Re: [TruthTalk] Baptism 4 dead?

[Dave Hansen]

DavidM wrote: regards to baptism being necessary for salvation, you continually ignore the fact that Cornelius and his household received the salvation experience For example, in 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:  Why do you conclude they were saved by that event?  How do you define salvation?   Do you understand it to be the moment that the HG enters one's body?  IF so, do you have a passage to support that theory? 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. DAVEH:  Mk 16:16........ He that believeth AND is baptized SHALL be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. .........As I remember, you previously concluded that baptism is not essential to salvation because those who believe not will not be saved.  Yet the passage ties the two factors together (with AND).  The passage does not say........ He that believeth SHALL be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. ...........Many Christians mistakenly assume that due to a lack of baptism is not mentioned in the second half of the passage, they assume that only faith is a necessary component of salvation, and baptism is not.  That is simply bad logic.     Note also the use of shall....which indicates a future action, does it not?     FWIW....I remember our discussion of vs 16 some years ago included one of the few times I've quoted a BoM passage (at your request, as I remember) as evidence in support of what Mark said (AND is baptized), yet not accepted by a majority of Christians. I think I have answered all your objections. DAVEH:  At times I find some of the answers to be illogical, as in the example above of vs 16.  But....I do appreciate your answers, though I may continue to respectfully disagree with your conclusions. 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:  I could be wrong, but I thought we discussed this long ago.  I don't see why you would think this account would indicate Cornelius' household was saved.  But then I don't know how you define salvation. 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)? DAVEH:  LDS theology allows for the HG to influence many people, without salvation being immediately apparent.  For instance....Do you believe salvation existed before Jesus died?  (If so...then why was Christ's death necessary?)  If salvation did not happen prior to that time, then would you suggest that Mary was saved because the HG came upon her?  (Lk 1:35) I suspect you might define salvation as the resurrection of the body, but maybe you will surprise me. DAVEH:  ???   I am surprised you would say that, DavidM.  How many times have I posted that I believe salvation is composed of two factors.....     First, our resurrection is a form of salvation.  Prior to the Lord making it possible for all to be resurrected, all were doomed to a spirit world existence without the ability to gain a physical resurrected body.  Jesus' resurrection bridged that chasm for us.     Second, even with a physically resurrected body, full salvation does not occur until after the Judgment, and we are allowed to enter heaven.  Do you not remember me saying to effect that I believe the ultimate salvation is entry into heaven to be in the presence of God?     I do not remember you disagreeing with me on that, but I did have much of that discussion with Glenn who believe salvation was a past, present and future affair.  As I remember, I explained that past salvation was akin to Isaiah saying that Jesus was born, even though it was to be a future event.  IOW, there was a promise of salvation ever since the foundation of the world because Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.