Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Believer's Baptism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    No Biblical scholar uses stock standard reading comprehension techniques?

    That would explain why there are so many conflicting interpretations of the same passages, right enough.
    I mean, they do. You're not using stock standard reading comprehension techniques though. You seem to be saying we should take passages apart, and bit by bit see if we can confirm each point, and then say "see, this is what it means!" That's bad exegesis. Good exegesis includes reading and understanding passages within their broader context, both within the book itself, and other books the author is likely familiar with.

    Dr. Heiser has a fantastic set of podcasts on how best to study the Bible, and how to understand the Bible within its own context. I highly recommend them as they analyze the sort of mistake you've made here, as well as sharing scholarly hermeneutics.

    The first one (with transcript) can be found here: Heiser’s Laws for Bible Study: Learning to Study the Bible, Part 1

    And if you're interested, you can start on his Taking the Bibles Own Context Seriously series here: Taking the Bible’s Own Context Seriously

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      I mean, they do. You're not using stock standard reading comprehension techniques though. You seem to be saying we should take passages apart, and bit by bit see if we can confirm each point, and then say "see, this is what it means!" That's bad exegesis. Good exegesis includes reading and understanding passages within their broader context, both within the book itself, and other books the author is likely familiar with.
      Bad exegesis it is not. Every clause in every sentence answers a question, unless the clause is inchoate. Identifying that question is not an arbitrary process. If the question is wrong, the clause won't answer it. Where this technique is followed the answers will be uniform for the same text, regardless of who conducts the exercise. Where texts are translations, provided that they are faithful to the original, the questions will vary only by the veriest margin regardless of the language used by the translator.

      Techniques that produce conflicting results, particularly when they are as wildly conflicting as Biblical commentators produce, are failed techniques.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        Bad exegesis it is not. Every clause in every sentence answers a question, unless the clause is inchoate. Identifying that question is not an arbitrary process. If the question is wrong, the clause won't answer it. Where this technique is followed the answers will be uniform for the same text, regardless of who conducts the exercise. Where texts are translations, provided that they are faithful to the original, the questions will vary only by the veriest margin regardless of the language used by the translator.

        Techniques that produce conflicting results, particularly when they are as wildly conflicting as Biblical commentators produce, are failed techniques.
        That's prooftexting, not proper exegesis. Makes sense why you disagree with so many Biblical commentators. But like I said, you do you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
          Bad exegesis it is not. Every clause in every sentence answers a question, unless the clause is inchoate. Identifying that question is not an arbitrary process. If the question is wrong, the clause won't answer it. Where this technique is followed the answers will be uniform for the same text, regardless of who conducts the exercise. Where texts are translations, provided that they are faithful to the original, the questions will vary only by the veriest margin regardless of the language used by the translator.

          Techniques that produce conflicting results, particularly when they are as wildly conflicting as Biblical commentators produce, are failed techniques.
          I made the same comment as Adrift to you earlier, about you ignoring context. You seem to isolate verses, phrases and words till you can fish out what you want them to say while ignoring what the author says elsewhere, or what other authors say, or even the context of the surrounding text.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            In both cases, circumcision and baptism, there are physical ceremonies, but the bible also refers to a spiritual version.

            Circumcision:

            Romans 2:29
            No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

            Baptism:

            Mark 1:8
            I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

            Acts 1:5
            For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

            So maybe the baptism that saves is not being dunked in water, but receiving the Holy Spirit.
            Yes, to me, especially in the Gospels, the wording of all references to baptism in the Spirit sound like it is an alternative or successor, not a complement, to any sort of literal-water baptism.
            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

            Beige Federalist.

            Nationalist Christian.

            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

            Justice for Matthew Perna!

            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I made the same comment as Adrift to you earlier, about you ignoring context. You seem to isolate verses, phrases and words till you can fish out what you want them to say while ignoring what the author says elsewhere, or what other authors say, or even the context of the surrounding text.
              Sure I do. That's why I was able to locate and reconcile the sections where Paul seems to say on the one hand that he can't stop sinning, and on the other, that "you (pl)" or "we" can stop sinning.

              As a demonstration of what you accuse me of:
              Acts 2:8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

              Were I to engage in proof texting, as some commentators do, I would say with them that
              "this shows members of the crowd hearing in their own tongues, which is to say that the disciples were not speaking in tongues, but that members of the crowd were given the gift of interpretation in their own language what the disciples were speaking in Hebrew.

              Using text interrogation techniques, however, I say: this verse states that members of the crowd could hear the disciples in their own language. This verse makes no comment about the language(s) being used by the disciples. It is necessary to check broader context for more information, if available. Miiiy miiy, lookitthat: verses 4, 6 and 11 state that the disciples were speaking in tongues. But when I do that, I am accused of indulging in eisegesis.

              However, when a verse states that baptism in water saves - all sorts of verbal prestidigitation is engaged in to make that statement mean other than what it says. If necessary, declare dictionary definitions, and grammatical texts, invalid. Such tactics are declared sound exegesis.
              Last edited by tabibito; 05-29-2019, 03:51 AM.
              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
              .
              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
              Scripture before Tradition:
              but that won't prevent others from
              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
              of the right to call yourself Christian.

              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                Yes, to me, especially in the Gospels, the wording of all references to baptism in the Spirit sound like it is an alternative or successor, not a complement, to any sort of literal-water baptism.
                To the best of my knowledge, three people are recorded to make mention of baptism in the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter. Paul perhaps in 1 Cor 12:13, but it would be difficult to make a case for it.

                Peter calls for water so that people may be baptised (Acts 10:47) after they had received the Holy Spirit. He is then said to have commanded them to get baptised into the name of the Lord (v 48)
                Peter calls on people to be baptised into the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
                Paul finds believers who had been baptised with John's baptism, baptises them into Christ and then lays hands on them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:2-6)
                Philip and John laid hands on believers who had only been baptised into Christ so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 15-17) - Baptism into Christ is baptism in water, not the Holy Spirit:
                Paul recounts his instruction by Ananias to get baptised and have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16) The actual event being recorded in Acts 9:17
                Peter declares that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:20-21)
                Paul claims that as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27)

                It would be hard to make a case for baptism into Christ becoming obsolescent, I think.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I mean, they do. You're not using stock standard reading comprehension techniques though. You seem to be saying we should take passages apart, and bit by bit see if we can confirm each point, and then say "see, this is what it means!" That's bad exegesis. Good exegesis includes reading and understanding passages within their broader context, both within the book itself, and other books the author is likely familiar with.

                  Dr. Heiser has a fantastic set of podcasts on how best to study the Bible, and how to understand the Bible within its own context. I highly recommend them as they analyze the sort of mistake you've made here, as well as sharing scholarly hermeneutics.

                  The first one (with transcript) can be found here: Heiser’s Laws for Bible Study: Learning to Study the Bible, Part 1

                  And if you're interested, you can start on his Taking the Bibles Own Context Seriously series here: Taking the Bible’s Own Context Seriously
                  Very useful resources there. I'll look forward to the day that you put them into practice, and actually start using them.
                  1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                  .
                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                  Scripture before Tradition:
                  but that won't prevent others from
                  taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                  of the right to call yourself Christian.

                  ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    Very useful resources there. I'll look forward to the day that you put them into practice, and actually start using them.
                    Ooh good burn! Too bad it took you a couple days to come up with it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Ooh good burn! Too bad it took you a couple days to come up with it.
                      It took a couple of days to get the time to sit down and actually listen to it.
                      Now I have a nice resource to back up what I teach about the need for taking context and meaning into account, and making a careful examination of all data, in Bible study groups. So for that, my thanks.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        To the best of my knowledge, three people are recorded to make mention of baptism in the Holy Spirit. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter. Paul perhaps in 1 Cor 12:13, but it would be difficult to make a case for it.
                        Opinion is divided w.r.t. 1 Cor. 12:13. Fee holds that it does indeed refer to baptism in the Spirit (not in the Pentecostal sense, but in the sense of conversion), that nothing anywhere, especially in the Pauline corpus, necessitates a connection with water baptism, and that Spirit is the "element," not the "agent," of baptism (i.e "in," not "by"). (God's Empowering Presence, pp. 179-182.) Keener calls it "baptism in the Spirit," considers it an initiation, concedes that Paul "probably" connects it with water baptism "at least" in a symbolic sense. (His NCBC commentary on 1-2 Corinthians, p. 102.) Witherington does not address the wording in his Conflict and Community in Corinth.

                        I will go with Fee.

                        Peter calls for water so that people may be baptised (Acts 10:47) after they had received the Holy Spirit. He is then said to have commanded them to get baptised into the name of the Lord (v 48)
                        Peter calls on people to be baptised into the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
                        Paul finds believers who had been baptised with John's baptism, baptises them into Christ and then lays hands on them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:2-6)
                        Philip and John laid hands on believers who had only been baptised into Christ so that they could receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8: 15-17) - Baptism into Christ is baptism in water, not the Holy Spirit:
                        Paul recounts his instruction by Ananias to get baptised and have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16) The actual event being recorded in Acts 9:17
                        Peter declares that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:20-21)
                        Paul claims that as many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ (Galatians 3:27)

                        It would be hard to make a case for baptism into Christ becoming obsolescent, I think.
                        I am aware of all these passages, and more. I do not deny that water baptism has been practiced since the earliest days of the Church.

                        Nonetheless, I stand by what I said regarding the wording of the Spirit-baptism passages "especially in the Gospels."
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Federalist.

                        Nationalist Christian.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                        Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                        Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                        Justice for Matthew Perna!

                        Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                          Opinion is divided w.r.t. 1 Cor. 12:13. Fee holds that it does indeed refer to baptism in the Spirit (not in the Pentecostal sense, but in the sense of conversion), that nothing anywhere, especially in the Pauline corpus, necessitates a connection with water baptism, and that Spirit is the "element," not the "agent," of baptism (i.e "in," not "by"). (God's Empowering Presence, pp. 179-182.) Keener calls it "baptism in the Spirit," considers it an initiation, concedes that Paul "probably" connects it with water baptism "at least" in a symbolic sense. (His NCBC commentary on 1-2 Corinthians, p. 102.) Witherington does not address the wording in his Conflict and Community in Corinth.

                          I will go with Fee.



                          I am aware of all these passages, and more. I do not deny that water baptism has been practiced since the earliest days of the Church.

                          Nonetheless, I stand by what I said regarding the wording of the Spirit-baptism passages "especially in the Gospels."
                          There remains the point of "baptism in the spirit" never being mentioned by that term other than by the gospel authors (which includes Acts, given that Acts was written by the author of one of the gospels.) However, do you have any specific gospel reference in mind - or is it just a matter of the over-all "feel?"
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            There remains the point of "baptism in the spirit" never being mentioned by that term other than by the gospel authors (which includes Acts, given that Acts was written by the author of one of the gospels.) However, do you have any specific gospel reference in mind - or is it just a matter of the over-all "feel?"
                            In all four, John explicitly noted his baptism was "water," and that of Jesus was "the Holy Spirit." If the authors -- or the speaker -- had not intended that Spirit-baptism be seen as a replacement to water baptism, I would have expected at least one of them to say "water and also the Spirit," but when any of them *do* add another element, it is fire, not water.
                            Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                            Beige Federalist.

                            Nationalist Christian.

                            "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                            Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                            Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                            Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                            Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                            Justice for Matthew Perna!

                            Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                              In all four, John explicitly noted his baptism was "water," and that of Jesus was "the Holy Spirit." If the authors -- or the speaker -- had not intended that Spirit-baptism be seen as a replacement to water baptism, I would have expected at least one of them to say "water and also the Spirit," but when any of them *do* add another element, it is fire, not water.
                              Interesting point - but as I recall that was what Jesus himself would do, with one reference pointing out that Jesus did not baptise anyone though his followers did. I'll check into it further, but that is the way I think the write-up goes.

                              Also - seems to me that "fire" is affliction(s), but I haven't seen any commentator draw that inference.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Interesting point - but as I recall that was what Jesus himself would do, with one reference pointing out that Jesus did not baptise anyone though his followers did. I'll check into it further, but that is the way I think the write-up goes.

                                Also - seems to me that "fire" is affliction(s), but I haven't seen any commentator draw that inference.
                                I got a bit careless there, by neglecting the subsequent verses in Matt. and Luke. I don't think the fire accompanies the Spirit in those passages. I think the sense is that everyone collectively will be baptized, some with the Spirit, all others with the fire of eternal destruction.

                                I acknowledge that in Acts 2, that is not the case. I think there it's possible that the flame-like manifestation might have been intended to call the words of John the Baptizer to their remembrance, but mostly I think it was an attention-grabber and symbol of purification.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X