Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead?

[Dave Hansen]

David Miller wrote: DAVEH wrote: ... while the resurrection was the point of Paul's discussion... it was not the point of my posts on TT. I understand that, but when you ask what Paul meant DAVEH:   I didn't ask what Paul meant. and who these people were, DAVEH:  I did ask such.  Who do you think they were, DavidM?  Do you think they were trying to practice Christianity as they believed? it is important to consider why Paul brought up this point about a group of people who baptized for the dead. DaveH wrote: As I see it, many Christians today believe that baptism is not a necessary component of salvation.... I'm not sure you understand that this is a technicality. DAVEH:  Seems a big one to me..... In practice, most Christians practice baptism. DAVEH:  But how many view it as necessary to fulfill all righteousness? The Quakers are the only notable group who does not practice it at all. DaveH wrote: When a perfect man....their Lord....explained that his baptism was to fulfill all righteousness, I believe his followers understood they needed to wash away their sins by baptism to fulfill all righteousness as well. I practice baptism. I just baptized a woman last night at church who had been baptized as a Roman Catholic when she was a baby, but she never really followed the Lord before. Now she has come to saving faith in Christ. I read Acts 22:16 to the congregation, which says, "be baptized, and wash away your sins." I explained how baptism washes away sins, not in any power from the water itself, but when it is done in faith. Baptism is a vehicle whereby we express our faith. DAVEH:  Is that extra Biblical? I say all this to try and solidify in your mind that I do not take baptism lightly. I see it as important, and I see it as effectual in salvation and the washing away of sins. The question of whether or not it is NECESSARY is merely a technical question. DAVEH:  May I assume you do not view baptism as a covenant? My perspective is that although God chooses to use baptism as a vehicle for people to express their newfound faith in Christ, he is able to save without it if he so desires. God's saving power is not bound by baptism even though he generally uses baptism in the salvation experience. DaveH wrote: ... when looked at from an oblique angle, I believe much can be learned from looking beyond the explicit text. Fair enough, but if you begin to lift a text too far away from its context and begin to suggest things which were not the message being conveyed, that is when we have a problem. DaveH wrote: Yet when I point such out on TT, some view my comments as proof texting. It becomes proof-texting when you ignore the rest of the Bible in favor of one particular text that you think proves your case. DAVEH:  As I see it, there are other passages (viz Jn 3:5 & Mk 16:16) that suggest baptism is necessary for salvation.  As I've posted them, I've hear excuses that each passage does not apply because of some particular reason.  Yet together they seem pretty strong evidence, IMO.  So who is proof texting....the one who posts Bible passages, or the one who rationalizes each of them without wondering why so many point to a contrasting conclusion. For example, in regards to baptism being necessary for salvation, you continually ignore the fact that Cornelius and his household received the salvation experience DAVEH:   ???   Salvation experience?  What is that?  Please explain. BEFORE they were baptized. We have had this discussion before. DAVEH:  A long time ago.  And I still disagree with your conclusion.  Part of the difficulty is that you see salvation as only being in the future, so you do not understand how their receiving of the Holy Spirit indicates that they were redeemed (John 14:17 - the world cannot receive the Holy Spirit). DaveH wrote: 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 am not aware of even one verse that you can bring up that contradicts my perspective on baptism. If you think you have one, please bring it up. I think I have answered all your objections. In contrast, I have given you a passage which contradicts your viewpoint, and I have not heard any satisfactory explanation. This is the account of Cornelius' household receiving the Spirit. Which of us seems to be making excuses for not hearing the other? DaveH wrote: By summarily rejecting underlying logical theology, could it be that much truth is avoided? Certainly, but I think you are the one who has rejected the "underlying logical theology." :-) How about dealing with how Corelius' household could receive the Holy Spirit without being cleansed first by the blood of Christ (saved)? I suspect you might define salvation as the resurrection of the body, but maybe you will surprise me. 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.