RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order to go to heaven?
|
| Yes |
|
| No |
|
| Maybe/Not Sure |
|
Total Votes : 147
|
(last vote on : 11/29/2009 10:11:57 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/12/2009 9:42:31 AM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 662
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
I know, at first glance, that it is how people want to interpret the verse. Just to give you some perspective, this is another example of our old friend "eis" to which I alluded to earlier. You are suggesting, apparently that "eis" is used in the locative sense. The NT never, never uses the word "eis" in that manner. When someone is submerged with water or saturated with water, another preposition is used. Let's take Matt. 3:11 which I try to quote often enough to get the message across. Apparently, people tend to miss it.
I believe it is used in the same way that it is used in Romans 3:4. The basic meaning of "eis," as I've said before indicates motion toward a destination or goal, especially when used with an action verb. "Baptized" is certainly and action verb, with the destination or goal being Christ Jesus Himself. Thus to be "baptized into" Christ means that baptism is the action that moves us or carries us "into Christ," that is, into that close relationship with Him that makes us partakers of the benefits of His saving work. If that's what you mean by "locative" that I guess that's what I'm suggesting.
You are absolutely right.
Like I said in my last post even the translators who disagree with our theology still had the respect and intellectual honesty to translate "eis" to mean "into, unto, to, towards, for, among". That should tell you something!
I have never seen a theologian ever suggest that "eis" meant "with respect to".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/12/2009 6:00:06 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
I know, at first glance, that it is how people want to interpret the verse. Just to give you some perspective, this is another example of our old friend "eis" to which I alluded to earlier. You are suggesting, apparently that "eis" is used in the locative sense. The NT never, never uses the word "eis" in that manner. When someone is submerged with water or saturated with water, another preposition is used. Let's take Matt. 3:11 which I try to quote often enough to get the message across. Apparently, people tend to miss it.
I believe it is used in the same way that it is used in Romans 3:4. The basic meaning of "eis," as I've said before indicates motion toward a destination or goal, especially when used with an action verb. "Baptized" is certainly and action verb, with the destination or goal being Christ Jesus Himself. Thus to be "baptized into" Christ means that baptism is the action that moves us or carries us "into Christ," that is, into that close relationship with Him that makes us partakers of the benefits of His saving work. If that's what you mean by "locative" that I guess that's what I'm suggesting.
Would you care to explain why 1 Cor 10:2 shouldn't be interpreted and translated exactly the same way?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/12/2009 6:07:39 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/12/2009 8:37:25 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Would you care to explain why 1 Cor 10:2 shouldn't be interpreted and translated exactly the same way?
I don't see why it can't be interpreted the same way and in the version of the Bible I have it is translated the same way.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/12/2009 9:43:17 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Would you care to explain why 1 Cor 10:2 shouldn't be interpreted and translated exactly the same way?
I don't see why it can't be interpreted the same way and in the version of the Bible I have it is translated the same way.
Because---how does a person get "locatively" inside Moses? You are suggesting, apparently, that we get inserted via baptism "in" Christ. Were the Israelites "in Moses"? In what sense did they get put into him? Can a person be put into another person? If my questions sound absurd, it is because making eis/into too literal when the object of the preposition is a personal pronoun causes some logical inconsistencies.
My preference for "with respect to/with reference to" is because there is a tendency to make eis/into (in the locative sense) too overly literal. I don't know if it is the best alternative but it helps keep my thinking straight.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/13/2009 6:51:15 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/12/2009 9:48:47 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
I have never seen a theologian ever suggest that "eis" meant "with respect to".
I have. I discussed it once with a seminary professor. I have seen it in books.
Take Matt. 3:11. Does baptism "with respect to" repentance make sense? I suppose one could argue that it means baptism "because of" repentance. I don't particularly care for it (because of). But it (because of) is possible, and plausible.
quote:
Like I said in my last post even the translators who disagree with our theology still had the respect and intellectual honesty to translate "eis" to mean "into, unto, to, towards, for, among". That should tell you something!
Actually, most theologians who tend toward the literal usage interpret baptism as baptism of the HS. That is not impossible. No theologian that I know of interprets "eis" in both the locative sense and water baptism also.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/13/2009 7:07:17 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 8:10:10 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
My preference for "with respect to/with reference to" is because there is a tendency to make eis/into (in the locative sense) too overly literal. I don't know if it is the best alternative but it helps keep my thinking straight. You're certainly entitled to your preference and you may be right. I wonder though, when eis is translated for (as in "for the forgiveness of sins") does it still mean "with respect to?
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 11:18:43 AM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 662
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
I have never seen a theologian ever suggest that "eis" meant "with respect to".
I have. I discussed it once with a seminary professor. I have seen it in books.
Most seminarian professors don't even believe the bible is God's word.
And I have never even seen that possibility in any biblical dictionary ever or in any credible commentary and I seriously doubt the credibility of this professor.
quote:
Take Matt. 3:11. Does baptism "with respect to" repentance make sense? I suppose one could argue that it means baptism "because of" repentance. I don't particularly care for it (because of). But it (because of) is possible, and plausible.
"Eis" is NEVER used in the bible to mean "because of".
The word used for "because of" in scripture is "dia"
< Message edited by jjbird -- 11/13/2009 11:51:08 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 11:07:41 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
"Eis" is NEVER used in the bible to mean "because of".
The word used for "because of" in scripture is "dia"
Two English versions translate "eis" because of. I could probably find a few more but I won't bother looking right now. Two more versions translate "eis" as "for" using it as a synonym for "because." The dictionary tells me that the English "for" can mean "because."
Matt. 12:41
and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (NAS)
...because they repented at the preaching of Jonas (KJV)
for (as a synonym of because)
Main Entry: 2for
Function: conjunction
Date: 12th century
: for the reason that : on this ground : because
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
"...for they repented at the preaching of Jonah..." (ESV)
"...and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah..." (NIV)
quote:
edited.
ever or in any credible commentary and I seriously doubt the credibility of this professor.
How far have you looked?
Edited.
quote:
And I have never even seen that possibility in any biblical dictionary
I found a debate between a couple of people (ministers probably). Here is an online debate on the topic, and I quote:
"You are simply in error. Since you seem to have access to BAG, you might notice that paragraph 5 (in my edition) lists a number of situations in which they translate "eis" as "with reference to" or "with respect to." They include Romans 4:20 only in paragraph 6 as a questionable use of "eis" to mean "because of." If you will reread my post, I did not argue that "eis" meant "because of." BAG lists uses of "eis" to mean "with respect to" which include: Luke 14:35; 2 Timothy 2:21; 2 Timothy 4:11; Acts 17:21; Col. 1:12; Matthew 5:13; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Peter 1:17, Acts 2:25; Matthew 10:41. BAG does not list any of these as "controversial." Moreover, this is only a representative list, not an exhaustive list."
The BAG referenced in the debate is a highly regarded Greek lexicon used at conservative seminaries ...edited.
http://www.catholicsource.net/Baptismal.html
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/14/2009 1:49:02 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 11:25:48 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
My preference for "with respect to/with reference to" is because there is a tendency to make eis/into (in the locative sense) too overly literal. I don't know if it is the best alternative but it helps keep my thinking straight. You're certainly entitled to your preference and you may be right. I wonder though, when eis is translated for (as in "for the forgiveness of sins") does it still mean "with respect to?
I'm telling you what I think. Obviously, I claim to be no scholar. My level of Greek knowledge is not even equal to a complete first semester. I usually try to reference credible sources.
The main reason why I prefer "with respect to" is the same reason that is stated in the link I gave to jjbird. I just happened to run across the debate.
"With respect to/with reference to" covers a lot of territory linguistically. It is not very specific and that is the reason I like it. "Because of" in Acts 2:38 and Gal. 3:26-27 are too specific, besides likely being wrong in those two contexts. the main reason I don't care for "because of" in Acts 2:38 is that one highly respected source I use (the NET Bible) says it is doubtful. I have an Acts commentary my wife bought at the bookstore which says something similar.
"Eis" has a very broad range of meaning. I once did a dictionary check on an English preposition. I think it was "for." I cannot remember. But I found something like 20 different definitions for a single English pronoun. It had great flexibility. Therefore, while English is not Greek, it should tell us that words have a great deal of flexibility. I would rather err on the side of vagueness than attempt to impose a very specific meaning (like "because of" or "in order to") without good reason.
The reason I don't like "for" is that it is frequently misinterpreted. One of the meanings in English for "for" probably includes "in order to." There is probably a better alternative among the various definitions of "for" in English that I might find acceptable. In such a case, as long as we don't get confused, I don't outright reject the use of "for."
Words have a lot of semantic baggage, as I call it. Sometimes we think we know what a word means only to discover that we missed something in the use of the word.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 11:38:32 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 662
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
"Eis" is NEVER used in the bible to mean "because of".
The word used for "because of" in scripture is "dia"
Two English versions translate "eis" because of. I could probably find a few more but I won't bother looking right now. Two more versions translate "eis" as "for" using it as a synonym for "because." The dictionary tells me that the English "for" can mean "because."
Matt. 12:41
and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (NAS)
...because they repented at the preaching of Jonas (KJV)
My friend the words "because of" are not translated as "eis".
The word "at" is the word that is translated from "eis".
In this passage the word "hoti" is translated "because of".
So you are actually incorrect here.
Also it does not matter at all what the English dictionary says about what the word "for" means or all its different meanings because we are translating it from Greek.
The Greek words used for because of were "dia" and "hoti"quote:
quote:
Most seminarian professors don't even believe the bible is God's word.
ever or in any credible commentary and I seriously doubt the credibility of this professor.
How far have you looked?
So your primary reason for disagreeing with him is that you imagine he doesn't believe the Bible is the word of God? Isn't that judging the heart of a man you have never met? Isn't that an ad hominem argument? You start attacking a man's beliefs that you don't even know--just because he said something you don't agree with? I assure you that the man does believe the Bible is the word of God. I know the man personally. To be honest, the conversation was casual. But he did say it. Do you want his name? He is (or was, I don't know if he is still on faculty) a professor at Dallas Seminary. They don't allow liberals there.
No those aren't my reasons. I was just stating my experience and many other theologians experience with Seminarians who actually don't believe in God's word.
quote:
And I have never even seen that possibility in any biblical dictionary
I found a debate between a couple of people (ministers probably). Here is an online debate on the topic, and I quote:
"You are simply in error. Since you seem to have access to BAG, you might notice that paragraph 5 (in my edition) lists a number of situations in which they translate "eis" as "with reference to" or "with respect to." They include Romans 4:20 only in paragraph 6 as a questionable use of "eis" to mean "because of." If you will reread my post, I did not argue that "eis" meant "because of." BAG lists uses of "eis" to mean "with respect to" which include: Luke 14:35; 2 Timothy 2:21; 2 Timothy 4:11; Acts 17:21; Col. 1:12; Matthew 5:13; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Peter 1:17, Acts 2:25; Matthew 10:41. BAG does not list any of these as "controversial." Moreover, this is only a representative list, not an exhaustive list."
The BAG referenced in the debate is a highly regarded Greek lexicon used at conservative seminaries which hold the Bible to be the word of God.
http://www.catholicsource.net/Baptismal.html
I will have to go study out the these passages here.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/13/2009 11:49:52 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Edited jjbird comments
1) edited.
2) You have never seen that meaning in any dictionary. Because you have not seen it, that makes the man not credible? Isn't it possible that, being a professor, he has access to materials that you have not consulted? That's what post graduate degrees are all about. He might actually know something you don't.
edited.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
"Eis" is NEVER used in the bible to mean "because of".
The word used for "because of" in scripture is "dia"
Two English versions translate "eis" because of. I could probably find a few more but I won't bother looking right now. Two more versions translate "eis" as "for" using it as a synonym for "because." The dictionary tells me that the English "for" can mean "because."
Matt. 12:41
and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah (NAS)
...because they repented at the preaching of Jonas (KJV)
My friend the words "because of" are not translated as "eis".
The word "at" is the word that is translated from "eis".
In this passage the word "hoti" is translated "because of".
So you are actually incorrect here.
Also it does not matter at all what the English dictionary says about what the word "for" means or all its different meanings because we are translating it from Greek.
The Greek words used for because of were "dia" and "hoti"
I withdraw the point. While you came on line, I went back and checked my interlinear. I didn't do independent fact checking in a timely manner. It seems rather controversial and weak. It is late and I was in a hurry. In any event, I have never preferred "because of" in Acts 2:38 or any controversial discussion regarding the use of "eis." I stated my reasons to greatdivide.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/14/2009 1:50:03 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 12:13:37 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
"Eis" has a very broad range of meaning. I once did a dictionary check on an English preposition. I think it was "for." I cannot remember. But I found something like 20 different definitions for a single English pronoun. It had great flexibility. Therefore, while English is not Greek, it should tell us that words have a great deal of flexibility. I would rather err on the side of vagueness than attempt to impose a very specific meaning (like "because of" or "in order to") without good reason.
I agree that prepositions such as eis can mean many different things. I just looked in my Thayer's and his entry for eis covers 9 columns over five pages.
As far as the "with respect to" definition, I agree that it is probably appropriate in some places (i.e., Luke 7:30; Acts 25:20), but I still think it means motion toward a purpose or goal in the great preponderance of cases when it is modifying to an action verb.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 8:36:25 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
"Eis" has a very broad range of meaning. I once did a dictionary check on an English preposition. I think it was "for." I cannot remember. But I found something like 20 different definitions for a single English pronoun. It had great flexibility. Therefore, while English is not Greek, it should tell us that words have a great deal of flexibility. I would rather err on the side of vagueness than attempt to impose a very specific meaning (like "because of" or "in order to") without good reason.
I agree that prepositions such as eis can mean many different things. I just looked in my Thayer's and his entry for eis covers 9 columns over five pages.
As far as the "with respect to" definition, I agree that it is probably appropriate in some places (i.e., Luke 7:30; Acts 25:20), but I still think it means motion toward a purpose or goal in the great preponderance of cases when it is modifying to an action verb.
Look. It does not modify an action verb. Adverbs do that, not prepositions. One thing that prepositions do is to direct the activity of the verb toward the noun.
Those kinds of prepositions typically lie between verbs and nouns. That's what they do. That's the function of a preposition. However, when I talk to people who have had Greek (one guy having taught classical Greek at the college level), I am reminded that "eis" takes the accusative case. When you see it functioning between an action verb and a noun, that makes it a preposition taking the accusative case. It doesn't have anything to do with its meaning. (In all honesty, I don't know if there are any Greek prepositions that don't take the accusative case.)
Let's take the example of a couple of other prepositions in English that have similar functions but not similar definitions.
*John walks through the door. (Here "through" is the preposition. Walks is the action verb and door is the object.)
*John sits upon the chair.
*The mouse ran under my feet.
Maybe this is was already clear to you. I am not trying to give you an English lesson for things you already know. I'm only saying that the presence of an action verb (like baptism) and an object (us, the church) doesn't define the word. If it did, things would be pretty clear cut and there would be no disagreement between us.
Regarding the definition of motion towards a goal etc. I'm not sure I have to disagree with you on that. But that is extremely general and it actually helps my case and does not hinder it. However, if you take that general definition and try to make it defined specifically as "into" (like the locative sense but in abstract context), I'll have to call you on the inconsistency. In such a case you would be modifying your own stated definition in order to make it fit the situation you want. IOW, "toward a purpose or goal" becomes something different.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 8:53:00 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Look. It does not modify an action verb. Adverbs do that, not prepositions. One thing that prepositions do is to direct the activity of the verb toward the noun.
I know. I debated myself about using the word "modify." In fact, I first typed "related to." I agree, though that prepositions do not modify verbs.
But back to the passage (Gal. 3:26-27). What do you think of Paul using faith and baptism is the same context and both having the same result? That is, "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" and "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." There are other examples of faith and baptism being linked together in the same context -- Acts 8:12; 16:31-33; 18:8, as well as passages where the washing of baptism is associated with hearing the "word" -- Ephesians 5:26 and Acts 8:35-26. So it's not like Galatians 3:26-27 is an isolated text.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 9:41:07 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Look. It does not modify an action verb. Adverbs do that, not prepositions. One thing that prepositions do is to direct the activity of the verb toward the noun.
I know. I debated myself about using the word "modify." In fact, I first typed "related to." I agree, though that prepositions do not modify verbs.
Okay. You seem to be pretty well educated. Modify is not the right word. You probably didn't know what was the right word. Frankly, off the top of my head, I don't either. You aren't alone. Even this doesn't even help much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preposition_and_postposition
I can't remember how I phrased it in the other post. But I was careful to describe only one function of prepositions, the kind we are discussing here. That way I avoid getting myself into trouble if a Greek-knowledgeable person starts looking over my comments.
quote:
But back to the passage (Gal. 3:26-27). What do you think of Paul using faith and baptism is the same context and both having the same result?
No, I don't. You know, I don't. But it brings me back to what I was getting at the other day (last week, I think) when I broke off the post in mid-thought because I risked being late for work.
Galatians' context is about the Mosaic Law. The Law, at least in the view of Jews, separated gentiles and Jews. It was a barrier. When Paul described the law as being a tutor to bring us to Christ, it should be clear that Jews didn't think of gentiles as having access to the law and therefore it wouldn't function in that way. At least, a typical Jew would probably think that way.
But baptism, instead of being a separator, was something that united them, a uniter. Jews and Gentiles are both sons of God through faith. But that is not enough to unite us/them--not in their minds anyway. Their natural tendency remain distinct and separate was bad for the church. But having a common baptism (Ephesians chapter 4) unites them. Both were baptized "to" Christ. I view baptism "in the name of Christ" and baptism "in/into Christ" as virtually synonymous ideas. The phrase "the name of" is truncated out of Gal. 3:27 but I believe the thought is there and I really think they would have understood it in their minds.
Being "clothed with Christ" is some sort of identifying thing. We are identified with Christ through baptism. We declare our allegiance both spiritually and publicly. "Putting on Christ" is not salvation. It is declarative regarding our discipleship and family allegiance. I am trying not to understate it.
quote:
That is, "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" and "all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." There are other examples of faith and baptism being linked together in the same context -- Acts 8:12; 16:31-33; 18:8, as well as passages where the washing of baptism is associated with hearing the "word" -- Ephesians 5:26 and Acts 8:35-26. So it's not like Galatians 3:26-27 is an isolated text.
I am puzzled why you think that believing and being baptized make both of them inherently salvific or salvational. When I look at those same passages, I find no necessity to read into them the same things you do.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 11:42:30 AM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Being "clothed with Christ" is some sort of identifying thing. We are identified with Christ through baptism. We declare our allegiance both spiritually and publicly. "Putting on Christ" is not salvation. It is declarative regarding our discipleship and family allegiance. I am trying not to understate it.
While I agree that "clothed with Christ" may be "some sort of identifying thing" in some contexts, I think here it indicates more than simply identification. I think it indicates union with Christ. To be clothed with Christ means to be one with Him and thus to be treated as He is treated, that is, as a son and heir. And that occurs when we are baptized. That's when we become one with Him, because that's when we are clothed with Him.
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 2:26:21 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jjbird
quote:
1) You believe most seminary professors are liberal. That is your limited experience and you over-generalized here. That's slander.
I did not say I believe most are but that many are.
In terms of sheer numbers, maybe even most. I admit it. If you say "most," I could not prove you wrong. Here in the Dallas area, SMU (Southern Methodist Univ) has a school of theology called called Perkins. They are known for being extremely liberal. I don't know their size. I have heard it referred to as Perkins School of Mythology.
Anyway, if you did not intend to imply that my professor friend was liberal and did not believe the Bible was the word of God, then why mention it at all? What relevance to this discussion did such information serve? How can I take that as anything but slander?
*****I tell you what I will do. I will let this post sit for a few hours or a day. But I will go back and edit out any of my comments about the slander---if you will take out the parts about liberal professors. You should still have time before CW ends the editing privileges of specific posts. Obviously, I misunderstood your intent and will accept your explanation that it simply came across to me wrong--unintentionally on your part.
IOW, I accept that you intended no slight but phrased it poorly in the midst of haste.
quote:
So why would they include that one hidden meaning and only reveal it to seminarians and not to the general public? So many of the greatest lexicons and dictionaries are available to us and they don't include "with respect to".
Again I am generalizing......I am more than willing to review ones that do but I have never heard of any.
It is not hidden. Trust me, it is not. But, I have scanned potential web sites for such information. In terms of which verses demand such a definition, it is limited. There is a difference between "with respect to/with reference to" being a "must fit"---and that definition being a permissible definition. Many theologians try to avoid using a definition that is just permissible and not demanded.
All things being equal, when a scripture is controversial, the default translation of "eis" is "into." It is not cumbersome but "with respect to/with reference to" is extremely cumbersome. The meaning "into" is common enough that it slips easily into abstract contexts. So, it is probably a first choice usage, except where it simply cannot be acceptable in terms of literalness. In the case of Acts 2:38, "into" can't work and make sense.
As to why we don't see it more, I have wondered some of those things myself. Most people haven't plumbed the depths of such questions as I have, most theologians included. With the exception of people like John R. W. Stott and Spiro Zodhiates.
The most common evangelical interpretation of passages like Gal. 3:26-27 and Romans 6:3 is that the baptism is baptism of the HS. I am in the minority in that I view them as water baptism. I could link you to another web site, but it is part of a competing forum. TOS rules forbid linking competing forums.
I would like you read John R. W. Stott's book Baptism and Fullness. It's cheap. I paid $5.00 for it a few years ago. It is 119 pages with 2-3 pages of material relevant to this subject. To me, it alone is worth the price of the book. I have an extra copy that I am willing to send you free of charge if you want. The offer extends to either or both of you (you and GD).
quote:
Controversial and weak? Well I respectfully disagree. I think we are just both trying to be biblically accurate are we not? Anyways no problem I have done the same thing many times and I am positive I will be mistaken again in the future!
If you think that it is less than that, okay , it doesn't bother me in the least. Honest injun. I am not trying to push "because of." It is John MacArthur's interpretation of Acts 2:38 and I have other disagreements with him anyway. This conversation may prevent me from even bringing up that translation any more.
quote:
And by the way Larry thank you so for your perseverance and attention in studying this with me and greatdivide.
It is stimulating and I enjoy it. You have brought arguments to the table that I have not heard from the religious world and I thought I have heard them all!
Likewise. I can come across kind of jerk-wise. But it is not because I am trying to have my way. I have had discussions with some of your brethren who tried to control the direction of the discussion. Without a doubt, you are not like them!!!! I am analytical to a fault and it irritates my wife considerably. I prefer to have some give and take. I know I asked you to bend over backwards so as to compel you to try a different tack. I admit it. I felt it allowed an easier give and take this way.
Some of my brethren with whom you have interacted--I don't share their manner nor their perspective. I might share most of their conclusions. But I feel their views are poorly thought out. I don't take them on because most of the problem involves a hermeneutic one. If one has poor hermeneutics, he might still have proper doctrinal views. But typically, he holds them because that is what he has been taught, not because he has thought through them well.
See. It works like this. Controlling the flow of discussion manipulates the conversation to a person's advantage. I abhor such behavior. One person left this forum because he couldn't dominate the direction of the conversation. I started the thread and CW rules permitted me to restrict the discussion so as to avoid certain rabbit trails. I wanted to concentrate on a particular text. He wanted to badger me concerning all of the baptism proof-texts and I had asked specifically in my OP that we avoid the subject of water baptism. We already had 2-3 water baptism threads going, so it wasn't like he didn't have the chance to get his view heard.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 11/14/2009 2:36:24 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 2:37:54 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: greatdivide46
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Being "clothed with Christ" is some sort of identifying thing. We are identified with Christ through baptism. We declare our allegiance both spiritually and publicly. "Putting on Christ" is not salvation. It is declarative regarding our discipleship and family allegiance. I am trying not to understate it.
While I agree that "clothed with Christ" may be "some sort of identifying thing" in some contexts, I think here it indicates more than simply identification. I think it indicates union with Christ. To be clothed with Christ means to be one with Him and thus to be treated as He is treated, that is, as a son and heir. And that occurs when we are baptized. That's when we become one with Him, because that's when we are clothed with Him.
It may. But why then does it have to salvific?
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 4:07:22 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
Jjbird,
Let me suggest another issue involving the controversy over "eis." Years ago, I was told that NT Koine Greek was a more precise language than English was. The explanation is that its superiority over English allowed for much greater precision than English so that one could express things better than English. Rick Warren (of 40 Days of Purpose) said in his book that the Bible's vocabulary was greater than English's and that added to its precision and ability to express things that we could never express in English.
The strange thing was that he combined the NT and OT Hebrew and Greek together to arrive at that total!!! It was an ill-considered comment from someone who is extremely gifted in preaching and administration. But admittedly, he is not a theologian.
I would say that English has a greater range of vocabulary than either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek. It is overwhelmingly so. In just a few weeks of my Greek class, we covered over 80% of the NT vocabulary, meeting once a week. I forget the number of words. In six months, you could not possibly say the same thing about English.
What we have in Greek is a tighter verb and noun structure. Syntax is not determined by word order, like it is in English. It is controlled by something else.
Anyway, the single word "eis" has a gazillion different possibilities in English. Sometimes a single word like "eis" has to cover a multitude of contexts and uses. We can subtly clarify shift the meanings in English. I don't know that Koine Greek cannot. I just know that it did not. So, we have to figure them out.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 4:34:17 PM
|
|
|
jjbird
Posts: 662
Joined: 5/20/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Jjbird,
Let me suggest another issue involving the controversy over "eis." Years ago, I was told that NT Koine Greek was a more precise language than English was. The explanation is that its superiority over English allowed for much greater precision than English so that one could express things better than English. Rick Warren (of 40 Days of Purpose) said in his book that the Bible's vocabulary was greater than English's and that added to its precision and ability to express things that we could never express in English.
The strange thing was that he combined the NT and OT Hebrew and Greek together to arrive at that total!!! It was an ill-considered comment from someone who is extremely gifted in preaching and administration. But admittedly, he is not a theologian.
I would say that English has a greater range of vocabulary than either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek. It is overwhelmingly so. In just a few weeks of my Greek class, we covered over 80% of the NT vocabulary, meeting once a week. I forget the number of words. In six months, you could not possibly say the same thing about English.
What we have in Greek is a tighter verb and noun structure. Syntax is not determined by word order, like it is in English. It is controlled by something else.
Anyway, the single word "eis" has a gazillion different possibilities in English. Sometimes a single word like "eis" has to cover a multitude of contexts and uses. We can subtly clarify shift the meanings in English. I don't know that Koine Greek cannot. I just know that it did not. So, we have to figure them out.
Well the good thing is that today as opposed to several hundred years ago we have a much greater knowledge and understanding of Koine Greek.
And I sent you an email through the site here. I would love a copy of that book!
Let me know if you got the message or not.
Thanks
JJ
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 4:42:16 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1850
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
I'll let you know. The other computer is set up with my email program.
_____________________________
Larry
"Clarity before agreement." Dennis Prager
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Do you believe that we have to be baptized in order... - 11/14/2009 4:59:44 PM
|
|
|
greatdivide46
Posts: 1485
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Coffee County, Alabama
Status: offline
|
I appreciate the offer of Stott's book, but I think I'll see if I can find it on eBay or at Barnes&Noble.
Speaking of Stott that reminds of my favorite quote from Stott -- "Baptism means water baptism unless in the context it is stated to the contrary." (Stott, John. Romans: God's Good News for the World, Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994, p. 173).
_____________________________
greatdivide46
For who can eat and who can enjoy life apart from Him?. -- Ecclesiastes 2:25 (HCSB)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
