DAVEH: Oooops....my apologies, DavidM and other
TTers. I just sent this before I competed it.....sorry! I guess I
inadvertently hit SEND when I intended to click on SPELL CHECK. I am
too short on time now to finish it, but will try to get back to it
again next week.
Dave Hansen wrote:
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.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
