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

  • #76
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    ...in the darkness.





    And I want to get in to* this.
    *into

    without thanks for reviving the nightmare.
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      He didn't add it as a requirement, he added it as an explanation. You can't have a new birth without having a first birth Nicodemus was confused and thought Jesus was talking about being physically born again so Jesus explained that sure you needed a natural birth but then you needed a second birth to get eternal life.
      When I read "born of water and the Spirit", I read it as "born of (water and the Spirit)", not as "born of (water) and (the Spirit)". If Jesus was talking about first being born physically, and then spiritually I would have expected something like "unless one is born of water and then born of the Spirit", or "unless one is born of the Spirit after being born of water". But if He is talking about two different events here, then saying "born of water and the Spirit" doesn't make that very clear at all.

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      It makes perfect and plain sense to me. Maybe because you are not a native english speaker? How does it read in Finnish?
      All the Swedish translations that I've consulted so far translates it as "född av vatten och Ande", (which translated to English would be "born of water and Spirit") and the most natural way to read that would be to understand "vatten och Ande" to form a unit that refers back to "född av". I.e in the Swedish translations the natural way to read it is to understand "water and Spirit" as forming a unit that refers back to "born of".

      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Or maybe you just don't want to "get it" so you are kinda squeezing your eyes closed here?
      I'll do you the favor of not accusing you of "wanting to not get it" simply because you disagree with me, and instead assume that you might actually have a valid reason for understanding the text differently than me.
      Last edited by JonathanL; 05-24-2019, 03:30 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        *into

        without thanks for reviving the nightmare.
        I can't believe Rogue brought that up!
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I can't believe Rogue brought that up!
          And I want to get into that.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            When I read "born of water and the Spirit", I read it as "born of (water and the Spirit)",
            Correct. One action - two nouns, neither having the article. (but that's Koine grammar).

            All the Swedish translations that I've consulted so far translates it as "född av vatten och Ande", (which translated to English would be "born of water and Spirit")
            precise match for the Koine Greek.



            I'll do you the favor of not accusing you of "not getting it" simply because you disagree with me, and instead assume that you might actually have a valid reason for understanding the text differently from me.
            It is scholarly Theology. The scholar that invented the story didn't like the idea that baptism was requirement (it's a work don't you know?).
            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I'm glad you did - I was just pickin on you.


              One or the other oughta workificate


              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                Paul claimed that Baptism was the action by which a person crucified the flesh. Rom 6:5-6, that in baptism we are buried with him and raised to new life Rom 6:4, Col 2:12
                Colossians 2:8-13 seems to teach that it is God who is doing the act of crucifying the flesh in baptism, not the one who undergoes baptism:

                Scripture Verse: Col 2:8-13 ESV

                8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Why name cats? They never come when you call!

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    Colossians 2:8-13 seems to teach that it is God who is doing the act of crucifying the flesh in baptism, not the one who undergoes baptism:
                    It is passive, true enough
                    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


                    • #85
                      Only at Tweb can you have a discussion on infant baptism derail into a thread about cats.



                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
                        Only at Tweb can you have a discussion on infant baptism derail into a thread about cats.

                        It IS the TWeb way to do things ... and the cats are herded through water, so it's all good.
                        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


                        • #87
                          Ok, this thread has literally gone from zero to 80-something while I was sleeping, so I've only read a little of it. Sorry if this has been answered already.

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          I was reading your post again.

                          So what do you mean by sacrament? I believe baptism is a holy ceremony. I don't think it saves you but it is holy and sacred.
                          Some (many?) churches call it an "ordinance" rather than a "sacrament." I think the distinction is "instruction to be obeyed" rather than "means of grace."

                          As an adult, I have only belonged to churches that practice "believer's" baptism (C&MA and Independent Assemblies of God). Neither those, nor (AFAIK) most other credo-baptism churches consider it necessary for salvation. Neither consider it necessary for "membership." (Those churches rarely even mentioned "membership." I'm not sure it even existed.)
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            My view is that

                            1. You are obeying Christ who said to do it.
                            2. You are proclaiming your allegiance to Christ, to your fellow Christians and to the world. If is a form of confessing Christ as your Lord and Savior
                            3. It symbolizes dying and being reborn.
                            My position as well. I would add one would have to be an adult to be able to understand and attest to these. Children are certainly members of the church community. They just can't be full members until they reach the age of accountability and have learned and believe the Gospel.
                            "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                            "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I see that some of the discussion has turned to John 3. Here are Keener's notes from the Bible Background Commentary on that passage, but preceded by some of his notes from each of the Gospel passages on John's baptism.


                              Matt.

                              3:9. Jewish people commonly believed that they were saved as a people by virtue of their descent from Abraham. The idea of God raising up people from stones would have sounded to John the Baptist’s Jewish hearers more like pagan mythology (the Greeks had such a story) than reality, but these words emphasized that God did not need Israel to fulfill his purpose (as in Amos 9:7; cf. Gen 1:24; 2:9). Some scholars have also suggested a wordplay on “children” and “stones” in Aramaic.

                              3:10. Jewish literature sometimes used trees (like many other things) to symbolize Israel; at times the Old Testament used trees in parables of judgment against the nations (Is 10:33–34; Ezek 31:2–18; Amos 2:9) or Israel (Is 10:18–19; Jer 11:16; Ezek 15:6). The wood of a thick tree (like a cedar from Lebanon) would have been used for building, but much of the wood from Palestine’s many slender fruit trees (e.g., olive or fig trees) would be useful only for small items or, often as here, for fuel.

                              3:11. Slaves of high-status individuals often had higher status than free persons. A slave (unlike a disciple, who also served a master) carried the master’s sandals; John here claims that he is not worthy even to be Christ’s slave.
                              The prophets had predicted the outpouring of God’s Spirit 7 on the righteous at the time when God established his kingdom for Israel (Is 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28). They also decreed fire upon the wicked (Is 26:11; 65:15; 66:24; Jer 4:4; 15:14; etc.). In Matthew 3:11, the wicked are baptized, or immersed, in fire (3:10, 12), the righteous in the Holy 8 Spirit.

                              3:12. Because the same Greek word can mean both “spirit” and “wind,” the picture of wind and fire carries over from 3:11. Winnowing was familiar to all Palestinian Jews, especially to the farmers: they would throw harvested wheat into the air, and the wind would separate the heavier grain from the lighter chaff. The chaff was useless for consumption and was normally burned. Some other writers also described the day of judgment as a harvest (4 Ezra 4:30–32; cf. Jer 51:33; Joel 3:12–14) or the wicked as chaff (Is 17:13; Jer 13:24; 15:7; etc.). That the fire is “unquenchable” points beyond the momentary burning of chaff to something far more horrible (Is 66:24), in spite of the fact that Jewish tradition itself was far from unanimous concerning the duration of hell.


                              Mark

                              1:4-5 Like many other ancient peoples, Jewish people practiced ceremonial washings. Their only once-for-all ceremonial washing, however, was the immersion that non-Jews had to go through when they converted to Judaism. Non-Jews who were converting to Judaism would immerse themselves in water, probably under the supervision of a religious expert. John’s baptizing activity fits this model.
                              Jewish people also practiced “ repentance ” when they did something wrong, asking God’s forgiveness and determining to change. (The Old Testament prophets often used this Hebrew idea of “turning” from sin; it involves more than just a “change of mind,” which is the literal sense of the Greek term used here.) But the ultimate example of repenting, or turning from a wrong way of living to a right way of living, was when a non-Jew decided to obey the teachings of Israel’s God.

                              To tell Jewish people that they had to be baptized or repent the same way non-Jews did would have been offensive, because it challenged the prevalent Jewish belief about salvation. Most Jewish people thought that if they were born into a Jewish family and did not reject God’s law, they would be saved; John told them instead that they had to come to God the same way that non-Jews did. The point of John’s baptism is that everyone has to come to God on the same terms.

                              The Jordan River was the most natural place for John to have the people immerse themselves, but this location may have also evoked Israel’s history of salvation (Josh 3–4). John’s coming in the “wilderness” could evoke Israel’s history, too, especially because Isaiah 40:3 predicted the herald of a new exodus there, and many Jewish people expected the Messiah to come as a new Moses there.


                              Luke

                              3:15–17. On John’s messianic preaching, see comment on Matthew 3:11–12. The Old Testament prophets had declared that in the end time the righteous would be endowed with the Holy Spirit and that the wicked would be burned with fire. The Jewish people generally viewed the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of prophecy, and some circles viewed the Spirit as a force that purified God’s people from.


                              John


                              1:24–25. Of the many kinds of ceremonial washings in Jesus’ day, the most significant once-for-all kind of washing was proselyte 1 baptism. Gentiles were usually baptized when they converted to Judaism; this was widely known and even mentioned by the Greek philosopher Epictetus 2. By reporting that John asks Jews to be baptized in an act of conversion, the Gospel writers declare that John treats Jews as if they are pagans, which was unheard-of (see comment on 3:3–5). The Fourth Gospel often contrasts water rituals and the Spirit (3:5; see comment on 4:7–26).

                              3:3–4. Jesus speaks literally of being born “from above,” which means “from God” (“above” was a Jewish circumlocution, or roundabout expression, for God). One could also construe the phrase as meaning “reborn,” which Nicodemus takes literally. (Ancient writers, including those of the Old Testament— Jer 1:11–12; Mic 1:10–15 —often used plays on words, and John includes quite a few other puns; they also sometimes used other characters as less intelligent foils for a narrative’s main spokesperson.) Because Jewish teachers spoke of Gentile converts to Judaism as starting life anew like “newborn children” (just as adopted sons under Roman law relinquished all legal status in their former family when they became part of a new one), Nicodemus should have understood that Jesus meant conversion; but it never occurs to him that someone Jewish would need to convert to the true faith of Israel.

                              3:5. Converts to Judaism were said to become “as newborn children” when they were baptized to remove Gentile impurity. “Born of water” thus clarifies for Nicodemus that “born from above” means conversion, not a second physical birth.
                              The Greek wording of 3:5 can mean either “water and the Spirit ” or “water, that is, the Spirit.” Ezekiel 36:24–27 used water symbolically for the cleansing of the Spirit (cf. especially the Dead Sea Scrolls), so here Jesus could mean “converted by the Spirit” (cf. 7:37–39)—a spiritual proselyte baptism. Whereas Jewish teachers generally spoke of converts to Judaism as “newborn” only in the sense that they were legally severed from old relationships, an actual rebirth by the Spirit would produce a new heart (Ezek 36:26).

                              3:6–7. The “spirit” that is born from God’s Spirit may reflect the “new spirit” of Ezekiel 36:26.

                              3:8. One could also translate “sound of the wind” as “voice of the Spirit” (for plays on words, see comment on 3:3–4). The wind is unpredictable and uncontrollable (see Eccles 8:8; cf. Eccles 1:6, 8, 14, 17; 2:11, 17, 26; 4:4, 6, 16; 6:9). The Spirit was symbolized as wind in Ezekiel 37, which some Jewish interpreters linked with Genesis 2:7 (cf. Jn 20:22).
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
                                Neither consider it necessary for "membership." (Those churches rarely even mentioned "membership." I'm not sure it even existed.)
                                I think that "membership" becomes important depending on the type of church government. If the congregation can vote on matters like salaries, purchasing buildings, spending money - there needs to be some mechanism to assure only those who are 'members' vote. In churches where the membership doesn't really get to vote on policy and fiances and stuff, there's no real need to have a formal "membership".

                                There was a Baptist church about 90 miles from me where the "membership" was about 40 people, and they had a nice church building. Another nearby congregation of another denomination began systematically sending people to "join" that Church, and there were no safeguards in place to prevent sufficient new 'members' from joining such that the "new people" reached a majority, and voted to change the Church's name and denomination and install their own pastor.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

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