[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology & Philosophy

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. - 1 Peter 4:14
Name
Email
Subject
REC
STOP
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


| Rules | Meta | Log | The Gospel |

92541f No.6671

The church’s ongoing practice of baptism—like another essential practice, the Lord’s Supper—is simultaneously a repetition of and a post-Pentecost transformation of Jesus’s own act. Jesus was baptized as a sign of his dedication (wholehearted obedience), and so too we follow his example. At the same time, his own baptism is transformed in our experience because he is more than just a model. We don’t simply get baptized because he did. We’re baptized into him, and he baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.

http://equip.sbts.edu/article/why-was-jesus-baptized/

Why do you baptists say baptism is a symbol and done after one is Saved, yet say things like this? Why do you confuse and add things that imply baptism is something more?

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ca005 No.6673

>>6671

Can you restate the question to highlight the alleged contradiction?

What is "things like this"?

Are you that guy who's just going to flood the thread with pages of copy-paste documents?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6741

>>6673

You baptists say Baptism is a symbol, but this Baptist scholar seems to say there is more than that going on. It's not everyday that I hear your people tell me water baptism is where we are baptized into him and with the holy spirit, or some repetition of what Jesus did.

So which is it? stop confusing everyone

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ca005 No.6745

>>6741

What is the "more than that" going on according to the author and why is it contradictory with the baptist position?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6752

>>6745

1)Baptism is into Christ and where one is baptized with the Spirit(remember the context is the practice of water baptism)

2)It is a repetition of Jesus' act

2) has implications because when Jesus is baptized, the Holy Spirit literally came down upon him. So if that is a repetiton of that, it means baptism by water is required for getting the Spirit

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ca005 No.6757

>>6752

>Baptism is where one is baptized with the Spirit

That is not being taught in the article. This might be a misleading phrase:

<We’re baptized into him, and he baptizes us with the Holy Spirit.

but it is not saying that baptism with the spirit happens upon the Christian ordinance of baptism.

>It is a repitition of Jesus's act

Agreed

>It has implications because when Jesus is baptized, the Holy Spirit literally came down upon him. So if that is a repetiton of that, it means baptism by water is required for getting the Spirit

You're saying that because we follow his example, we should expect the Holy Spirit to come down upon us at the moment of baptism too? That's not what is being said in the article, and it doesn't logically follow. Doing something in rememberance of, or after the example of, doesn't mean that exactly the same things necessarily occur.

Did you really find this being taught in the article? You're committing eisegesis. If a professor at SBTS was teaching what you're finding he'd be removed for violating the abstract of principles.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6760

>>6757

The author places baptism by the holy spirit in connection with water baptism. So whatever he meants by receiving the Spirit, that reception is intended to have some relation to water baptism.

>muh eisegesis

Except SBTS faculty have stated things that are contrary to baptist theology, such as Robert Stein in his article on water baptism for SBTS journal where he is very clear water baptism is part of the conversion of the believer.

The author says nothing about the implications of connecting Jesus' baptism with our baptism. So I simply spell it out. Nowhere did I claim the article says this. I only said it has implications.

And if you admit the article uses a misleading phrase, then you are admitting the possibility the article can be seen as implying baptism is more than a mere symbol.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ca005 No.6762

>>6760

Is it this one? I'm intrigued

http://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/sbjt-21-spring-1998/baptism-and-becoming-a-christian-in-the-new-testament/

Where is the relevant section that contradicts SBTS?

I don't think that Pennington's phrase was misleading, but I can see somebody getting confused. That's all I meant.

>I only said it has implications

You're trying to stir up some controversy. There's nothing inconsistent about the article you shared, and I really had to draw out of you what you were getting at.

If our theology is so inconsistent and confusing why do you have to play these games? Why couldn't you explicitly place contradictory statements next to one another for discussion?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6763

>>6762

It doesnt have to be that way. But when you baptists here say "but baptism is just a naked symbol" or "it isnt part of conversion", you make.it confusing when people from your side come and make statements that go against this. Even that article agrees with me that baptism is part of making disciples.

And because you said that Stein's article doesnt contradict your view, what do you even think baptism does? If you say it's post conversion, you already oppose the two articles linked ITT where they imply it is part of conversion.

In fact what does Stein says is required to be saved? Belief-repentance-baptism which certainly isnt just belief and then done

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6765

If SBTS says baptism is merely a symbol, then the two articles contradict it. Like let's look at Stein's opening about how one experiences conversion in the NT,

"In the New Testament, conversion involves five integrally related components or aspects, all of which took place at the same time, usually on the same day. These five components are repentance, faith, and confession by the individual, regeneration, or the giving of the Holy Spirit by God, and baptism by representatives of the Christian community."

So we see here that according to Stein, water baptism is part of conversion. He says they belong together.

Are you telling me then that you think baptism is part of conversion?

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

4ca005 No.6766

>>6763

>And because you said that Stein's article doesnt contradict your view, what do you even think baptism does? If you say it's post conversion, you already oppose the two articles linked ITT where they imply it is part of conversion.

Conversion is a vague term. Baptism is a necessary part of Christian practice, it comes before church membership. This does not mean it saves.

It is part of conversion in the sense of being a step in adopting the Christian life, but if we're defining conversion to mean "the point of salvation", it is unrelated.

This is the mainstream Baptist view.

>>6765

Yes, in this understanding of the term "conversion", baptism is part of conversion. I agree with Stein.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

2a8212 No.6790

sage and hide

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6801

>>6766

Conversion isnt vague. We know that it means the point where one becomes a Christian or acts in a manner that indicate it. The problem with your explanation here is that Stein never says that as part of salvation, the "conversion" part of belief is what Saves. His view in that article is that conversion includes all the elements of faith, repentance, baptism by water and receiving the Spirit, all of which happens very close to each other, in different orders and cannot be split apart from one another. This is evident when Stein says on baptism and faith in Titus,

"In Titus 3:4, after describing what the Christian was before placing his or her faith in Christ, Paul adds in verse 5 an important (and typically Pauline) “but” and states that “he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior . . . .” In light of the fact that the readers of Titus had all been baptized and that such a rite clearly had nuances of washing (cf. Ac 22:16, 1 Co 6:11, Eph 5:26), the expression “washing of rebirth” is best understood as referring to the readers’ experience of conversion when they were baptized and received the Holy Spirit"

Your point would have some merit if Stein never used statements like this where in explaining the Salvation of the audience in Titus, baptismal language is used, and is a reference to the rite. That naturally entails that faith and baptism are together or that the moment one is put into Christ, one goes through the sequence he outlined at the beginning. Of course that said, Stein said that reception of the Holy Spirit comes by faith but he also says immediately after, that baptism and regeneration happen together in time. Also at the end of discussing the association of faith, repentance, baptism and regeneration, he mentions Romans 10:9 and said regarding it,

he is not saying that confession and faith unaccompanied by repentance, baptism, and the regenerating work of the Spirit will save. These last three, although not mentioned, are assumed!

This again is odd if what you said is true also of Stein's view.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

e7e3e5 No.6811

>>6801

You're equivocating. The author you're citing obviously isn't using the term conversion in the way you are.

>Conversion isn't vague

<Vague Use of the Word:

<There is a good deal of vagueness in the modern use of the term. By some writers it is used in "a very general way to stand for the whole series of manifestations just preceding, accompanying, and immediately following the apparent sudden changes of character involved"

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

CONVERSION

https://biblehub.com/topical/c/conversion.htm

I'm not engaging with you further, because you've proven yourself to be incapable of arguing in good faith.

Everyone please,

Sage and hide

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

92541f No.6816

>>6811

He is definitely not referring to conversion in the way you refer to it.

In fact even if he isnt clear at the start, his example at the end with the mock interview with a hypothetical 1st century convert to Christianity would make what he means clear enough. It should even be clear when one progresses through the essay.

Posting a link to Biblehub or a statement on it's vagueness doesn't change the fact that what Stein describes as conversion in this case is different from what you provide as his view. Because sure I may be wrong that "conversion" isnt vague, but Stein is clear on the fact that when he speaks of all the elements of conversion, even water baptism, he is speaking salvifically, not in the manner you proposed

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

6a5834 No.6906

buamp

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]