Sabbath and Women
May 24, 2008
Can someone help me out? I’ve got two questions I need some help with.
1. Can someone provide chapter and verse, i.e. an explicit command that we observe the sabbath on the first day of the week instead of the seventh? And I know that we have example in the New Testament, so also can someone provide the command that the church continue that “example” in perpetuity?
2. Women. Can someone provide chapter and verse where the church is commanded to allow women participate in communion? An example of such?
Please leave answers in the comment section.
May 24, 2008 at 9:28 am
I see where you’re going with this. Our baptist friends tend to shy away from these types of things. It reveals that many of us deny one thing and employ it in the defense of our own religious practices.
Case in point: where in scripture does it say to baptize infants? It is, from historical record and systematic application of the WHOLE scope of scripture, deduced and inferred. Much as women partaking of the supper and the sabbath day-change.
Short answer to your question: You will find no such scripture.
May 24, 2008 at 10:18 am
Matt, very perceptive. But will our brethren give a verse? I’m still waiting.
May 24, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Les, why are you asking the second question? Is there someone you’re talking to that’s wondering if this is biblical? Every Scripture in Paul’s letters concerning the Lord’s Supper implies that women are participating in the fellowship meals and Lord’s Supper alongside men. 1 Corinthians 11 is a good place to start. Or you could start with the OT background and look how the whole family participated in the Passover meal and other fellowship meals.
May 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Thanks Wes. You make my point well.
May 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm
No, you want find any passages on those, but I will give you chapter and verse of infant baptism:
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 – “For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”
We know from the book of Exodus that children were included in leaving Egypt (Exodus 10:24). Therefore, they were baptized as well. (:
May 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm
One other thought, in addition to the sabbath and women, you might also want to add child dedication to your list.
May 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Danny, great thoughts. NOW we have our one verse that has been eluding us paedos all these years.
But now after your second comment, I am saddened for our brethren who do the paedo dedications. We need to help them find a verse. wait: I have it.
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=deu+15%3A19
But wait. That presents several problems: 1. It is in the OT. 2. What about the girls?
May 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm
By the way, just having some fun here. Jesting as some say.
May 26, 2008 at 10:05 am
Les, here I thought you had a real challenge. Question 2 is easy to answer:
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the of and the prayers.
According to arch-paedobaptist R.C. Sproul, the breaking of bread is terminology indicating that they were observing the Lord’s Supper. But were there any women among them?
Who are those who are in fellowship, praying and breaking bread? “Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” 3000 souls who had received their word and were baptized. Souls used here rather than a male pronoun to indicate that men and women and children (children who had what? received the word spoken to them). Those who received the Word and were baptized, men and women and children in believer’s baptism, partaking of the Lord’s Supper.
So here we have a very obvious case, early on in Acts, of women being included in the observance of the Lord’s Supper.
BTW Danny, you are correct that 1 Cor 10:1-2 speaks of all of Israel, under the OLD COVENANT, passing through the sea which presumably includes children, but if you keep reading you see that God was not pleased with most of them and they perished in the wilderness. A stark contrast with the deliverance provided under the unbreakable New Covenant. The NT describing something that occurred in the OT is not the same as the command to continue the practice. Still waiting for that command or example of an infant being baptized.
You were right Les, that was fun!
May 26, 2008 at 10:16 am
Arthur, Arthur. Sorry, gotta rule your comments out of bounds. Go back and read the challenge. I asked for a command for women to be included. Your attempt falls woefully short. Of course Sproul is correct. But there is no cammand. And worse for your attempt, you are strangely employing the same tactic we paedos are accused of using–namely putting in our supposition on the text as opposed to what the text actually says. No women are mentioned.
Sorry, strike one.
May 26, 2008 at 1:05 pm
My comment/question is this: your eisegetical reading of certain scriptures (acts uses the word psuxe, if I’m not mistaken, for souls – and it means neither man OR woman, simply SOULS) convinces you that women were present, having a communion meal with the saints.
You see this as a sort of slam-dunk? How then can you ignore a much clearer statement of believer’s children being holy (1 cor 7:14), or the kingdom belonging to such as these (luke 18:16)? It seems that by your standard, these statements (which actually mention the persons discussed, not just implied by some elementary understanding of Greek noun-genders) would be super-duper slam dunks!
Arthur, on another blog which has seen fit to ban me from commenting for a variety of seemingly duplicitous reasons, you posted the following:
“…but if I don’t stop blogging and start helping my wife care for our eight little sinners I am going to be blogging from the hospital!”
In light of these points, I hope you begin using the term “holy” with your children – if you truly love God and have made Jesus your lord, the bible clearly calls your children “holy”. And I think we can argue all we want with what “holy” means in this passage, but one thing it definitely ain’t: it ain’t NOT holy.
All this is to sincerely encourage us all to examine our “slam-dunk” arguments against a theological “side” and see if we do not, in fact, employ them ourselves, as Les pointed out. I have had to do that several times lately. I still believe what I believe, but I am clearer on WHY. You seem to read just what you want to in that Acts passage you quoted – something paedo’s are routinely accused of.
I’m not making an argument for my “side”, just pointing out that you accept a very weak eisegesis for supporting your “easy” answer to Les’ question, but refuse to accept a much MUCH clearer teaching throughout old and new testaments on the status of children of believers.
May 26, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Credos, I will modify the question #2 to give more latitude.
Besides providing a command for women to be included in communion, just provide a clear, explicit example of such.
May 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm
My previous post above this at 1:05 was directed to Arthur’s response. Should’ve put that first for clarity.
May 26, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Matt,
I was playing along with Les’ challenge. There is an example of women taking the Lord’s Supper as he requested. This isn’t even an argument for or against infant baptism. But then you run off in a totally diffferent direction.
Clear arguments in favor of infant baptism?
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
Um, where is infant baptism in this “clear” text? Let’s look at the next one…
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.
Of because Jesus was baptizing them, right? Oh wait, it just says they were being brought so He could touch them.
Children are meentioned, so therefore we should baptize infants? I am afraid that the charge of sentimental eisegesis sticks more with your position than mine. There is no command or example of a single infant being baptized anywhere in the NT. At least arguments about the continuance of the covenant have some scriptural support.
Perhaps the reason you were banned from VOTS is the strident nature of your comments. One would assume that we are all believers, brothers in Christ, having a conversation that the church has had for centuries. A serious and important one, with feelings held strongly on both sides, but a conversation between believers.
May 26, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Arthur, you wrote, “There is an example of women taking the Lord’s Supper as he requested.” Could you just copy and paste that verse in here so we could all see it? The one where the text explicitly says women took part in communion, or where the church was commanded to include them?
Also, you said…”There is no command or example of a single infant being baptized anywhere in the NT.” Agreed, no explicit command nor example shown. But it makes me wonder, is there a command or example of even one young man or woman raised in the believer’s home being baptized upon profession of faith? Just one?
Last, could maybe you, or another credo brother, please take a shot at question #1?
May 27, 2008 at 5:44 am
Well,
The reason I was banned from that blog had nothing to do with the strident nature of my comments, which I will have to disagree with you on. I would say that yours are at least AS strident, as you call them. But not knowing the private emails between that brother and I, I would suggest you not speculate anymore. There is a very good reason, in defense of close personal friends known by many of us here locally, that I decided to finally jump into this blog-world of VOTS. Thanks.
Back on topic (and sorry, Les, for contributing to something that is threatening to get away from your topic).
Do you really not see my point? I will do my best, Lord willing, to explain. My point is that you were willing to suggest your verse in Acts as “proof” of women partaking. I then pointed out that women aren’t listed there. I pointed out that your eisegetical reading of the passage assumed women, when only souls were mentioned. You took a leap of faith that isn’t explicitly supported by THAT text (something you have personally accused me of now – “sentimental eisegesis”).
As to the other verses, they are there to show the inconsistency of your hermeneutical approach. I gave two verses, mentioning the place children can have in the kingdom, and the status of a believer’s child and spouse have in the kingdom as a result of one believing parent/spouse. I then posted your comment from VOTS showing your belief that your children are simple “sinners.” Those verses at least MENTION the subjects I am discussing, but they are not often rejected by you and others holding to the credo position.
So you see, I made a valid point – that you have just read INTO the text, while you at the same time ignore MUCH clearer teaching. You clearly don’t agree with my point, but a point it was.
Have you found an answer to Les’s questions? I am genuinely excited to see where this leads. I would love, though it would rub by sinful self the wrong way for a time, to be corrected by scripture. I would hope we all could.
In Him,
Matt
May 27, 2008 at 6:02 am
One more thing –
Arthur said:”There is no command or example of a single infant being baptized anywhere in the NT”
there is a very good article (and I am seriously bugged that I can’t remember who wrote it) about the word choice for “household” – oikos in greek. To the effect of the word’s general meaning and its implications. Something to the effect of its usually referring to a house with infants. Obviously this is no silver bullet statement I’m making here (with NO idea who wrote it) but maybe someone else can chime in. According to this expert, the “households” being baptized would be a clear statement of children being baptized, since the alternative words which don’t imply infants weren’t used.
THis is all to say that although we may not see clear support for paedo-baptism, women at the table, etc. these things CAN be very clear to those with the mindset and knowledge of the language of first-century, greek-speaking jews. Sorry it can’t be more helpful. I will dig for it
I just hope, Arthur, that you can see my point. Your statements that there are categorically no examples of infant-baptism is not so clear when you see the options in translating the greek… maybe the same thing is happening in respect to your seeing “clear examples” of women being admitted to the table, or of a sabbath day-change (which no one including you has responded to).
Still waiting on some scriptural examples to chew on,
Matt
May 27, 2008 at 6:54 am
…I swear I won’t post again for a bit, but I am genuinely concerned with the effectiveness of this kind of discussion. Text is hardly the best medium for conveying emotion, seriousness, sarcasm, etc. and I fear they get all confused. I’m reading my own posts above and I think I can see why Arthur could call my tone “strident”, though I meant nothing of the sort. Were we face-to-face, I believe my words’ delivery would have suggested quite the contrary. I apologize if I ever come off as difficult or stubborn. With that said, I believe I am not the only one who could be misconstrued, either. Statements such as “Um….” or “…Oh, wait” (just examples pulled from Arthur’s earlier response to me) come off VERY sarcastic on my end, but having a second look, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Please extend me the same courtesy and examine what YOU can do, as I examine what I can do to further refine our conversation. I am not interested in a fight, so let us reason as if the honor of Christ is at stake – choosing our words wisely.
I am unsure if I will continue in the discussion at hand – I’m thinking that anonymous text debate encourages misunderstanding and hasty, overly courageous posting of things some of us would regret in a real-life conversation… and I am talking to myself as much as any of “the other side”
To God be all glory,
Matt
May 27, 2008 at 8:25 am
Amusing little exercise…totally irrelevant to baptism, but amusing.
The truth of the matter is, we DO have explicit instructions in Scripture of whom to baptize, and we have examples of who was baptized. Credo’s base their practice of baptism on the direct instructions and explicit examples of who was baptized in the early church.
Paedos base their practice of baptism on the fact that there is not a verse telling them whom NOT to baptize.
May 27, 2008 at 9:01 am
Brian, I don’t know why you brought up baptism. The post says nothing about baptism, infant or otherwise.
If you are able, please try to stay on topic and answer either or both questions, if you can.
Thanks brother.
May 27, 2008 at 9:13 am
Les,
I fear he is on the subject because I brought up Arthur’s acceptance of acts 2 as “proof” of women taking communion, and commented on how that was odd, considering what I deem much clearer statements on children being holy or recipients of the kingdom, which he rejects. Again, sorry for making a point in such a way as to encourage further off-topic posting by these (seemingly) distracted men.
In Him,
Matt
May 27, 2008 at 9:23 am
No problem Matt. We’re all prone to wander off toipc on these things, me included.
May 27, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I found the commands for those things…
They are located in the same NT book that commands formal membership in churches and for females to be baptized based upon the OT practice of circumcising ma…wait, that doesn’t work, does it. Where DID the first century church get that they were to baptize females? Certainly not from the OT covenant of circumcision. But, I thought the NT practice was a 1:1 equivalent of the OT practice.
Oh, wait, now I found it…it is located in the same NT book that abrogates the OT tithes and land promises.
May 27, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Brian, nice try. But you nevertheless make the case.
1. No formal membership (this is a bonus one) are commanded nor exemplified as we do so these days. Nevertheless, you practice it.
2. Females being baptized. Well actually we do heve that in the NT. I assume you all do baptize females.
3. You thought the NT practice is a 1:1 equivalent of the OT practice. As John Wayne famously said in Big Jake, “Not hardly!” No, the NT is actually expansive in many ways, females receiving the sign of God’s covenant promise being one of them.
Oh, the tithes and the land promises. Well, that’s another post.
So, looks like you practice something today without clear, explicit command and without any NT example; you admit females to the communion table.
I know you didn’t actually admit it here, but we both know you do.
So, when you ask us paedos for just one explicit example of an infant baptism or one clear command to do so, well just remember the women taking communion.
May 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm
will do…
May 28, 2008 at 6:13 am
Mr. Thornton – must you be SO sarcastic all the time? Have you read what you post? It sounds very infantile and sarcastic! Oh wait… But I thought… Oh yeah… I often have to support an argument in my seminary classes and they would CRUSH me for not only failing so miserably to make my point, but you better believe someone would call me on it if I repeatedly dodged the fact that I couldn’t really answer a question.
It really is OK, when backed into a wall, to say “I don’t know.” Les has lovingly and CALMLY proved his point – you practice something not explicitly commanded by the NT. That is reason enough to stop and say “let me think about that” or “let me get back to you” but your last few posts are un-academic and certainly smack of rude desperation. I for one am grateful that you allowed this to continue to its current state, as you have (Lord willing) learned a valuable lesson about not only theology, but good manners. Even if you haven’t, I pray that others who view this exchange will see Les’ model behavior and contrast it with yours.
It is exactly this kind of tone, posted regularly by you at your site (liberally sprinkled with straw men) that encouraged me to finally try to confront you on your own site. It has never been personal for me, and I assume the same for Les. He made a marvelous point. Now, in light of this, what should we all do?
I will certainly make every effort to think before posting – reading and re-reading it to ensure I’m making a point that glorifies God, not distracts from the current topic. I have unintentionally steered the conversation elsewhere while trying to debate you guys. I will certainly work on that, and I admit I need to be more concise in making a point, trying to avoid any confusion.
Since your last comment seems to close the book on this discussion, I am hopeful that you are indeed thinking over the fact that you have talked yourself into a corner and found your argument lacking. I pray this brings you to the realization that personal attacks, diversionary comments, and sarcasm DO NOT succeed in derailing a conversation with everyone. Will this lead us all closer to God, Mr. Thornton? I believe we have at least discovered one very nice nugget of truth. Please do not mock it in a subsequent topic on your own site. It saddens me to say that it seems to be your pattern to do so.
Thank you Les. I know you are warring for the truth, and to be able to do so as an academic and a gentleman is certainly rare. I see it IS possible to discuss this stuff respectfully, and your humility and patience have truly made me think and re-think how I discuss theology. Excellent points made here, and your site will be a resource in my dealing with these topics in my personal life and seminary papers (and MAN I’ve got a lot of them left!)
In Him,
Matt
May 28, 2008 at 7:12 am
Matt, I share your frustration. It would be so much more constructive if in our discourse we would refrain from straw men, ad hominem approaches, evasion, etc.
You know in the end, most all credos and paedos I know share a heart for the gospel and these extended debates about baptism are rather pointless. I’m perfectly content to live with my credo brothers and labor together for the gospel. I do not know why some credos seem intent on continually attacking paedo-baptism. Oh well.
Have a great dau and thank you for your comments.
May 28, 2008 at 8:25 am
…whoops. too late.
http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com/2008/05/28/my-concluding-thoughts-on-paedo-baptism/
Fellow internet-blog-people, please notice his frustration, and understand where it’s coming from. Those who have read this “sabbath and women” post understand. Mr. Thornton is frustrated because, as evidenced above, he realizes that he does, indeed, oftentimes participate in church activities not explicitly commanded in the NT. As a result, he is creating contradictions where they do not exist.
For instance, if Mr. Thornton has a problem with God “being a God to NT believers and their children” and yet failing to regenerate many paedo-baptized infants, it seems he will struggle quite a bit with why in the world so many circumcised children also met the same end. His old testament just became a lot more confusing, because God “dropped the ball” with Esau – a child directly descended from one of the great men in scripture… a man who believed God’s covenant – “to be a God to him and his children”.
I mean no disrespect, Mr. Thornton, but you have a hard time ahead of you as you wrestle with this. Only 5 years ago I would have bitten your head off if you told me tongue-speaking gibberish and pre-millenial rapture were misreadings of scripture. My wife cried tears of pain and sorrow for at least 6 months as she came to grips with the sovereign election of God. This will be hard.
I will begin praying for you. I hope you will do the same for me, since you currently believe me to be led astray by men of charisma but little knowledge – men like the great reformers, The Westiminster divines, Les, Glenn Dire, Jess Stanfield, Joe Morecraft, etc. – men who I hold in HIGH esteem, though I do not know them all. If they have indeed led me from the truth, please pray for me that I would see the light. I’d rather eat crow and worship in truth than stubbornly hold on to my sinful pride. I mean that sincerely – from the bottom of my heart.
I apologize to Les for talking directly to Brian Thornton this way, but I am not allowed to post at his site. I hope this was relevant enough to warrant this slightly off-topic plea.
To God be all glory,
Matt
May 28, 2008 at 9:53 am
Matt,
You wold do well to stand by the oath you posted on this site:
I swear I won’t post again for a bit
May 28, 2008 at 10:06 am
Matt and Brian, I don’t know the history, but I suggest that you two would be better off communicating offline.