To Michael: A Theology Post

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

>>I just feel your theological posts are presented in attempts to entangle those who disagree with you


Bill replies: What would be wrong with trying to answer someone rigorously who in my perception is misprepresenting Scripture? If someone says an interpretation of Scripture is correct , but is not prepared to support his claim , then why would it be wrong for me to suggest difficulties with his view? You call that "attempts to entangle."

I call it , "attempts to UNentangle" !!





>>and to show how you have theological superiority.


Bill replies: I know my morals and my motives are not always perfect. But I think you do me an injustice with that accusation. I know some people do not much like to be outalked or vigorously challenged. So, if one claims, "Barth denies the virgin birth," like you did, among many other false claims, if someone says, "Oh yeah? show me where, " it is much less rigorous to say "Oh, Bill's just attempting to entangle me and is trying to show superiority."




>>For instance, in Chapter Six (I think.) of your dissertation you take on the whole church and 2,000 years of scholarship attempting to prove them wrong!

Bill replies: ?? Actually just with half the church. You're saying that in a dissertation which should be providing a new methodolgy or insight I should after the literature review simply say, "Yep and I agree too"? I don't think that is dissertational level work!




>>Bill, in terms you certainly will understand, empty yourself of Bill Grover the theologian and humble yourself to Bill Grover, Degree Info member.


Bill replies: As the first post in this thread said, I was responding to two theological points Michael made to me. I called the thread a theological one. It concerns two complex theological issues.

IMO if you responded to a discussion on counseling , you would not leave outside the thread your expertise in that. If politics is the subject, I don't believe posters will be shy about exhibiting their understandings! I think it's hypocritical and using a doublestandard of you to expect me in a Theology thread to not be a theologian!

You judge humility and pridefulness in ways differently than I do. To me humility is admitting error when that is apparent . I've already done that in this very thread. Pridefulness is attacking one's motives instead of overturning his reasonings. And you have already done that in this thread!


>>Then read all your theological posts and tell me what you see.

Bill replies: What I think I would usually see is someone who loves the Scriptures and has made the study of them the most important thing in his life. I feel I am not defending or defining just my own views but the meani ng of Scripture. Still, I do not think that my views are flawless. So I'm ready to be shown wrong. I don't mind that! I'd rather be shown a fool than to have the Scriptures misrepresented! Unlike Barclay, I don't put my opining above the Bible!

But for another to convince me of my error would require a respondant who after making claims is capable of providing solid and substantial evidence against my positions. It takes more than attacking my character by impugning my motives.

I'm not sure that you and I ever have had any good theological discussion. Let's keep it that way and assume it's all my fault.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

It's not about who's at fault, my friend, it's about being responsible and it's irresponsible to posit everyone else is wrong but you.

 

Cool thy jets, guys. The question is a worthwhile one. Do we teach what we teach out of a singleminded focus on Scripture (or Scripture+defining magisterium if Roman Catholic or Orthodox), or do we teach what we teach because it's what WE teach? We Gnesios call this latter fides carbonaria, the blind faith in the institution's message because it's the institution's message. (Why charcoal-burners? Keine Idee, my chuckwallas.)

Jimmy, don't do the "offended" thing because you can't operate on Bill's intellectual level in matters of theology and exegesis. I can't either. Repeat, I can't either. So what? Bill has never told you to shut up, no matter how unpersuasive he finds some of your theological claims. As an exegetical mind he is superior to you or me. Take the opportunity to learn from him.

Remember, guys, there's more than one form of distance learning. Some of it happens right here (or can happen, if we let it) sans tuition, sans degrees, sans bureaucracy, sans bullshit.

 

No argument from me, Uncle Janko. I don't remember saying I was offended nor do I remember telling Bill to shut up, either directly or indirectly.

The only disagreement I have is that I think you are just as equipped as Bill to intelligently discuss theology.

Being intellectually/theologically superior is fine; it is to be commended. But, to constantly display it in such ostentatious fashion is rather arrogant, I think.

Now, you do raise a good point. The Christian churches/churches of Christ teach and believe what they do based on their understanding of Scripture, not what Campbell or Stone or anyone else says they should.

My wife goes in for surgery in a few hours. Therefore, I won't be responding to any more posts today.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Michael: A Theology Post

 

Oy, Jimmy, first things first: best wishes to your wife. I hope all goes well and that she makes a swift recovery. I'm sure she will.

You, I'm worried about.

Do you read before you spout, or do you just blurt stuff and then wonder where the verbal mess came from? I'm quite serious in asking this. I want to respond, almost phrase by phrase, to your post. I think it illustrates a problem.

1) When you used language like "obsessive", etc., to describe Bill and his posts, it is a fair surmise that you were offended. You did not need to use the actual word "offended."

2) Nobody ever said or implied that you told Bill to shut up. What I said was that he had not done so to you. Why must a comment on someone else's conduct necessarily be predicated upon something in your own?

3) "Ostentatious" and "arrogant" are terms that indicate you know Bill's inner disposition or motive. I recall in an earlier, um, controversy between us how angry you became when I questioned your motives. You claimed then (and I do not intend to revivify that earlier controversy) that I could not know the genuineness of your attitude. How, then can you know Bill's? It's not a rhetorical question. Do you derive this ability from your doctoral training? Inner light? Street smarts? Or what?

3a) If you dislike the style or content of Bill's posts, wouldn't it help your case in arguing against him if you characterized the style of his posts instead of stylizing his character? Let me indulge a suspicion here. I suspect (but I do not know for sure--I am not a mind reader) that you call Bill arrogant when you don't know how to respond to his argument or evidence on some point or other. It would stand up better if you accused Bill of, oh, logic-chopping, irrelevant adductions, confused premises, Calvinism, or what have you. The problem is, you would then have to bring quotes and evidence to bear if Bill objected. Character slams can more easily be made because response to them all too easily degenerates into is/ain't/is/ain't/is/aint ad infinitum et ad nauseam.

4) You have made a fine "patriotic" assertion about your present (well, I have to use the word, here it comes) denomination. One needn't have the Weimar Ausgabe or the Millennial Harbnger slung round one's neck, though, to fall into "we believe what we believe because it's what we believe because Bro Jimmy or Fr Janko or [speaking in anticipation] Dr Bill told us so." In raising the issue of fides carbonaria, I had no interest in saying one group is more or less susceptible to this than another; I have no evidence that that is the case. It's good that you have confidence in your denomination. That should equip you well to spot and swat fides carbonaria when (likely not "if") it crops up.

5) Finally--and this goes to the heart of the matter in your controversy with Bill on this thread--you say that being superior is fine but displaying superiority all the time is not. Would you rather he "let you win" like an adult playing cards with a small child? If his superiority is fine, why not learn from his posts that give evidence of it, instead of resenting its detectability as though the purpose of Bill's excellence is to show up your (or my) mediocrity.
You have completed IIRC three doctorates. However good, bad, or indifferent those schools were, was not your Doktorvater at such-and-such a school in a position of superiority over you--at the very minimum because he possessed and could authorize the conferral of a credential you at that point still lacked--and at the maximum because he was at least at that point in time a scholar superior to you in learning? Did your Doktorvaeter anger you or cause you to characterize them as obsessive, arrogant, etc., or did you try to learn from them?
Either refuse to acknowledge superiority or humble yourself to learn from it. To acknowledge and belittle it at the same time does not seem to make much sense.

Once again, by the time you read this I trust that your wife's surgery will have gone well. Please extend to her my best wishes for good health.

 

http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/berkhof_bapt.html


Bill,
Just so you will have something to do - using the above site convince me your views on baptism are correct and Berkhof's are wrong.

Thanks,
Howard

 

===

Howard:

Thanks for the challenge.

But, if you don't mind, I would rather you test Berkhof against the New Testament instead of testing me against Berkhof. After all, Berkhof, himself, says (1:96) that Scripture is the rule of faith!

I think that the webpage you provide is just extracted from Berkhof's Systematic Theology (if not let me know). I have the 1996 version of that Systematic.

My assumption is that you agree with Berkhof. Berkhof says on 2:631 that sprinkling is an accepted form of New Testament Baptism. He bases this on his argument on the prior page concerning the meaning of the Greek terms.

There Berkhof defines the meaning of the Greek verbs bapto and baptizo.

Howard, please test Berkof definition against the New Testament by telling me in your next post just one place in the New testament where either of these verbs mean "to sprinkle."

Please convince me that either verb in the NT means "to sprinkle."

Thanks,

 

Thank you, Uncle Janko. She is finally doing much better. The first few days and nights after surgery were not easy--bleeding, vomiting, fainting.

Today she had a good day. We are still awaiting to see if the surgery has solved her recurring problems. We will know in a few weeks.

The rest of you post contains much with which I agree. I have no earthly idea why I attacked Bill in the manner and extent I did. I like Bill and respect him. Perhaps I am jealous of his theological scholarship.

You also mentioned I hold three doctorates. Uncle Janko, I have dismissed two of those when I first came back on Degree Info. The Bethany doctorate is the only one I list, use, mention, and consider a credible degree.

Thank you again for your kind words regarding my wife's health. She expresses her appreciation as well.

 

I agree Bill, a good offense is the best defense, but this time it will not work. That seems to be your mode --- keep the other party on the defense. Is it because you cannot formulate a really good reply to the questions. Start with an easy one --- compare your definition of "eis" with the one used by Berkhof -- incidentially, I have the 1996 edition, so look on page 630, bottom of the page.

I would really appreciate a good essay, not more questions to try and confuse the issue or to push me into a corner.

Can you do it, Bill?

 

===



OK I'll try re eis tomorrow.

 

Good news about your wife, Jimmy. That's a pleasure to hear. Best wishes to both of you.

 

===

Oh, BTW, Howard, I know you think I'm putting you on the spot, and you don't like it, but since you are expecting an essay from me, could you not just respond with just one teeny, weeny answer? Please?

You'll recall my remark above on 6-20-04 at 2:14 pm re eis was concerning Mark 1:9--the baptism of Jesus.

Now as you say, Berkhof says that eis need not mean "into" (supportive of immersion) , but 'TO" as "They went down TO the water." So, if they just go TO the water, and not INTO the water, sprinkling, not immersion, might well be the meaning.

So, before I begin my research for my essay you require of me , could you get out your Greek Testament and look again at Mark 1:9??

Does yours also read "...ebaptisthe (was baptised) eis (into OR to??) ton Iordanen (the Jordon)? Was Jesus baptised TO the river or INTOI the river do you think?????

Do you think that being baptised TO the water makes sense ?

 

Thank you from both of us.

 

It seems to me since baptism is symbolic of death, burial, and resurrection, immersion is definitely the Biblical mode.

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of The Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

"For if we have been united with Him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His."--Romans 6:3-5.

"And you were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."--Colossians 2:12

 

==


Jimmy

Along many in the holiness (as the Nazarene Wiley) and many in the dispensationalist (as eg LS Chafer) groups Berkof denies that these texts refer to water baptism! Of course, that denial certainly isn't determined by anti-immersionistic sentiments

 

Thanks, Bill. How's your health holding up?

 

===


Howard

You ask me to compare my definition of eis with Berkhof's on p.630. You have not seen my general definition of eis.

If you will look again in this thread you will find that you first asked if John baptised Jesus IN water or WITH water. My response to you included a comment on eis. But that comment was connected to the record of Jesus' baptism in Mark 1:9. I there said that in Mark 1:9 eis means IN not WITH. John baptised IN the river at Aeon . But if sprinkling or pouring was all that was needed why IN the river? Why pick a spot where there was particularly MUCH water?

So, FIRST, what is YOUR *ANSWER* to that fact that John to baptise required MUCH water , Howard?

If you will look at Berkhof on the page you reference, 630, you will find that he does not discuss there Mk 1:9 at all. Berkhof NEVER discusses the meaning of eis in Mark 1:9 in his Systematic! I find that very curious. One would think that the mode of the baptism of Jesus would be the Christian's example to follow. If Jesus were immersed, then why should Christians not be immersed?

Berkhof is discussing the meaning of eis in Acts 8:38. You asked me about the baptism of Jesus. You did not ask me about the baptism of the Ethiopian. But in regard to the Ethiopian, if only sprinkling or pouring was required, then why was the baptism in Acts 8 occasioned by them in their travel coming upon a body of water?

So, SECOND, what is *YOUR ANSWER* to that fact fact that Philip required a body of water to baptize , Howard?

Oh yes, I know that Berkhof has a counter to this. He says on 631 "Look at the pictures of early baptisms. See them there in the river having water poured over them?"

Frankly I think it sad when a good theologian who has stated himself that the Scriptures are the norm for doctrine reverts to imaginative pictures to prove his dogma with pictures! However, if Berkhof's hermeneutic impresses you, I suppose that I could find some pictures of immersion to counter Berkhof's pictures. My, my the lengths some go to to remain faithful to a denomination!

I'm sure you know that the preposition eis can mean different things. Even in the first chapter of Mark it is used to mean different things:

1:15 "Jesus came TO Galilee"
1:4"repentance FOR remission"
1:29 "entered INTO the house"

So, I am not claiming that eis always means INTO. I never said that. I only insisted that in 1:9 it means INTO.

According to BAG eis can mean TO or TOWARD or INTO or show a PURPOSE. I never denied any of this. If you think I did, then show now me where.

What I said was that in Mk 1:9 it means INTO. I said this because you asked if John baptised Jesus IN or WITH water. But eis NEVER means WITH.

Why can we translate eis in 1:15 by TO, but in 1:29 require INTO? Because of the verbs employed. Came does not require INTO. But ENTERED does require INTO not TO.

So, in Mk 1:9 does the verb baptise require INTO or will TO suffice?

It reads: EBAPTISTHE EIS TON IORDANEN .

So should we translate "was baptised TO the Jordan"?

On 630 Berkhof is arguing that eis may mean TO not just INTO. Fine! But does it make sense to you that TO is the meaning in 1:9? Does eis mean "Jesus was baptised TO the Jordan"? Of course it does not!

So, THIRD, what is *YOUR ANSWER* about the Greek of Mk 1:9. Should it read " baptized TO the river" , Howard?

On p630 Berkhof says that bapto and baptizo have other meanings besides IMMERSE. He cites from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, Numbers 8:7 , Psalm 51:7 , and Ezekiel 36:25 as evidence of this claim . Unfortunately for Berkhof , however, neither baptizo nor bapto appear in these texts. Even if they did, often NT writers used words in ways differently than does the LXX.

In the Septuagint BAPTO occurs in about 18 places. An example is Numbers 19:18, ""DIP it in water." BAPTO in the Septuagint does not mean POUR or SPRINKLE. Bapto usually translates the Hebrew tabal which means 'to dip.'

In the Septuagint BAPTIZO occurs only twice. Literally in In 2 Kings 5:14, "He DIPPED himself seven times in the Jordan." It does not mean that he sprinkled himself! Also it is used and metaphorically in Isaiah 21.

You can use your lexicon of the Greek OT to study each occurance of baptizo or bapto there if you wish to do some work yourself here instead of suggesting that unless I do it for you I am being devious (confusing) or unfair (putting you on the defense). If you find there where these verbs must mean SPRINKLE or POUR, please let me know.

You may wish to look at baptein as well in the Septuagint in Ju 2:14 where a morsal is dipped in wine. They did not POUR the wine over it.

So,FOURTH, what is *YOUR ANSWER* to the Septuagint NOT using these words to mean DIP not SPRINKLE or POUR, Howard?

This Septuagintal meaning , along with non-Biblical usage, is partly why the lexicons say that baptizo and bapto when used literally mean something like IMMERSE or DIP. The words do not mean sprinkle or pour:

TDNT, 1:529, "to dip in or under"

Liddell and Scott, 146, "to dip in or under"

Bullinger,80, "dipped..immersed"

Abbott-Smith,74, "dip, sink"

DNTT, 1:144, "dip, immerse, submerge"

Moultan and Milligan, "

BAG, 131, "plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm, immerse."

I suppose that you know that Greek has words for pouring and sprinkling. But where are these used to indicate the sacrament?

I suggest to you that these definitions of the lexicons are not just by Baptists trying to prove their dogma. These base their definitions on usage.

So, FIFTH, what is *YOUR ANSWER * to the fact that these lexicons do not say that these words mean POUR or SPRINKLE, Howard?

Berkhof on 630 states that Romans 6 and Colossians 2 do not refer to water baptism but to the significance behind it. I find this confusing, and I'd bet so would the Romans and the Colossians find that distinction a bit obtuse.

Calvin in his commentary on Romans remarks that Paul in ch 6 "connects the reality and the effect with the sign." There is a connection, not a separation of ideas! In his commentary on Colossians Calvin comments that BY baptism we are buried.

But how does sprinkling or pouring indicate a burial? And how do these correlate either to a raising up as Romans 6 says. If the sign is to indicate a burial and a resurrection, how do sprinkling or pouring convey those ideas? But a going down under the water and a coming up out of the water do indicate those ideas!

So, SIXTH, What is *YOUR ANSWER* as to how sprinkling or pouring is a likely sign of burial and resurrection, Howard?

Now, I responded to your issues. Will you please respond to mine by giving your six answers to my issues? I would really appreciate a good essay on each of the six instead of your trying to confuse the issue and trying to put me on the defense

 

++

I'm well, thanks.