Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 59559 | ||
Romans 4_6: Please permit me swiftly, sharply, and decisively to correct you! You say, "I see that the Baptist standard is your guide and not the Word of God." You see nothing of the sort! Not in my user profile. Not in any of my posts. You are no more accurate in your observations of what my guide is than you are about what the Bible teaches about baptism! If you plan to continue to post on this forum, I strongly suggest you get your act together and your facts straight. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | kalos | 59560 | ||
Hank: It may be that when one makes a totally confused, off-the-wall, and outrageous assertion and that assertion is challenged, then the asserter, with absolutely no supporting evidence, can do nothing but launch an ad hominem attack against his challenger. In short, consider the source. kalos |
||||||
3 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | srbaegon | 59561 | ||
Hello kalos ...and Hank and Sir Pent and others who may have chimed in. It appears that Romans4_5 is teaching from an ultradispensational framework which requires a very strict and highly literal New Testament hermeneutic. So in that regard it is not totally outrageous, but it certainly is confusing. Steve |
||||||
4 | Do you have to be baptized to be saved? | 1 Pet 3:21 | Hank | 59575 | ||
Steve, I don't hold dispensationalism in a particularly high regard, for in my view it creates more problems than it solves. And if your theory is right, that Romans 4_5 is teaching from an ultradispensational platform, then we can see to what dire lengths this austerly literal interpretation can lead, if that's what it is, which I doubt, because I think it goes far beyond being merely a literal interpretation. The New Testament simply doesn't support such a teaching, literally, symbolically, figuratively or in any other manner. It's simply using the old trick of snatching a couple of verses out of context, disregarding all others, and coming up with a crack-pot doctrine. I rather think that this teaching is more the product of a lone-ranger type of thinking than of an organized body of believers, though I stand to be corrected. At all events, I would quibble with you mildly about hastening to scratch the word "outrageous" as not being a fitting adjective for this sort of teaching. I agree with Kalos on its being outrageous and with both of you on its being confusing. --Hank | ||||||