Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 166

Thread: Believer's Baptism

  1. #111
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,795
    Amen (Given)
    195
    Amen (Received)
    798
    How many children have been told "you couldn't possibly remember that; you were too young"? It might be that on occasion, one person or another remembers.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  2. #112
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,764
    Amen (Given)
    5117
    Amen (Received)
    3363
    Quote Originally Posted by tabibito View Post
    @ Chrawnus
    How does 1 Peter 3:20-21 read in Swedish? (picking up at "eight souls were saved")

    Google translate gives (stop laughing)
    "eight souls were saved through the water that now saves you"
    as
    "åtta själar räddades genom vattnet som nu sparar dig"
    It didn't fail completely. The only thing I'd change is instead of sparar, which does mean save, but in the sense of saving money rather than saving a life, I'd use frälser instead which, while it does have pretty significant theological undertones, is more in line with what the word really means. Räddar (of which räddades is a form) which could also be used, doesn't have the same theological implications, and could also be used, but in that case it would more imply being saved from physical danger, rather than spiritual danger.

    So if you believe that the word saves refers to being rescued from physical danger, or just being rescued in general, I would use räddar, though it would look a bit awkward to use the same word, even if they're in different forms, so close to each other in the same sentence. If you believe it's talking about being saved from damnation, or being saved in a spiritual sense, I'd use frälser instead.



    If we consult an actual Swedish translation of the Koine, the version I use most commonly, Svenska Folkbibeln 1998 (there's a 1998 and a 2015 edition, but I mostly use the older one) renders it as:

    Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 3:20c-e SFB 98

    I den blev några få, åtta personer, frälsta genom vatten.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Roughly translated to English it would read as:

    "In it[referring to the ark that was mentioned previously in the verse] a few, (that is) eight persons, were saved through water."

    The implication being that saved through water does not refer to the reader, but to the eight persons in the ark. Though it does go on to say:

    Scripture Verse: 1 Peter 3:21a SFB 98

    Efter denna förebild frälser dopet nu också er.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Which roughly translated to English would mean something like: "According to this model/example/pattern, baptism now also saves you."

  3. #113
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,795
    Amen (Given)
    195
    Amen (Received)
    798
    It seems that Swedish can't deal with the Koine Greek grammar directly in this passage - but better than English grammar can. However, the Swedish translators have done a VERY good job of preserving the meaning.

    I think the Swedish words are in the right places below: they're related to the English words (near as I can tell). The English words translate the Koine Greek.

    8 saved Koine Eng Swed.jpg

    After that comes an explanation of how baptism actually achieves “save.” Hint: it isn’t by cleaning the skin.


    Is “er” accusative?

    “that” from “o” top line, 6th word: reflexive pronoun, nominative, singular – which is to say “the aforementioned water.”
    Could (if slightly indirectly) “förebild” be translated as paradigm?
    “anti-typal” adjective, nominative (pour plaster into a mould – the mould is the type, the plaster shape that comes out is the antitype.)
    “baptism” noun, nominative
    that (standing for “water”) + anti-typal + baptism form a single compound noun (and grammatical subject)
    Last edited by tabibito; 05-26-2019 at 12:07 AM.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  4. #114
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,496
    Amen (Given)
    1162
    Amen (Received)
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I respect Dr. Keener, but what he's saying here regarding similarities between Jewish ritual baths and early Christian baptism simply does not stand up to closer examination (see Dr. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries). From what I recall, it is rather unclear that Jews even practiced initiatory baptism of proselytes at the time; if they did, it is speculation at best to opine why they did so, and in any case it was self-administered and temporary (as it was certainly not the only ritual bath performed by Jews at the time).
    Does Dr. Ferguson address what he said in his earlier (2003) book, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd. Ed.? Around page 546 and following, if I'm understanding him, he considers it likely (but uncertain) that proselyte baptism was practiced. It was definitely immersion. It was indeed "self-administered," so to speak, but in contrast to some other ritual purification washings, it required the presence of witnesses who would instruct the proselyte in Judaism. He makes no mention of it being "temporary," and notes that children born to parents who had already been baptized did not themselves need to be baptized.

    This discussion got me curious, so I briefly checked a few other resources.

    My Keener citations came from the 1993 edition of his commentary, because that one is available in electronic form (in my case, as a module for "The Word"), facilitating easy copy-and-paste.

    He presented and defended both the Mark 1 and John 3 passages in some depth in The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts (1997) and even more extensively the John 1 and 3 passages in The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2003).

    Ben Witherington III -- In his 1995 commentary, John's Wisdom -- a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, he dismisses rather casually the idea that in John 3:5, "water" and "spirit" are used interchangeably. (He implies that this claimed interchangeability is based solely on slim grammatical grounds.) However, he also finds that the "water" in v. 5 has nothing to do with water baptism.

    In his 2001 commentary, The Gospel of Mark -- a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, he dismisses the relevance of Jewish proselyte baptism w.r.t. John the Baptizer. One point catches my eye: He notes, as does Ferguson, that such baptism was "self-administered." However, while Ferguson notes that such proselyte baptism required witness and instructors, BWIII does not mention this, and considers the fact that candidates sought out John to officiate to be a strike against the idea that his was related to proselyte baptism.

    Gary Burge, in his 1987 Johannine pneumatology The Anointed Community, sees various Jewish purification rituals, proselyte baptism, and John's baptism as the background for the Nicodemus dialogue. He does not (AFAICT) directly link John's baptism to Jewish proselyte baptism. He does (if I'm understanding him) argue that in 3:5, "water" and "spirit" are tightly linked, and that the context emphasizes the Spirit such that the physical water becomes secondary and even dispensable.

    In his 2009 book, The New Testament in Antiquity, he discusses ritual baths, proselyte baptism, and John's baptism, and notes, without taking an obvious position, that scholarly opinion is divided as to whether proselyte baptism was extant early enough for John to have adapted it.
    Last edited by NorrinRadd; 05-26-2019 at 03:08 AM.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  5. #115
    tWebber Rushing Jaws's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Near my best friend (see photo above)
    Faith
    XPian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    590
    Amen (Given)
    1792
    Amen (Received)
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Another discussion got me thinking about this a bit, and it's making increasingly less sense to me.

    As far as I recall, proponents of believer's (i.o.w., adult) baptism believe that baptism is not efficacious for salvation, because that would be salvation by works; it's done because Jesus commanded disciples to be baptized, but it's not a sacrament. On the other hand, you have to have undergone it to become a member of the church. Why? It seems to me that it unnecessarily excludes children from church membership and, since it's not relevant in the context of salvation, a simple affirmation of concurrence with the congregation's beliefs would be sufficient.
    The advantage BB has over IB is that:

    1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

    2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith they were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

    3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation. If they choose to reject their dedicated state, that is on their own heads; if they choose to live for Christ, they can become catechumens and later be baptised. This would at least lessen the number of baptised apostates and infidels, even though apostasy and infidelity within the Church would not end.
    Last edited by Rushing Jaws; 05-27-2019 at 08:08 AM.

  6. Amen Cow Poke, Cerebrum123, Adrift amen'd this post.
  7. #116
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,795
    Amen (Given)
    195
    Amen (Received)
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    The advantage BB has over IB is that:

    1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

    2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

    3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation.
    I'm kind of in agreement with those sentiments. You can drag an unrepentant sinner into the water, but that won't make him baptised.

    There's a body of evidence that the person has to at least know enough to make a plea to God involved with baptism.
    The idea that the brigand on the cross who repented had never been baptised ignores much of the cultural background of the time, nothing more than speculation supports the assertion. If, for example, he had been a Zionist ... almost no chance that he would not have been baptised. Both assertions are equally speculative.

    The necessity for the baptisee to be an adult though, might be just a little beyond what can logically be inferred from scripture. Twelve year olds? On my part - no hesitation. Seven year olds? I wouldn't necessarily be averse.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

  8. #117
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    50,808
    Amen (Given)
    10931
    Amen (Received)
    23630
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. ...
    I've run into, a lot, a person who makes the claim "Well, I was baptized, so I'm good". They're referring to their infant baptism which appears to have lured them into a false sense of security that they are thereby saved.
    --- this space intentionally left blank ---

  9. Amen KingsGambit, Cerebrum123 amen'd this post.
  10. #118
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,624
    Amen (Given)
    1034
    Amen (Received)
    17586
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I've run into, a lot, a person who makes the claim "Well, I was baptized, so I'm good". They're referring to their infant baptism which appears to have lured them into a false sense of security that they are thereby saved.
    Then there are those baptised later in life who feel that they now have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're guaranteed of going to heaven.

    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)

  11. #119
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    48,624
    Amen (Given)
    1034
    Amen (Received)
    17586
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
    The advantage BB has over IB is that:

    1. Adult baptism is the only kind with clear NT support - the defence of IB that argues from the mention of the Philippian gaoler’s “household” in Acts 16, is based on an inference from reason, and posits infants in his household for whose existence there is no evidence; the argument is an exercise in wishful thinking;

    2. IB allows millions of infants to be baptised who later throw over the Faith they had been baptised into. The result for the life and witness of the Church is, that the Church’s membership includes hordes of baptised unbelievers. This degrades the Church, and makes her evangelising mission a bad joke, because those who have no faith in Christ cannot bear witness to Him. Purely nominal members of the Church should be treated as the heathens they are in fact. There are many “good pagans” - that they are good in many ways, does not make them Christians. “Good pagan” adults who have been baptised as infants, and have given up the Faith they were baptised in, are not Christians in the NT sense, so they cannot accurately be called Christians in any sense worth discussing.

    3. What then to do with the children ? Instead of baptising them, dedicate them to God. Baptism is a sacrament, and to give the sacraments to people who will still be unbelievers after receiving the sacraments, is to profane the sacraments. Dedicating one’s children to God avoids this profanation. If they choose to reject their dedicated state, that is on their own heads; if they choose to live for Christ, they can become catechumens and later be baptised. This would at least lessen the number of baptised apostates and infidels, even though apostasy and infidelity within the Church would not end.
    Infant baptism could also be justified back when mortality rates for young children were exceptionally high.

    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)

  12. #120
    tWebber tabibito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    DownUnder
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,795
    Amen (Given)
    195
    Amen (Received)
    798
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    Infant baptism could also be justified back when mortality rates for young children were exceptionally high.
    That story has been used to justify infant baptism, but the reality is it was simply implemented as a way to enforce Christianity as the State Religion of Rome under and after Constantine.

    Then there are those baptised later in life who feel that they now have carte blanche to do whatever they want because they're guaranteed of going to heaven.
    And of course, the old-wives tales about how there is no requirement to stop sinning, and how it is impossible to stop sinning anyway, only reinforce that attitude.
    Last edited by tabibito; 05-27-2019 at 12:05 PM.
    και εκζητησατε με και ευρησετε με οτι ζητησετε με εν ολη καρδία υμων

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •