What Do Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60 Teach about Burial?

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1155 pm EDT / 855 pm PDT

 

[Deacon]

It’s about time to burn this thread and bury it.

Rob

 

[JonC]

It’s about time to burn this thread and bury it.

Rob

That way its spirit can move on to
"What Do Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60 Teach about Burial? Part 2"......right?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

you continue to misuse the word systematic theology. Ive already showed you the error of your use.

False. Millard Erickson's classic book on Systematic Theology says the following in the chapter on the Holy Spirit:

"Our final consideration arguing for the deity of the Holy Spirit is his association with the Father and the Son on a basis of apparent equality. One of the best-known evidences is the baptismal formula prescribed in the Great Commission: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)." (Erickson, 859)

This book is a classic book on systematic theology. As this quote shows, the notion that because Matt. 28:19 is "about" the Great Commission, it is not "about" the Holy Spirit is refuted. For the purposes of systematic theology, this verse is about both the Great Commission and the deity of the Holy Spirit.

I am sure that I could find such quotes from other standard systematic theology books as well.

You are the one who does not know what you are talking about. In systematic theology, truth that is taught about a subject in a passage that does not have that subject as its larger teaching or main point is nonetheless valid truth that must be accepted as true and accounted for when determining what the Bible teaches about that subject.

 

[JonC]

False. Millard Erickson's classic book on Systematic Theology says the following in the chapter on the Holy Spirit:

"Our final consideration arguing for the deity of the Holy Spirit is his association with the Father and the Son on a basis of apparent equality. One of the best-known evidences is the baptismal formula prescribed in the Great Commission: 'Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19)." (Erickson, 859)

This book is a classic book on systematic theology. As this quote shows, the notion that Matt. 28:19 is "about" the Great Commission means that it is not "about" the Holy Spirit is refuted. For the purposes of systematic theology, this verse is about both the Great Commission and the deity of the Holy Spirit.

I am sure that I could find such quotes from other standard systematic theology books as well.

You are the one who does not know what you are talking about. In systematic theology, truth that is taught about a subject in a passage that does not have that subject as its larger teaching or main point is nonetheless valid truth that must be accepted as true and accounted for when determining what the Bible teaches about that subject.

You are wrong on a few accounts.

While I like Erickson's Christian Theology it is not a classic.

More importantly, his argument is the formula referenced.

You do not, as evidenced by your posts, understand what Systematic Theology is, much less understand the interactions between Systematic Theology and other disciplines of Theology.

Where you are lacking is Biblical Theology (perhaps the most important basis of Systematic Theology). Skipping over proper hermeneutics and Biblical Theology you end up in error.

That is not to say Scripture approves of Cremation, but at the same time it does not denounce the practice.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

You are wrong on a few accounts.

While I like Erickson's Systematic Theology, it is not a classic.

More importantly, his argument is the formula referenced.

You do not, as evidenced by your posts, understand what Systematic Theology is, much less understand the interactions between Systematic Theology and other disciplines of Theology.

Where you are lacking is Biblical Theology (perhaps the most important basis of Systematic Theology).

My point is that using Matt. 28:19 to establish what is true about the Holy Spirit is fully legitimate and necessary even though the passage is not about the Holy Spirit. The false notions that you and others hold and assert are fully refuted. It is a standard practice in systematic theology to account for all truth about a subject in the Bible regardless of whether the passages in which that truth is found are "about" that subject or not.

 

[JonC]

My point is that using Matt. 28:19 to establish what is true about the Holy Spirit is fully legitimate and necessary even though the passage is not about the Holy Spirit. The false notions that you and others hold and assert are fully refuted. It is a standard practice in systematic theology to account for all truth about a subject in the Bible regardless of whether the passages in which that truth is found are "about" that subject or not.

But it isn't even close to the same. That is my point.

Look, I admire your interest in theology. Too many these days are not. But you cannot just pick up an idea and call it "systematic theology", because it is not.

There are many here who have studied theology, who have degrees in theology. That does not make them right, but it does mean they can share their knowledge on the discipline (the disagreements come in with hermeneutics).

I also do not care what you believe about cremation. It does not bother me at all. Many believe it is wrong.

It is the method you are using that I find troubling, not your conclusions.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

But it isn't even close to the same. That is my point.

Look, I admire your interest in theology. Too many these days are not. But you cannot just pick up an idea and call it "systematic theology", because it is not.

There are many here who have studied theology, who have degrees in theology. That does not make them right, but it does mean they can share their knowledge on the discipline (the disagreements come in with hermeneutics).

I also do not care what you believe about cremation. It does not bother me at all. Many believe it is wrong.

It is the method you are using that I find troubling, not your conclusions.

I just showed decisively that the very thing that you and many others assert is false. Truth that is found in a verse about a subject is valid truth about that subject that must be accounted for regardless of whether the passage is "about" that subject. You are wrong.

 

[Salty]

Millard Erickson
Millard Erickson - Wikipedia

on Systematic Theology :
Millard Erickson's Christian Theology Book Review

.

 

[JonC]

I just showed decisively that the very thing that you and many others assert is false. Truth that is found in a verse about a subject is valid truth about that subject that must be accounted for regardless of whether the passage is "about" that subject. You are wrong.

But you didn't. That is my point.

Some, like John Piper, believe burial is best because it honors the body. Others, like John MacArthur, believe cremation is permissible. Both recognize there is no biblical prohibition towards cremation.

Had you been able to use hermeneutics to make your case then you could have a point. But you can't. Where actual cremation is mentioned in Scripture the act itself is not condemned.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

But you didn't. That is my point.

Some, like John Piper, believe burial is best because it honors the body. Others, like John MacArthur, believe cremation is permissible. Both recognize there is no biblical prohibition towards cremation.

Had you been able to use hermeneutics to make your case then you could have a point. But you can't. Where actual cremation is mentioned in Scripture the act itself is not condemned.

I'm talking here about the false notions that you cannot use truth from a passage unless it is the main point of the passage or what the passage is supposedly "about." I'm not talking here about the discussion about cremation vs.burial.

 

[JonC]

I'm talking here about the false notions that you cannot use truth from a passage unless it is the main point of the passage or what the passage is supposedly "about." I'm not talking here about the discussion about cremation vs.burial.

There are principles. You have to examine how the immediate audience understood a word (burial in Matt is not about putting a body in a tomb, but about the Hebrew burial rituals). In the case of Matthew, you are incorrect (Jesus was not teaching at all on burial but addressing the disciples objection). That is where the primary teaching comes in - not allowing earthly concerns keep us from obedience. The secondary teaching is the immediate situation - the man should let the community he was called out of deal with the burial rituals of his father.

A good tool that may help you is Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays. Read that and then let's meet together on the forum to discuss the passage.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

There are principles. You have to examine how the immediate audience understood a word (burial in Matt is not about putting a body in a tomb, but about the Hebrew burial rituals). In the case of Matthew, you are incorrect (Jesus was not teaching at all on burial but addressing the disciples objection). That is where the primary teaching comes in - not allowing earthly concerns keep us from obedience. The secondary teaching is the immediate situation - the man should let the community he was called out of deal with the burial rituals of his father.

A good tool that may help you is Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hays. Read that and then let's meet together on the forum to discuss the passage.

Whatever. You have a hard time admitting that what you and others have been saying is wrong.

 

[JonC]

Whatever. You have a hard time admitting that what you and others have been saying is wrong.

Because it isn't. What you are doing has absolutely nothing to do with Bible study, certainly nothing to do with Systematic Theology.

Have you studied the theological disciplines?

 

[Deacon]

I may have an old copy of GGW.
If you’re interested I could send it to you.

Let me know and I’ll search for it.

Rob

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Because it isn't. What you are doing has absolutely nothing to do with Bible study.

Nonsense. Using truth from a passage that is not "about" a subject is perfectly legitimate and necessary when studying a subject. You are wrong in what you and others have said about that exegetical and theological principle.

 

[JonC]

Nonsense. Using truth from a passage that is not "about" a subject is perfectly legitimate and necessary when studying a subject. You are wrong in what you and others have said about that exegetical and theological principle.

It is not about burial.

As Christians we have to study God's Word with care. We can't just pick up the Bible as if it is a contemporary reference book.

If @Deacon can't find his copy of GGW I may have be able to find mine. I have not unpacked most of my books since moving here but should have a copy somewhere. If not, I am willing to buy one and have it sent to you.

Just let me know via PM. You have a good interest in Scripture and if I can help I am willing.

 

[JonC]

@Scripture More Accurately ,

You seem to think the offer funny. That's fine. If you want to study Scripture more accurately then I suggest at least finding a mentor in your church.


Here is some info on Duvall:

Scott Duvall (Ph.D., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Fuller Professor of New Testament at Ouachita Baptist University (Arkadelphia, Arkansas) where he teaches the NT Greek Exegesis, Life of Christ, Revelation, Spiritual Formation, and Interpreting the Bible. His works include Grasping God's Word, Living God's Word, Preaching God's Word, Dictionary of Biblical Prophecy, and Biblical Greek Exegesis.

Here is the book I was referencing:

https://www.amazon.com/Grasping-God...&dplnkId=e57b3910-d6e3-49ca-946d-40b00355afd2

 

[CalTech]

But you didn't. That is my point.

Some, like John Piper, believe burial is best because it honors the body. Others, like John MacArthur, believe cremation is permissible. Both recognize there is no biblical prohibition towards cremation.

Had you been able to use hermeneutics to make your case then you could have a point. But you can't. Where actual cremation is mentioned in Scripture the act itself is not condemned.

Greetings,

I would not read or care what John Piper has to say nor John MacArthur, since both have compromised the one True Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord bless you....
In His Love....

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1155 pm EDT / 855 pm PDT

This thread is closed

Please do not restart this thread for two weeks