tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post5838186928950200605..comments2024-03-26T00:19:08.753-07:00Comments on The World's Ruined: As many of you as have been baptized...Jack Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-75853799127583937792015-06-09T09:50:00.501-07:002015-06-09T09:50:00.501-07:00Mark, I don't understand your concern re: Gal....Mark, I don't understand your concern re: Gal. 3:27. You seem to be saying in a <i>literalist's way</i> that if a verse doesn't specifically say something or use a certain word then any valid inferences drawn from previously taught truths cannot be understood as applicable. <br /><br />Does Christ operate separately or unrelatedly from the Holy Spirit? Does God (the Father) operate independently from the Holy Spirit? If the Holy Spirit is not specifically mentioned in a verse concerning the work of God or Christ does that mean the Spirit is uninvolved, sitting off somewhere on the sidelines? A mystery - <br /><br />"but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."<br /><br />I know you're saying that you are rightly reading the verses as presented and I'm not, and yet I can't help but think your underlying objections have to do mainly with debunking what you understand as the Reformed doctrine of baptism (which I'm not sure you do get but I don't want to argue that). I think I understand your objections but maybe I'm missing something. I think a strict reading which allows 'baptism' to refer to water baptism only if the word water is present is an overly literal approach to Scripture. Now maybe that isn't how you're approaching it but that is how I hear your argument. And I would say that in many if not most cases 'baptism' is used as a synecdoche, the water signifying or pointing to God's saving work in Christ to those who believe.<br /><br />Let me say the physical act of water baptism in and of itself effects nothing. Yet God has attached to that ordinance his gospel in some real way, so much so that Peter can say to the Pentecost crowd whose hearts have been pricked with his message:<br /><br />"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."<br /><br />Baptism, Christ, the Holy Spirit...<br /><br />Peter is referring to water baptism. And yet the water doesn't save. Water doesn't give the Holy Spirit. Faith in Christ as presented in the gospel saves. Yet Peter doesn't say repent and believe (which he could have and does in other places), but he says 'repent and be baptized." Water baptism is linked closely to the promise of salvation in the gospel in some significant way or this passage doesn't make sense. Of course you could say Peter is talking about only a spiritual baptism, yet Luke writes a few verses later that the new converts were baptized which only makes sense as water-baptism pointing back to Peter's original call to repent and be baptized:<br /><br />"41 They then that received his word were baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three thousand souls."<br /><br />JackJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-87441004079489256032015-06-08T19:15:38.983-07:002015-06-08T19:15:38.983-07:00"union between sign and the thing signified&q..."union between sign and the thing signified" is not in the Galatians 3 text, or the Romans 6 or the I Peter 3. And even though the gift of the Holy Spirit shows up in Galatians, the specific verses are not at all talking about the Spirit putting us into Christ, or even about Christ giving the Spirit. Those God has baptized into Christ "have put on Christ like a garment". In Christ, in His death....Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-53469206720308397842015-06-07T14:35:05.013-07:002015-06-07T14:35:05.013-07:00SynecdocheSynecdocheJack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-43051333777050227442015-06-06T19:28:15.095-07:002015-06-06T19:28:15.095-07:00begs the question---is "baptism into the deat...begs the question---is "baptism into the death" the "external symbol"? If Galatians 3:27 is not talking about any "external symbol" (and this should not be assumed, for there is no need for us to claim continuity with some "catholic church" which we need to 'reform"), then there is no need at all to find any connection between 'external symbol" and God's agency in joining us to Christ's death and to Christ's body.<br /><br /><br />5 But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ like a garment. 28 There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.<br /><br />There is absolutely no reason to think that an "external symbol" has baptized us into Christ. And there is no reason to think that, now that faith has come, we are still in the same covenant that commanded circumcision. Instead of telling the Galatians that the "external symbol" of circumcision had been fulfilled (and also brought to an end) by another "external symbol", Paul in Galatians point to fulfillment in Christ's death, the external bloody satisfaction which has now happened (once for all time) in redemptive history.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.com