Blainer wrote: > 1 Corinthians 15:13-14&29-30 > 13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not > risen. > 14. And if Christ be not risen, then is your preaching vain, and your > faith is also vain. > > 29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead > rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? > 30. And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? > > Paul is talking about the resurrection here, and asking, to paraphrase > it, if there is no resurrection, then why do the Saints baptize for the > dead? This tells us that they did baptize for the dead,
OK... Blainer wrote: > since baptism is a necessary ordinance for salvation. Wait a minute! How did you make this gigantic leap? I could say exactly the same thing to the Egyptians building pyramids and creating mummies out of the corpses. "Why do you mummify your dead and bury them with all that wealth if the dead rise not?" The question does not in any way suggest that said baptism was "a necessary ordinance for salvation." It simply indicates that they know deep down within their heart that there is a resurrection yet to come or they would not do these kinds of things. Blainer wrote: > A simple principle of the gospel, yet many STUMBLE > over it. If you are not baptized, you are of the world, > and have no part in the kingdom of God. You are a > "wannbe" Christian, an outsider looking in. A simple principle of the gospel is that the flesh profits nothing. Jesus said to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and some people thought he was talking about them not having brought bread with them. You are doing the same thing here. Peter makes it very clear that baptism saves us, NOT BY THE PUTTING AWAY OF THE FILTH OF THE FLESH, BUT BY THE ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE TOWARD GOD. Yet so many stumble over the meaning here of "the answer of a good conscience toward God" and how that relates to the work of baptism. If you don't believe, you are of the world and have no part in the kingdom of God. Just contrast Cornelius and Simon Magus. Cornelius was not baptized and received the Holy Spirit. Simon was baptized, but was rebuked by Peter as being in danger of eternal damnation. Cornelius was received into fellowship and then baptized, but Simon was pushed away from fellowship although he had already been baptized. What was the difference in the two men? Cornelius believed and had the answer of a good conscience toward God, hence he received the Holy Spirit, Christian fellowship, and lastly baptism. Simon was wicked in his heart and therefore baptism could not save him. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
