[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / chemo / choroy / dempart / girltalk / s / socpl / turul ]

/christianity/ - Christian Theology

Free speech discussion
Winner of the 80rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - Otter For Your Soul

May 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

| Rules | Log | The Gospel |

File: 17e711e8a9e9941⋯.jpg (118 KB, 1024x709, 1024:709, Page-17-Image-8.jpg)

f1dadf  No.2176

I am a non demon Christian. For the past month or so I been studying Romans and I just cant shake off how baptism is described as being buried with Christ. Not sure, I looked at Beasley Murray's book on baptism in the NT but it only just seems like baptismal regeneration, which isnt what I was told by my evangelical friends.

Should I just be a Lutheran? Am I missing something here?

bd15e8  No.2179

It's better than being a Baptist

0909a7  No.2202

f1dadf  No.2204


No, because I find no sense of the existential in it.

715834  No.2206

Is your decision centered around the baptism debate?

How is the usual baptistic evangelical position not aligned with the picture of baptism as being buried with Christ?

f1dadf  No.2209


Evangelicals say that it is only symbolic. But the standard book on the subject says it is much more than that. There is real participation in Christ's death in Baptism, not symbol.

Baptism is not my sole reason for going away from non denom and American styled Evangelical. It's the lack of liturgy and pelagian doctrine of assurance too.

eff41e  No.2211


Are you sure you're understanding the book right? Murray was as baptist as they come.

Where does it indicate baptismal regeneration?

f1dadf  No.2214


It doesnt seem that way to me because his explanation defies the usual talking point of baptism as a sign or some sort of pledge taken after one is saved.

When he discusses Romans 6, Beasley Murray says that the believer is set alongside Christ in his grave and attacks the typical evangelical "anti sacramentalist" understanding. He also cites a scholar that argues that being baptized into Christ's death in Romans is no analogy too. So unless somehow I am missing something here, he seems close to baptismal regeneration.

eff41e  No.2216


what page are you looking at

f1dadf  No.2217


Pages 133-136.

eff41e  No.2218

File: b9ead8672158516⋯.png (95.21 KB, 799x419, 799:419, baptism.png)


This is my page 133, but we might have different editions.

He seems to be using "symbolism" and "a sort of", this is an entirely baptist presentation.

bd15e8  No.2219


The description of baptismal symbolism is preceeded by quite a lengthy note about baptism as participation in Christ's death, as Beasley Murray writes right before:

>As pointed out above, 'We were buried with Him' indicates that the action of baptism primarily means, not that the baptistry becomes our grave, but that we are laidin the grave of Christ. To be buried along with Christ in a Jerusalem grave c. A.D. 30 means unequivocally that the death we died is thedeath He died on Golgotha.

Right after describing the symbology of the baptismal action, at the end of page 134 and beginning of page 135, Beasley Murray says:

It will be seen that all these verbs denote the unity between the baptized believer and the person of Christ Himself in His redemptive action and do not envisage the possibility of a middle term between. For this reason it is illegitimate to regard6fj.oiwfuiTt as a dative of instrument and interpret it as a synonym for baptism: 'We have become united with Him by the likeness of His death', taking baptism as an image of the death of Christ; rather it would seem that Paul speaks of our being involved directly with Christ in His death and resurrection through baptism.

The footnote on page 135 is clear on the real presence of Christ's death in baptism though in a "sacramental manner".

c19318  No.2220


How is that quotation not also figurative language? You're not literally dying and literally going back in time

f1dadf  No.2221


Because on page 130, Beasley Murray critiques the view that sees baptism as merely symbolic. For instance, right after critiquing that view, he then says:

>This writer howeverhas overlooked the significance of the fact, not unperceived by him,that Paul did not write, 'We were buried through baptism into death', but 'We were buried with him through baptism . . .'. Paul's first thought in this passage (and he has others!) is not that the believer inhis baptism is laid in his own grave, but that through that action he is set alongside Christ Jesus in His; in baptism he is reckoned as occupy-ing that grave as he was not before, just as an effective relationship with the Lord on the cross is assumed which did not exist before. Further the very real connection between baptism and the believer'srelationship to the redemptive acts of Christ is seen in the consistent use of the aorist tenses throughout the passage Rom. 6.1-11

Like if he is trying to just be figurative about baptism and what it does, why does he keep emphasizing this a lot?

0909a7  No.2223


What do you mean?


In the Reformed understanding, the statement that in baptism we are buried with Christ does not refer to the mode of baptism but to its function, namely to further our union with Christ. Baptism can be more than a mere sign without being a magical cause of all faith and blessings.

17f64a  No.2229


Compared to Luther, Calvinism just doesnt have the sense of depth and passion. It's also bad at assurance.

I read about how Reformed view baptism mostly from Calvin and it is close to the evangelical view. Most of the symbolism are just analogies and Reformed dont really see baptism as the location of justification either. There's ingrafting sure but that's the closest he gets. Beasley Murray also poses a problem because a key part of Calvin's critique of Catholic mass relies on a denial of ananmesis, so much that even saying the eucharist is where the sacrifice is applied is sophism to him. Beasley Murray's baptism in the NT requires that logic to work, which Calvin denies.

1b797b  No.2230


Using a figurative term several times doesn't make it less figurative. Where are you finding that he's not taking the Baptist position? He was a professing Baptist, taught at southern seminary, was principal of spurgeon college.

Are you also sure we're talking about the water baptism, and not the baptism of the spirit?

17f64a  No.2233


He is clearly more than just figurative. Even if he is a Baptist, that doesnt change what he wrote. Can you provide me with evidence the standard evangelical view is what he has in mind? I can provide more than just the critique of the analogy position and the few statements I quoted

2a0f0c  No.2236

File: 8a676fc3e89224f⋯.png (35.48 KB, 884x203, 884:203, baptism abstract.png)


sure, he affirmed the abstract of principles as a requirement of teaching at southern seminary. This is what it says.

17f64a  No.2241


That agreement doesnt take away from what he wrote in his book because he clearly goes beyond what it says. A lot more beyond I have to add. He has plenty of space to say baptism is just a symbol, especially when he mention participation in Christ or being buried alongside him. But throughout the book, he doesnt do that. It's more or less something close to baptismal regeneration and the Church of Christ view.

17f64a  No.2242

Here's from page 151 to show another example of the many instance of baptism going beyond a public profession or a sign,

>It would be equally permissible to affirm, 'The grace that is for faith is experienced in baptism'. Baptism is the baptism of faith and grace, so that in it faith receives what graces gives. Above all grace gives Christ,for Christ is the fullness of grace; faith therefore receives Christ in baptism. If Paul were pressed to define the relationship of the two statements in w. 26-27, I cannot see how he could preserve the force of both sentences apart from affirming that baptism is the moment of faith in which the adoption is realized — in the dual sense of effectedby God and grasped by man — which is the same as saying that in baptism faith receives the Christ in whom the adoption is effected.

eff41e  No.2254


That's interesting, you might be right that he's deviating from the abstract of principles. This was a time before the "conservative resurgence" to restore commitment to the absract.

Could it be that he means the baptism of the spirit here? I don't think thats it.

Is he making the connection that professors are immediately taken to the baptismal waters?

He's still saying that faith precedes baptism by the statement "faith therefore receives Christ in baptism", so this is seemingly a church of christ style baptismal regeneration like you said.

afd1e2  No.2325

Go for it. Non cucked Lutherans are the best Protestants

48355d  No.2340


Thanks for posting this resource. This is why I love reformed teachings; they are dialectical and clear.

c88755  No.2344


Just make sure you get confirmed and go through the classes. Its very important.

c2c7ed  No.2370


If you're curious about Lutheranism, a good place to start is by studying Martin Luther, and checking out his Catechism.

0307aa  No.3195


Confessional lutheranism can be pretty based. Read the Augsburg Confessions

cdd385  No.3212


Sorry, but I do not believe that the thoughts of Martin Luther are the basis of contemporary Lutheranism. They seem confused in deciding between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Change my mind.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / baaa / chemo / choroy / dempart / girltalk / s / socpl / turul ]