Subject: Baptized |
Bible Note: G. Preston, The problem is that you are not actually defending your view. This simple fact is that historical Christianity takes the stance that you are misreading the passages that you are simply listing in passing. Now you suggest that agreed upon historical interpretation of the church can and has been wrong. Fair enough. That is entirely possible. However, when the vast majority of Christianity throughout history says that you are wrong in how you are reading those passages, the burden of proof is on YOU to unpack those passages and show us how they do in fact support your thesis. Being dismissive and acting as if you ought not have to defend your notion in such detail gives the impression that you are both unable to defend your position from scripture and also that you are unaware of how historical Christianity has interpreted this issue. This is not to mention that you are coming across as a bit haughty and unwilling to take the time and explain things to those not gifted with the insight you are apparently privy to. Summary, when you go against the history of Christianity on a doctrine, its possible that you are right, but the burden is on you to give a very detailed exposition of passages to SHOW that you are right. You don't get to dismissively throw out some references and act like all interpretors of scripture through out history are stupid. Well...you can do that but it only makes people not take you seriously. I say all this hoping it will prompt us to discussion of particular passages as this forum was meant for. You are correct that scripture contrary to your opinion has not been strongly supplied yet, though some has. I would put forward two places in scripture for starters. Romans chapter four where Paul excessively stresses that Abraham was saved by faith at the moment of faith without any external ritual such as circumcision. Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, Rom 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. Now, two remarkable things are here relevant to the question. First, Paul stresses that he was justified by faith at the moment of faith with no other ritual aid. Second, he asserts this was written as a pattern for all who would follow after him by faith. So it seems clear to me, that Paul is arguing that we are saved by and at the moment of faith and not after the aid of any ritual. The second passage is ofcourse the theif on the cross where Christ himself assures us that the theif would be in heaven with no baptism. A simple yet powerful display that baptism does not save us. Ofcourse the passages you listed need to be discussed but this post is already too long and I'd rather let you show a willingness to discuss passages prior to putting in the effort of tackling them. In Christ, Beja |