Tackling Tradition 82: Acts 19:1 - 7

Those who make much of New Testament baptism have been known to assert that one must be baptized in the name of Christ in order to have received the Holy Spirit.       Some go so far to say that one must be baptized in order to do so.   One of their major prooftexts is Acts 19: 1 - 7. 19 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2 and asked them, “Did you receive the Holy Spiritwhen you believed?” They answered, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?” “John’s baptism,” they replied. 4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophe...

The Principles Of Sound Reasoning

From a conversation I recently had on Instagram: 

Instead of accusing me of importing unbiblical or extrabiblical concepts into the text, try using the principles of sound reasoning & biblical hermeneutics— which the Bible itself underwrites & models for us.   Refrain from constructing an interpretive grid as if the reader must understand Genesis 1 & 2 & Mt. 19 to understand Leviticus 18 & Romans 1:18 - 32.   

Does the Bible allow us to reason from the (alleged) state of the created order?  No.  Why? Romans 1:20.    The image & attributes God alone are necessary, reasoned, & principled (thus a truly non-arbitrary epistemic warrant) for all faith (worship ethics/doctrine) & practice (moral, ethical, & philosophical reasoning). 

Does it allow us to commit Category Errors? No, God’s decretal will (What Is) & moral will (What Ought To Be) are separate (like His 3 Hypostases) yet perichoretic (like His hypostases), but they are not to be conflated with one another (like His 3 Hypostases). 

Does God allow us to reason in vicious circles?   No.   God’s image & authority (and its verbal, plenary expression) supply the necessary truth conditions to interpret reality.  The created order is insufficient & unnecessary.    Our bodies & minds are not required for ethics to exist — but God Himself is required. 

Does God engage in Special Pleading? No, His Law is part of who He is.   He judges us by our motives, not by appearances.  He plays by His own rules, which deny favoritism (James).    We rightly accuse gays who use their biogenetics/psyche to underwrite their sexual ethics of Is - Oughting, then we appeal to an embedded telelogical principle in the created order going back to Genesis for our sexual ethics & pat ourselves on the back.   In reality, we’re engaging in Special Pleading.  

The issue is the use of created order for ethical reasoning altogether — not merely the conclusions drawn from it.  

Importing all that Aristotelian Natural Theology into the text of Romans 1 commits Overspecification, & out of that these other fallacies follow.  The end result conduces the calling what God calls morally unnatural reasoning natural reasoning.  

The Bible models sound reasoning & the principles of biblical hermeneutics for us.  

God bless us all, each & every one, and “Go & sin no more.” 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

I Corinthians 6: 9 - 11