Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 101887 | ||
Greetings AO! Didn't I cite the entire verse in all four instances? I looked back and it's all there! :-) You still never addressed my point about the verse in question. Doesn't salvation clease us from sin? Yet, Peter specifically says that baptism does not clease the filth of the flesh. What exactly did Peter mean by this qualification and why did he feel it necessary to include it? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Aspiring Overseer | 101902 | ||
Tim, Is not salvation the result of having been cleansed from sin? The result is the result, not the cause. The act of baptism is not to remove dirt, but to bury past sins and be born anew. It is symbolic of Christ's death and resurrection, but more importantly, the doorway to contact the blood. P. S. Peter most likely felt necessary to include this, because denominationists argued that this was a symbolic bodily washing akin to the traditions of the Jewish law and therefore meaningless. AO |
||||||