[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #580
b-greek-digest Saturday, 18 February 1995 Volume 01 : Number 580
In this issue:
re: Lk 1.1-4
subscribe
Baptized in the Spirit
Re: Baptized in the Spirit
books
Re: books
Re: books
Baptized in the Spirit
Re: Baptized in the Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 09:09:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re: Lk 1.1-4
On Thu, 16 Feb 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> As to whether/what written accounts Luke may have drawn on, I would
> just like to point out that his wording, while likely suggesting
> written sources, does not require that the sources be written. It could
> mean merely that Luke knows of others who have that intent, a possibility
> mentioned, but not defended by Nolland,
While Kenneth has a point here, EPECEIRHSAN ANATAXASQAI DIHTHSIN means
(extremely literally) "put their hand to the task to compile a
narrative", which leaves the possibility open that they did not complete
the task, I should point out that IMNSHO Luke's wording in verse three
tilts the scale against this interpretation. He says "It seemed good to
me also. . . *to write*" (EDOXE KAMOI. . . GRAYAI, emphasis added).
Besides, what would it mean to "attempt to compile a narrative" if not at
least to compile part of that narrative?
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: thompson@bible.acu.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 10:27:40 CST
Subject: subscribe
subscribe b-greek
------------------------------
From: BROWNFIELD/MARTIN <mpbrownf@fedex.com>
Date: Fri 17 Feb 1995 10:58 CT
Subject: Baptized in the Spirit
> According to BROWNFIELD/MARTIN:
> >
> > Unlike some, I do not believe that being baptized in the Spirit
> > precludes being baptized in water.
> >
> If I am understanding your last sentence correctly, is this not the
> very thing demonstrated at the home of Cornelius? I.e. they received
> the Holy Spirit (as Peter and the others) before they were baptized
> in water.
>
> Pastor John (pj)
Luke closely identifies reception of the Spirit with baptism. Accompanying
signs of that reception, particularly speaking of tongues or some other
visible manifestation, are mentioned in unusual circumstances, and are
mentioned only along with the presence of an apostle (including Paul in Acts
19:1ff.). Hence although the Samaritans believed and were baptized, Peter and
John had to come up and lay their hands on them so that the reception of the
Spirit might be made manifest. God conclusively shows that the Samaritan
believers are accepted. The next step would be Gentile believers; the visible
manifestation of the Spirit was required even for Peter to be convinced that
Gentiles could be accepted without circumcision. In this case, Peter would
have been unwilling to even baptize them to begin with without the Spirit
falling on them. When Luke speaks of the Spirit "coming on" or "falling on"
someone, it is always accompanied by a visible manifestation of that event.
This was true in OT accounts of the Spirit coming on Samson, or Saul, for
example. One does not have to have the Spirit fall on him in order to be
baptized in the Spirit.
Having said all that (I am not blessed with the gift of brevity), let me make
a quick case that Christian baptism is, in fact, baptism in the Spirit.
Clearly the Christian dispensation (if I may use that term) is one
characterized by the Spirit. (Numerous references can be cited; let me refer
you to John 7:39.) All 4 gospels record John the Baptist's reference that the
one coming after him will baptize with the Spirit. Before his ascension,
Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem "for the gift my father
promised," and links that to being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). On
Pentecost, when the Spirit came upon those in the upper room, Peter claims
this was the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16ff.), and that this is Jesus
who has now ascended, received "the promised Holy Spirit" (the allusion back
to Acts 1:4 is deliberate), and "has poured out" this Spirit (Acts 2:33).
(Being "baptized" or "immersed" in the Spirit is describing the phenomenon
from our point of view, "pouring it out" describes it from God's point of
view). Finally, having made the point that being baptized in the Spirit is
both God's gift and his promise, Peter responds to their question of what they
should do with the command to be baptized and they will "receive the gift of
the Spirit", stating further that "the promise" extends beyond them to all
mankind. Note also that when Paul discovered (in Acts 19:1ff) that the
disciples of John knew nothing about the Sprit, he immediately asked them
about their baptism.
Most telling, to me, is 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul seems to make our baptism in
the Spirit a universal Christian experience. Manifestations such as
tongues-speaking are not universal, on the other hand.
Far be it from me to argue about semantics. If you define the baptism in the
Spirit to be the Spirit coming on people in a visible way, then I agree that
this is not identified with Christian baptism with water in Jesus' name.
Marty Brownfield
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 10:32:57 PST
Subject: Re: Baptized in the Spirit
On 2/17/95, Marty Brown wrote:
> > According to BROWNFIELD/MARTIN:
> > >
> > > Unlike some, I do not believe that being baptized in the Spirit
> > > precludes being baptized in water.
> > >
> > If I am understanding your last sentence correctly, is this not the
> > very thing demonstrated at the home of Cornelius? I.e. they received
> > the Holy Spirit (as Peter and the others) before they were baptized
> > in water.
> >
> > Pastor John (pj)
>
> Luke closely identifies reception of the Spirit with baptism. Accompanying
> signs of that reception, particularly speaking of tongues or some other
> visible manifestation, are mentioned in unusual circumstances, and are
> mentioned only along with the presence of an apostle (including Paul in Acts
> 19:1ff.). Hence although the Samaritans believed and were baptized, Peter and
> John had to come up and lay their hands on them so that the reception of the
> Spirit might be made manifest. God conclusively shows that the Samaritan
> believers are accepted. The next step would be Gentile believers; the visible
> manifestation of the Spirit was required even for Peter to be convinced that
> Gentiles could be accepted without circumcision. In this case, Peter would
> have been unwilling to even baptize them to begin with without the Spirit
> falling on them. When Luke speaks of the Spirit "coming on" or "falling on"
> someone, it is always accompanied by a visible manifestation of that event.
> This was true in OT accounts of the Spirit coming on Samson, or Saul, for
> example. One does not have to have the Spirit fall on him in order to be
> baptized in the Spirit.
>
> Having said all that (I am not blessed with the gift of brevity), let me make
> a quick case that Christian baptism is, in fact, baptism in the Spirit.
I'm afraid you lost me here. Above you made the case, I believe
correctly, that Luke distingushes between Christians being baptized in
water and receiving the Holy Spirit in the sense of an outpouring
accompanied by some visible manifestation (I would argue that it was not
always the same manifestation, to the consternation of the administration
of the AG liberal arts college I attended long ago). Then you suggest
that Christian baptism is being baptized by/in the Holy Spirit. I'm
afraid I don't see that in the text. Instead, I see the potential for
very different references intended by John, Luke and Paul when they
speak of being baptized with/in the Holy Spirit. I don't think that the
language had become fixed enough in the earliest decades of the Church
to make all usages apply to the same event, but I'd be interested in
what others think. I think there is a danger in seeing a term in one
context and automatically assuming that it is a technical term with the
same meaning elsewhere. Consider the apparent fluidity of the term
euanggelion in the NT.
> Clearly the Christian dispensation (if I may use that term) is one
> characterized by the Spirit. (Numerous references can be cited; let me refer
> you to John 7:39.) All 4 gospels record John the Baptist's reference that the
> one coming after him will baptize with the Spirit. Before his ascension,
> Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem "for the gift my father
> promised," and links that to being baptized in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). On
> Pentecost, when the Spirit came upon those in the upper room, Peter claims
> this was the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16ff.), and that this is Jesus
> who has now ascended, received "the promised Holy Spirit" (the allusion back
> to Acts 1:4 is deliberate), and "has poured out" this Spirit (Acts 2:33).
> (Being "baptized" or "immersed" in the Spirit is describing the phenomenon
> from our point of view, "pouring it out" describes it from God's point of
> view). Finally, having made the point that being baptized in the Spirit is
> both God's gift and his promise, Peter responds to their question of what they
> should do with the command to be baptized and they will "receive the gift of
> the Spirit", stating further that "the promise" extends beyond them to all
> mankind. Note also that when Paul discovered (in Acts 19:1ff) that the
> disciples of John knew nothing about the Sprit, he immediately asked them
> about their baptism.
>
> Most telling, to me, is 1 Cor. 12:13, where Paul seems to make our baptism in
> the Spirit a universal Christian experience. Manifestations such as
> tongues-speaking are not universal, on the other hand.
>
> Far be it from me to argue about semantics. If you define the baptism in the
> Spirit to be the Spirit coming on people in a visible way, then I agree that
> this is not identified with Christian baptism with water in Jesus' name.
>
> Marty Brownfield
Ken Litwak
Emervyille, CA
------------------------------
From: dgladden@velcome.iupui.edu
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:58:45 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: books
Does this list have a book on Biblical Greek that it recommends?
- ---------------------
David Gladden
11522 Green Street
Carmel, Indiana 46033
(317) 844-0418
dgladden@velcome.iupui.edu
working towards MLS (Master's of Library Science)
member: American Library Association
Association of Christian Librarians
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:49:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: books
On Fri, 17 Feb 1995 dgladden@velcome.iupui.edu wrote:
> Does this list have a book on Biblical Greek that it recommends?
What kind of book do you mean? Are you looking for a good beginning
grammar, a reference grammar, maybe a book covering current research?
Micheal W. Palmer
Mellon Research Fellow
Department of Linguistics
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
------------------------------
From: "James D. Ernest" <ernest@mv.mv.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:43:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: books
On Fri, 17 Feb 1995 dgladden@velcome.iupui.edu wrote:
> Does this list have a book on Biblical Greek that it recommends?
Are you looking for a primer? If so, look out for the flood waters
of suggestions that will soon drown you. Everybody and his or her
brother or sister has written one, and each has its devotees. The
old standard was Gresham Machen's, but the greedy publisher has
priced it right out of range. If your library has it, though....
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
James D. Ernest Department of Theology
Manchester, New Hampshire, USA Boston College
Internet: ernest@mv.mv.com Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 13:40:27 -0800
Subject: Baptized in the Spirit
Marty Brownfield wrote:
>. . . let me make a quick case that Christian baptism is, in
>fact, baptism in the Spirit . . .
But a question. In Acts 18:24-26 Apollos is said to know only
the baptism of John, yet just as surely he is described as one
who already speaks and teaches accurately the things about
the Lord (ta peri tou Kuriou). In Acts 19:1 twelve who know
only the baptism of John are called "disciples" (mathHtas) and
are said to already be in a state of "believing" (is this
reading of pisteusantes correct?) but had NOT yet received
the Holy Spirit. The question is: is not the language of
"disciples" and "believing" the language of reference to
what we think of as "Christians" in Acts? Or is "Christian"
a subset of a larger category of "believers", "disciples" and
"the way"? Is this a matter of different kinds of groups of
"disciples of the way" at that time?
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 16:03:49 CST
Subject: Re: Baptized in the Spirit
On Friday, Feb. 17, 1995, Marty Brownfield wrote:
>Having said all that (I am not blessed with the gift of brevity), let me make
>a quick case that Christian baptism is, in fact, baptism in the Spirit.
For a longer presentation of the same point of view, see my article:
Terry, Bruce. 1978. Baptized in One Spirit. In _Restoration Quarterly_ 21:4,
193-200.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #580
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu