Brilliant in the debate. I learned a lot. Am I being naive to think that the fact that Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended is a scripture to add the mix? I wrote about finding the church of Christ and being baptized in my first book and wish I had also touched on that point.
One more thought to share. I did include in my book about being baptized and finding the church of Christ that Jesus told Nicodemus that to enter the Kingdom, we must be born again of water and spirit. A Southern Baptist friend tried to explain to me that it was not a reference to baptism. The text speaks differently to me. As you said, bring the pieces together. Jesus was baptized and Acts 2 describes the start of the church. Every conversation in Acts is a baptism led me to be baptized as an adult, and Paul was told by Jesus to go do what must be done.
Jesus was showing us the path to salvation, even though John questioned and knew He didn’t need it to wash away sin. I think it is another reference to add to the need for Baptism. Again, you were brilliant and made the case that Scripture shows us that it is necessary for salvation.
Galatians 3:26-27 is a great text to prove that baptism is an act of faith (and if an act of faith it cannot be a work). The text contains parallelism where repeating a thought occurs using different words like many of the Psalms do. Being clothed with Christ through baptism is the same thought as being a son of God though faith. The point is made with the pivotal word, "for" which starts out verse 27 and connects 27 to 26. Baptism is clearly an act of faith in this passage. Another thought I had was that the baptism of John the Baptist was for repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4. John's baptism certainly set a precedence for the coming baptism of the Great Commission. God bless you, Jack. Kerry Davis, OKC, OK.
Jack, I know I’m late on this debate, but I just had a chance to watch and it was really an awesome and telling debate. As I listened to your day 2 opening, a question came to me. What would have happened if Abraham hadn’t gone to the mountain too with Isaac, because at the bottom before he left his servants we see his faith that God would provide a sacrifice when he was asked by Isaac? If we could stop at faith alone, God could see at that point Abraham’s faith in his statement to Isaac and “in his heart” so why did Abraham go ahead and take Isaac to the mountain too with sacrifice him?
Interesting debate! Something I took note of is on your opening statement you made the assertion that when you're walking about context, historical grammatical context can't make the text say something it doesn't appear to say on the surface. But I would assert that's the entire purpose of hermeneutics. It is the historical, cultural, and grammatical ancient context that helps us determine what a text means when our English language is unable to fully encapsulate original meaning. Otherwise, if we arent grounded in context, we are left just squeezing the text into personal interpretation
Those things help us grasp the original meaning in a deeper way, but if we stretch that too far the obvious implication is that nobody can trust the English translations. That's a dangerous path to go down.
Well sure, I think that danger is obvious to any circumstance when someone takes a principle to its extreme. But if we don't rely primarily on context, we have a greater risk of becoming hyper-rigid in our theology and consequently, our denomination.
I thought Jeremiah made an excellent assertion that ultimately, the disagreements between you two were grounded not so much in textual interpretation, but theological lens; reformed vs arminian. What are your thoughts on that?
Excellent job Jack!
Brilliant in the debate. I learned a lot. Am I being naive to think that the fact that Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended is a scripture to add the mix? I wrote about finding the church of Christ and being baptized in my first book and wish I had also touched on that point.
That's a very interesting thought. I'm not sure how it would play with the Reformed crowd but I can see some usefulness to it.
One more thought to share. I did include in my book about being baptized and finding the church of Christ that Jesus told Nicodemus that to enter the Kingdom, we must be born again of water and spirit. A Southern Baptist friend tried to explain to me that it was not a reference to baptism. The text speaks differently to me. As you said, bring the pieces together. Jesus was baptized and Acts 2 describes the start of the church. Every conversation in Acts is a baptism led me to be baptized as an adult, and Paul was told by Jesus to go do what must be done.
Jesus was showing us the path to salvation, even though John questioned and knew He didn’t need it to wash away sin. I think it is another reference to add to the need for Baptism. Again, you were brilliant and made the case that Scripture shows us that it is necessary for salvation.
Galatians 3:26-27 is a great text to prove that baptism is an act of faith (and if an act of faith it cannot be a work). The text contains parallelism where repeating a thought occurs using different words like many of the Psalms do. Being clothed with Christ through baptism is the same thought as being a son of God though faith. The point is made with the pivotal word, "for" which starts out verse 27 and connects 27 to 26. Baptism is clearly an act of faith in this passage. Another thought I had was that the baptism of John the Baptist was for repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 1:4. John's baptism certainly set a precedence for the coming baptism of the Great Commission. God bless you, Jack. Kerry Davis, OKC, OK.
Jack, I know I’m late on this debate, but I just had a chance to watch and it was really an awesome and telling debate. As I listened to your day 2 opening, a question came to me. What would have happened if Abraham hadn’t gone to the mountain too with Isaac, because at the bottom before he left his servants we see his faith that God would provide a sacrifice when he was asked by Isaac? If we could stop at faith alone, God could see at that point Abraham’s faith in his statement to Isaac and “in his heart” so why did Abraham go ahead and take Isaac to the mountain too with sacrifice him?
Interesting debate! Something I took note of is on your opening statement you made the assertion that when you're walking about context, historical grammatical context can't make the text say something it doesn't appear to say on the surface. But I would assert that's the entire purpose of hermeneutics. It is the historical, cultural, and grammatical ancient context that helps us determine what a text means when our English language is unable to fully encapsulate original meaning. Otherwise, if we arent grounded in context, we are left just squeezing the text into personal interpretation
Those things help us grasp the original meaning in a deeper way, but if we stretch that too far the obvious implication is that nobody can trust the English translations. That's a dangerous path to go down.
Well sure, I think that danger is obvious to any circumstance when someone takes a principle to its extreme. But if we don't rely primarily on context, we have a greater risk of becoming hyper-rigid in our theology and consequently, our denomination.
I thought Jeremiah made an excellent assertion that ultimately, the disagreements between you two were grounded not so much in textual interpretation, but theological lens; reformed vs arminian. What are your thoughts on that?