Internet Baptism?
Maybe they will consider a more thorough treatment …They already have, including the books “9 Marks of a Healthy Church,” “The Deliberate Church,” and “Polity” as well as others. In addition, just recently, their 9 Marks journal addressed multi-site churches/video venues all of which would apply to the internet church I would think.
[Larry] You can help further by actually explaining what your objections are. To say it is “ontological not theological” is not an explanation. It is an assertion. You need to explain how it is ontological and how it omits theology. You need to explain why arguments from the nature of the church, the nature of baptism, and baptism as an ordinance of the church are anything but theological.I did explain and gave an example and as you stated, the best one can ascertain is that they writers wrote with assumptions which are not not actual arguments, rather contexts.
[Larry] Perhaps I am obtuse, but I am rather inclined to think that you have not offered an argument.That’s fine, no offense taken, we simply disagree.
[Larry] So I cautiously say that I think you are the one not reading carefully.That is fine, you are certainly free to your views though it does appear someone else has affirmed that my read does not seem to be illegitimate.
[Larry] Perhaps you are not familiar with Baptist polity and theology. I suppose that would make it more understandable why there might be confusion about the type of arguments that were made here. So perhaps they and I are wrong to assume familiarity with the theological principles appealed to in the articles.I am very familiar with Baptist polity and theology so that isn’t an issue. Another poster make the speculation that the “blog” readers would more than likely familiar with certain assumptions, so there is no necessary error in that. However, it reinforces the weakness in that even Baptist polity and theology DO NOT address this phenomenon, hence a revisit and appropriate prescription of the relevant theology for a solid address is necessary. Again though, we both recognize it is a blog response and not a treatise and I accept such limits. However I still assert it is a priori[/ in nature and ontological but that doesn’t mean a direct theological response can’t be given by 9 Marks. I am sure it is in their capacity by no stretch to devote more than one lengthy treatise to the matter and I am certainly not doubting their ability to do so, rather commenting on the deficiency of the responses, though brief, I still believe were minus the best, most elementary points.
[Larry]So they address this specific phenomenon? If so do you have any effective quotes handy? I don’t expect one has every book mentioned in every discussion handy but if you or anyone else does I would enjoy reading it since their theological development usually is respectable in the least and excellent at times.Maybe they will consider a more thorough treatment …They already have, including the books “9 Marks of a Healthy Church,” “The Deliberate Church,” and “Polity” as well as others. In addition, just recently, their 9 Marks journal addressed multi-site churches/video venues all of which would apply to the internet church I would think.
Discussion