Trinity, thereby, some would say.

That was a sort of alternative annointing however; with “water” as John said. And next of course, John went on to 2) refer to Jesus’ perhaps superior baptism of/with, the Holy Spirit. While 3) Mary annoints Jesus with a more traditional oil. Though 4) Jesus did not baptise, parts of the Bible suggest; his disciples did.

Which if any of these baptisms was particularly important? Did any of them bring Jesus into the Trinity? Were any of them absolutely necessary? Considering for example 5) Paul’s assertion that it is believing in God – or metaphorically, the “circumcision” of the “heart” – that is important.

Southern Baptists of course, find the ritual compelling. And its tribal roots, are no doubt compelling to pre-literate peoples.