From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DAVEH: ... There are quite a few Bible passages that reveal more than their obvious message. As do parables, many convey more than one message. And when looked at from an oblique angle, I believe much can be learned from looking beyond the explicit text. Yet when I point such out on TT, some view my comments as proof texting.
You have identified the practice correctly. Prooftexting.
If there were only one passage in support of such controversial interpretation of Scripture, the point might be easily dismissed. But when there are number of supporting passages that point to a logical conclusion contrary to popular thought, it seems to me that many TTers simply dismiss such assumed heretical thoughts by making excuses why the pertinent passages don't apply. Any time one looks beyond the apparent meaning of a verse, it seems there is an urgency to suppress any pondering of doctrinal theory that may contradict conventional thought.
I believe it was Luther that said, Where the Bible remains silent, so shall I. Good advice.
From my perspective, hard core Believers who narrow their focus in such a way tend to paint themselves into a corner. Hence they need to be extremely strict in their interpretation of many passages. By summarily rejecting underlying logical theology, could it be that much truth is avoided?
"Underlying logical theology"? What kind of logic is that? Logic is precise. It is based on stated premesis, and produces logical facts. What is this underlying logical theology? That is merely a term that allows you to make up anything you want and call it "logic". Now, that's a novel approach to Biblical interpretation. But, it does explain why you do not see the verses you use to describe mormon doctrine a prooftexts, and it adheres to the mormon "queen of hearts" approach to biblical interpretation..."Words mean exactly what I want them to mean!"
By adhereing strictly to the text of the Word, and interpreting it in light of itself, one avoids multitudes of pitfalls, into which other religious systems have fallen, e.g., Smithism.
Think about this. Any time a people have relied on a man for their religion, (interpretation AND especially revelation) they have been led astray. Armstrongism (WWCG). Millerism (SDA). Smithism (mormonism). Russellism (JW). All heretical. All far astray from the written Word. The bottom line: if it isn't in the Bible, or contradicts what IS in the Bible, it is not to be believed. Otherwise, one opens oneself to all kinds of evil and heretical doctrine. Remember? The faith was delivered once for all to the saints.
Like baptism for the dead. man-to-god. Secret names, grips, tokens, and penalties. Dave, have you ever given any of the freemason, I mean mormon death signs? Dragging you thumb across your throat, chest, or abdomen, indicating what you agree will be done to you if you reveal what you learned inside the temple? Isn't this what keeps you from telling anything about it (I know the pat mormon line "it is not secret, it is sacred"). Actually it is occultic. Jesus NEVER threatened anyone with death if they told a secret, because there were none. Everything he did was out in the open. No secret handshakes, passwords, death signs, etc. It is all masonic ritualism embedded by JS, a 33rd degree mason, into the mormon temple ceremonies. He sure duped a lot of people. I know a few.
Perry
David Miller wrote:
DAVEH:
Yes, I understand that many societies and religions believed in an afterlife. That's not the point that makes this discussion pertinent....but rather baptism.
Back up, Dave. Read the context of the passage. The resurrection is EXACTLY the point that makes this discussion pertinent. He is pointing to baptism for the dead as an indication that even they have knowledge of the resurrection. It is just like if I were to point to the pyramids that are all around them, and argue that such indicates a belief in the resurrection.
DaveH wrote:
How many other non Christian religions practice baptism would be a more interesting question to consider.
It is not more important than the context of the resurrection. You are straying from the text, isolating it, and discussing it away from the reason that Paul mentions it.
DaveH wrote:
So how do you weigh in on this, DavidM? Do you think those practicing baptism for the dead (1Cor 15:29) believed they were followers of Christ?
We have discussed this before. I don't know for sure, but Kevin's point that he referred to "they" instead of "we" is critical for understanding that Paul was not justifying their actions. He was only justifying their belief in the resurrection, not the superstitions they practiced around that belief. It seems very likely to me that these baptizers of the dead were not followers of Christ or Paul probably would have diverged enough to rebuke it. On the other hand, if there was no concern that the Corinthians would think he condoned their practice, he could just mention it as supportive of a belief in the resurrection and move on.
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.
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
---------- "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.
