DAVEH: Or John, there is another perspective (which is held by most
LDS folks) that baptism is necessary for salvation, but without
believe, baptism is of no consequence. It is the combination of belief
AND baptism that is necessary for salvation. Lacking either is a big
problem.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A rather ridiculous bit of logic. If one does not believe, he
will not be baptized. Your "logic" cuts the word completely out of
the mouth of Jesus. I do not think water baptism saves anyone, by the
way. But that is what Jesus said. You can slice and dice all you
want.
JD
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:42:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is he?
He is those "Every creature" that hear the preaching.
As far as a proof text.
It is NOT a proof text for salvation by baptism as some declare,
but a prooftext of salvation by belief.
Since the one is is damned is the UNBELIEVER not the UNBaptised.
vs 16
Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: John,
thanks for responding. Jesus indeed spoke v. 16, but to whom was
Christ referring when he used "He"?
Any other TT'rs care to give thier insight to these questions? I know
this does not appear to raise any controversy, so hasn't generated much
interest, but where I am going with this may step on so many toes that
it
may become controversial. Of course, maybe everyone already understood
this
but me, and the Spirit was just bringing me up to speed!
The reason that I am asking is that quite late the other night I had a
stroke of insight into the meaning of v. 16 that was totally different
than
I previously understood. Did this come to me through the Spirit? Well,
I DO
pray often that the Spirit will give me insight into the Word of God,
and
that I will see and understand it correctly. I believe that is what
happened
to ch ange my understanding of this verse.
After coming to this new understanding, I gave it the "sleep on it"
test,
and it survived. upon re-reading the passage it still meant the same
thing
to me the next morning.
A lot of people may disagree with me because it refutes a major
proof-text used by many. (Not that their point may not be made
elsewhere,
but definitely not here in v. 16.) There is a secondary use of v 16-20
as
another prooftext that also will be refuted. This is very rich indeed.
I wanted to present this to my Christian peers on TT, to see what the
consensus is. I want to hear from as many as have the time to read and
give
their understanding, then I will present it as I now understand it. If
the
spirit has indeed lead me into truth it will be interesting.
Perry
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
