Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 | ||||||