Phil Robertson's testimony (Duck Dynasty)

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Interesting reading:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf

The honorable theologian needs to simply read Mark 16:16, among many other verses that speak of salvation in the context of belief alone.[/quote]

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16

:-\

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Interesting reading:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf

The honorable theologian needs to simply read Mark 16:16, among many other verses that speak of salvation in the context of belief alone.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16

:-\
[/quote]

Yes, the second clause obviously emphasizes that belief is the critical component to salvation.  The addition of "is baptized" in the initial clause is indicative of the obedience that follows a change of nature in the person who comes to faith, not unlike James saying that faith without works is dead.  As your previous theologian alluded to, a person who became a Christian (by the regenerative truth of faith alone) would generally understood it unthinkable that a person would come to Christ and then refuse to follow him in obedience.


Oh, by the way, how was the cyanide cappucino this morning?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Interesting reading:

http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1998spring2.pdf

The honorable theologian needs to simply read Mark 16:16, among many other verses that speak of salvation in the context of belief alone.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16

:-\

Yes, the second clause obviously emphasizes that belief is the critical component to salvation.  The addition of "is baptized" in the initial clause is indicative of the obedience that follows a change of nature in the person who comes to faith, not unlike James saying that faith without works is dead.  As your previous theologian alluded to, a person who became a Christian (by the regenerative truth of faith alone) would generally understood it unthinkable that a person would come to Christ and then refuse to follow him in obedience.[/quote]

Ahh...so "and" doesn't mean "and". Strange way to read English...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]Oh, by the way, how was the cyanide cappucino this morning?[/quote]

Do huh?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Ahh...so "and" doesn't mean "and". Strange way to read English...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]Oh, by the way, how was the cyanide cappucino this morning?

Do huh?
[/quote]

In the same post that you responded to me about my "honorable theologian" remark I also had rebutted your reductionistic hermeneutic (said in a condescending manner as usual, when you were riffing off of Chuckbobs comments about "literalness") by asking you if you had picked up any snakes, drank any poison, or brought anybody back from the dead.  You are a plain and literal interpreter of straightforward english, aren't you?

 

[rsc2a]

Ahh...so "and" doesn't mean "and". Strange way to read English...


[quote author=ALAYMAN]Oh, by the way, how was the cyanide cappucino this morning?

Do huh?

In the same post that you responded to me about my "honorable theologian" remark I also had rebutted your reductionistic hermeneutic (said in a condescending manner as usual, when you were riffing off of Chuckbobs comments about "literalness") by asking you if you had picked up any snakes, drank any poison, or brought anybody back from the dead.  You are a plain and literal interpreter of straightforward english, aren't you?[/quote]

An interpreter of straightforward English? Sure.

Do I think the "plain sense" method of Scripture interpretation is the best hermeneutic approach to use? Not even a little bit. I would say something closer to the "authorial intent" approach is the best method.

You'll also see that in the book on preaching you are currently reading.

 

[ALAYMAN]

An interpreter of straightforward English? Sure.

Do I think the "plain sense" method of Scripture interpretation is the best hermeneutic approach to use? Not even a little bit. I would say something closer to the "authorial intent" approach is the best method.

You'll also see that in the book on preaching you are currently reading.

And you think the "authorial intent" taking into account the totality of what Scripture says about salvation, is that we need to be Baptized to be justified in God's sight???

Here's the rest of the passage in question...

Mar 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mar 16:17  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Mar 16:18  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
Mar 16:19  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

You want to smugly say that the "literal intent" of verse 16 demands that "and" requires baptism, but somehow I doubt you pay any attention at all to the "and" that links verse 17 with verse 16.  And I'm sure that Mr Robertson doesn't do any demon exorcism either.  Wonder why such inconsistency in hermeneutical applications for people that just "simply read the Bible literally"?

 

[4everfsu]

I would not be afraid to pick up snakes... after I shoot them.

 

[rsc2a]

An interpreter of straightforward English? Sure.

Do I think the "plain sense" method of Scripture interpretation is the best hermeneutic approach to use? Not even a little bit. I would say something closer to the "authorial intent" approach is the best method.

You'll also see that in the book on preaching you are currently reading.

And you think the "authorial intent" taking into account the totality of what Scripture says about salvation, is that we need to be Baptized to be justified in God's sight???

I think the authorial intent explains that we need Jesus to be justified in God's sight. Nothing else.

Scripture seems to mention many ways we can show this mechanically (as the article I posted alluded to). I think we have a habit of trying to separate a lot of things into either/or that would have never been understood as being separate to the original audience, be that baptism, confession, repentance or even faith and works, which is why James and Paul can use the same verse to say seemingly contradictory things.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Here's the rest of the passage in question...

Mar 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Mar 16:17  And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
Mar 16:18  they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
Mar 16:19  So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.

[/quote]

First thing, this is assuming the original passage wasn't a later addition...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]You want to smugly say that the "literal intent" of verse 16 demands that "and" requires salvation, but somehow I doubt you pay any attention at all to the "and" that links verse 17 with verse 16.  And I'm sure that Mr Robertson doesn't do any demon exorcism either. [/quote]

Second thing, who said I don't believe those things occur and/or have occurred historically?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Wonder why such inconsistency in hermeneutical applications for people that just "simply read the Bible literally"?[/quote]

Yes. I wonder the same thing. Thus the reason for my comment showing amusement at people who insist that it's the only correct way to read Scripture...at least as long as that method agrees with their own personal theology.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think the authorial intent explains that we need Jesus to be justified in God's sight. Nothing else.

Well, that is at odds with your CoC sympathies.

Scripture seems to mention many ways we can show this mechanically (as the article I posted alluded to).

We may be able to demonstrate outwardly the justification reality that has already occurred, which is what I said earlier in reference to James (and directly reference that to the idea that baptism here represents the extension of obedience post-conversion), but that's a far cry from saying that we are justified by our obedience, which is what the CoC folk teach. 

First thing, this is assuming the original passage wasn't a later addition...

Make up your mind.  If it is an additon to the orginal texts then the CoC folks are basing their soteriology on spurious texts, but you've defended them up to this point.  Seems a bit doubleminded to me, or obfuscation, take your pick.

Second thing, who said I don't believe those things occur and/or have occurred historically?

whoa, whoa, whoa there chief.  I don't see anything in the plain reading of the text that precludes you and me or the waterdogs from simple obedience to the straightforward reading of the text.  Why you goin' and make up all these rules that add to the plain meaning?

Yes. I wonder the same thing. Thus the reason for my comment showing amusement at people who insist that it's the only correct way to read Scripture...at least as long as that method agrees with their own personal theology.

Well, you can be amused til the cows come home at heresy, but if you were in any way concerned with your responsibility to mark those that cause divisions and teach false doctrine you'd not play devil's advocate games with such a heinous doctrine.

 

[rsc2a]

I think the authorial intent explains that we need Jesus to be justified in God's sight. Nothing else.

Well, that is at odds with your CoC sympathies.

I've been very consistent in saying what I believe. I'll also be the first one to say that saying a prayer doesn't save you, having the right belief system doesn't save you, attending the right church doesn't save you, doing the right thing doesn't save you, or choosing to "believe in Jesus" doesn't save you.

Jesus saves. Period.

If I have "CoC sympathies" because I am actually willing to listen to them instead of being convinced that I (or my church) has all the right answers, then color me sympathetic.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Scripture seems to mention many ways we can show this mechanically (as the article I posted alluded to).

We may be able to demonstrate outwardly the justification reality that has already occurred, which is what I said earlier in reference to James (and directly reference that to the idea that baptism here represents the extension of obedience post-conversion), but that's a far cry from saying that we are justified by our obedience, which is what the CoC folk teach. [/quote]

And (many) Baptists teach that we are justified by a prayer. What's your point?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

First thing, this is assuming the original passage wasn't a later addition...

Make up your mind.  If it is an additon to the orginal texts then the CoC folks are basing their soteriology on spurious texts, but you've defended them up to this point.  Seems a bit doubleminded to me, or obfuscation, take your pick.[/quote]

Would you rather I point to other texts that read the same way or just re-iterate that you are being selective in your proof texts based on your preconceptions?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Second thing, who said I don't believe those things occur and/or have occurred historically?

whoa, whoa, whoa there chief.  I don't see anything in the plain reading of the text that precludes you and me or the waterdogs from simple obedience to the straightforward reading of the text.  Why you goin' and make up all these rules that add to the plain meaning?[/quote]

When have I ever advocated for a "plain meaning" hermeneutic?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes. I wonder the same thing. Thus the reason for my comment showing amusement at people who insist that it's the only correct way to read Scripture...at least as long as that method agrees with their own personal theology.

Well, you can be amused til the cows come home at heresy, but if you were in any way concerned with your responsibility to mark those that cause divisions and teach false doctrine you'd not play devil's advocate games with such a heinous doctrine.
[/quote]

Strange critique coming from someone who denies the Church universal....

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've been very consistent in saying what I believe. I'll also be the first one to say that saying a prayer doesn't save you, having the right belief system doesn't save you, attending the right church doesn't save you, doing the right thing doesn't save you, or choosing to "believe in Jesus" doesn't save you.

Jesus saves. Period.

Simple question.  Does the content of the gospel matter?  Or could we arrange what we call the gospel in such a way so as to essentially say "just believe in the flying spaghetti monster"?

If I have "CoC sympathies" because I am actually willing to listen to them instead of being convinced that I (or my church) has all the right answers, then color me sympathetic.

Who said I wouldn't have conversation with them?  In that conversation, when they say that you must be baptized to receive salvation, what are you going to say?  Try not being so POMO, just get to the crux of the Bible and say what they need to know regarding justification.  What will that be?

And (many) Baptists teach that we are justified by a prayer. What's your point?

uhhhh, the point is that the thread is about people who aggessively and actively teach another gospel, namely, baptismal regeneration.  Marshall Applewhite taught you needed to take a happy trip and ride the Hale-Bopp Comet, but we're not gonna chase down every heretical teaching in one thread, are we?  How bout we try to stay on track and focus on the issue <baptismal regenration> at hand?

Would you rather I point to other texts that read the same way or just re-iterate that you are being selective in your proof texts based on your preconceptions?

I'd rather you show an ounce of integrity and quit acting like earlier in this thread that you didn't pretend that CoC folk hold to a literal hermeneutic, when actually they hold to an inconsistent interpetative scheme at best.

When have I ever advocated for a "plain meaning" hermeneutic?

Your coyness is so cute.  Earlier in the thread you smugly agreed with the premise Chuckbob made that the folk from his neck of the woods just plainly read the Bible, and in Mark 16:16 it says "and be baptized".  But when challenged on your equivocation, and why you don't advocate the CoC folk to plainly read the next sentence (linked by the same three letter word "and") you go to great extremes to backpeddal on your defense of their plain reading.

Strange critique coming from someone who denies the Church universal....

More obfuscation.  But hey, it's how you roll.

 

[ALAYMAN]

There very well may be young and impressionable believers who don't understand the magnitude of this discussion regarding faith alone in Christ alone for salvation, so if you are reading and think that it is much ado about nothing to single out the CoC folk for their insistence on baptism for salvation, please read the gross error in this typical CoC defense of their doctrine....

G. The Urgency of Baptism
In Bible examples, when people believed, repented, and understood baptism, they were always baptized on the same day or same hour, even in the middle of the night (Acts 2:41; 8:35-39; 16:25,33; 22:16). Instead, modern "faith only" churches usually tell candidates to wait for a baptismal service days or weeks in the future. Why don't they imitate the Biblical sense of urgency?

Clearly, they believe people are already saved before baptism, so they have no sense of urgency as in Bible cases. This further demonstrates how "faith only" doctrine conflicts with the Bible. Baptism in the Bible was urgent, because people are still in sin till they are baptized.

Salvation by faith includes baptism, just as it includes repentance and confession.

Conclusion
Please note the chart on the back of this booklet. It lists blessings that God's word says we receive when we are saved by faith. Then it shows that obedience to God's commands is necessary to receive these same blessings. This demonstrates again that saving faith includes obedience, particularly baptism. They go together, and cannot work apart from one another.

It is said that a man was once about to push a wheelbarrow across a tightrope over Niagara Falls. He asked the by-standers how many believed he could make it safely. Many raised their hands. Then he asked who believed enough to ride in the wheelbarrow! Do you trust God enough to obey Him, so He can carry you safely to salvation?

Salvation by "faith alone" is not the true gospel of Jesus. It is a perverted gospel of human invention (Galatians 1:8,9; 2 John 9-11; Matthew 15:9; Revelation 22:18,19).

What should you do if you were baptized believing you were saved before baptism or believing baptism is not necessary? You should do like the men in Acts 19:2-6, when they learned their baptism was not Scriptural. You should be baptized Scripturally. Then refuse to be part of any church that teaches the false doctrine of "faith only" (2 John 9-11; 2 Corinthians 6:17f; Ephesians 5:11).

http://www.gospelway.com/salvation/salvation_by_faith.php

Such teachings are warned about in the word of God, and those warnings call it "another gospel" which is really not the gospel at all, and that those folks are to be considered condemened.  I didn't say that, Paul said that in the book of Galatians.

 

[rsc2a]

I've been very consistent in saying what I believe. I'll also be the first one to say that saying a prayer doesn't save you, having the right belief system doesn't save you, attending the right church doesn't save you, doing the right thing doesn't save you, or choosing to "believe in Jesus" doesn't save you.

Jesus saves. Period.

Simple question.  Does the content of the gospel matter?  Or could we arrange what we call the gospel in such a way so as to essentially say "just believe in the flying spaghetti monster"?

Does the content of the gospel matter? Absolutely.

Second question: you seem to think we are saved by what we believe. That is wrong. We are saved by Jesus. If He chooses to save Pastafarians, that's His call.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

If I have "CoC sympathies" because I am actually willing to listen to them instead of being convinced that I (or my church) has all the right answers, then color me sympathetic.

Who said I wouldn't have conversation with them?  In that conversation, when they say that you must be baptized to receive salvation, what are you going to say?  Try not being so POMO, just get to the crux of the Bible and say what they need to know regarding justification.  What will that be?[/quote]

I'll tell them like I'm telling you. You don't do anything to receive salvation.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

And (many) Baptists teach that we are justified by a prayer. What's your point?

uhhhh, the point is that the thread is about people who aggessively and actively teach another gospel, namely, baptismal regeneration.  Marshall Applewhite taught you needed to take a happy trip and ride the Hale-Bopp Comet, but we're not gonna chase down every heretical teaching in one thread, are we?  How bout we try to stay on track and focus on the issue <baptismal regenration> at hand?[/quote]

Right. Because pointing out the hypocrisy of a group as they call out another group for also doing what the first group does is inappropriate.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Would you rather I point to other texts that read the same way or just re-iterate that you are being selective in your proof texts based on your preconceptions?

I'd rather you show an ounce of integrity and quit acting like earlier in this thread that you didn't pretend that CoC folk hold to a literal hermeneutic, when actually they hold to an inconsistent interpetative scheme at best.[/quote]

Why don't you show me where I've acted like they hold to a literal hermeneutic? I can show you where I've repeatedly stated that people are inconsistent in which interpretative method they hold to.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

When have I ever advocated for a "plain meaning" hermeneutic?

Your coyness is so cute.  Earlier in the thread you smugly agreed with the premise Chuckbob made that the folk from his neck of the woods just plainly read the Bible, and in Mark 16:16 it says "and be baptized".  But when challenged on your equivocation, and why you don't advocate the CoC folk to plainly read the next sentence (linked by the same three letter word "and") you go to great extremes to backpeddal on your defense of their plain reading.[/quote]

Ahh....so now you don't understand sarcasm and mockery. I got it.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Strange critique coming from someone who denies the Church universal....

More obfuscation.  But hey, it's how you roll.[/quote]

Someone who believes heresy calling out someone else for heresy. Then this person getting called out for the hypocrisy and calling it "obfuscation".  :

 

[ALAYMAN]

Does the content of the gospel matter? Absolutely.

Does the content of the gospel have any effect on whether a person hears and believes in the Christ?

Second question: you seem to think we are saved by what we believe.

Nope, I've never said that and don't believe that.  Christ saves, and He saves via the instrumentality of the gospel.

I'll tell them like I'm telling you. You don't do anything to receive salvation.

So nobody has to believe in order to receive salvation?

Right. Because pointing out the hypocrisy of a group as they call out another group for also doing what the first group does is inappropriate.

You can point out all the hypocrisy in the world as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe, nor have I ever stated, that I believe somebody has to pray a prayer to be saved.  So it's nothing but obfuscation, plain and simple.  Pointing out other soteriological errors does not in any way remove the fact that baptismal regeneration of the Robertson clan is heresy.  That's all I've said from the beginning, despite that you want to go on rabbit chases all the way to Calcutta at every turn.

Why don't you show me where I've acted like they hold to a literal hermeneutic? I can show you where I've repeatedly stated that people are inconsistent in which interpretative method they hold to.

I don't really care for your typical do-si-do.  The fact is that you could simply admit that baptismal regeneration is heresy, the Robertsons preach it, and this little two-step would be over, but you like to go round in circles too much to do that.  You'd rather talk about baptist shiboleths than stay on topic, which is repeatedly what you've done from the beginning.

Ahh....so now you don't understand sarcasm and mockery. I got it.

I understand plain talk, better than you apparently, and I understand that you want to coddle the waterdogs and dance with the baptists, even if it means chasin' your tail in circles.

Someone who believes heresy calling out someone else for heresy. Then this person getting called out for the hypocrisy and calling it "obfuscation".  :

You can point to all the squirrels in the world chief, but we're talkin' bout waterdogs.  Try to keep up.

 

[rsc2a]

Does the content of the gospel matter? Absolutely.

Does the content of the gospel have any effect on whether a person hears and believes in the Christ?

Can the Spirit use the gospel to grant someone a knowledge of God? Sure...He can also use a car crash, a sunset, bad (or even erroneous) preaching, and or a cult.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Second question: you seem to think we are saved by what we believe.

Nope, I've never said that and don't believe that.  Christ saves, and He saves via the instrumentality of the gospel.[/quote]

Again, Jesus saves. Period.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'll tell them like I'm telling you. You don't do anything to receive salvation.

So nobody has to believe in order to receive salvation?[/quote]

And you again repeat the same error. We are not saved by what we believe. We are saved by Jesus.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Right. Because pointing out the hypocrisy of a group as they call out another group for also doing what the first group does is inappropriate.

You can point out all the hypocrisy in the world as far as I'm concerned, but I don't believe, nor have I ever stated, that I believe somebody has to pray a prayer to be saved.  So it's nothing but obfuscation, plain and simple.  Pointing out other soteriological errors does not in any way remove the fact that baptismal regeneration of the Robertson clan is heresy.  That's all I've said from the beginning, despite that you want to go on rabbit chases all the way to Calcutta at every turn.[/quote]

Sure, it's heresy. Now engage the texts that discuss baptism "for the remission of sins" (and a bunch more passages) and talk about the place of baptism in salvation/justification/sanctification/.... in a way that shows where salvation is not dependent on baptism without completely ignoring (or completely re-writing) passages you don't like.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Why don't you show me where I've acted like they hold to a literal hermeneutic? I can show you where I've repeatedly stated that people are inconsistent in which interpretative method they hold to.

I don't really care for your typical do-si-do.  The fact is that you could simply admit that baptismal regeneration is heresy, the Robertsons preach it, and this little two-step would be over, but you like to go round in circles too much to do that.  You'd rather talk about baptist shiboleths than stay on topic, which is repeatedly what you've done from the beginning.[/quote]

So you accuse me of something then when I ask you to prove it, you back away. See false witness.

 

[lnf]

I was not raised in the church.  I attended church sporadically in my youth, by invitation of friends.  I attended many sorts of services -- Catholic, non-denominational, protestant, Southern Baptist.  I was a military brat.  Many services I attended were on base, so I might not understand all the correct denominations...but I considered myself as "protestant" for most of my life.  Somewhere in my sporadic hearing of the Gospel, I honestly believe I accepted Christ as my savior, even though no specific date comes to my memory.  But I knew I wasn't baptized (I would have hung my hat on infant baptism), which always troubled me, even during all the years I didn't attend any church  -- from the age of 16 until the age of 44.  At 44, I started attending a specific Baptist church for a specific purpose, not related to my own relationship with Christ...but that church felt like home.  And I was convicted.  One Sunday, about 6 months later, I literally ran down the aisle for baptism.  During that 6 months, I was taught that baptism was simply an act of obedience...but I remember coming home that Sunday and reading Revelation straight through...and waiting for Pastor to come talk to me so that I could be baptized the very next Sunday...praying that I wouldn't die before that day...oh, how I needed to be baptized...I had worried about it for all those years...

OK, Alayman and rsc2a, what do you make of my true story?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Can the Spirit use the gospel to grant someone a knowledge of God? Sure...He can also use a car crash, a sunset, bad (or even erroneous) preaching, and or a cult.

Well, if the Bible only taught that you'd be okay, but since the Bible don't teach that God uses the foolishness of sunsets, well, you're full poo-poo.

Again, Jesus saves. Period.

Yes, Jesus alone saves, and you being the good reformed <ahem  :> sort that you are undoubtedly knows that He has appointed means to do so.  Wonder what those means are, according to the Bible, God's word, not Rob Bell or some POMO.

And you again repeat the same error. We are not saved by what we believe. We are saved by Jesus.

So people can believe in Peter Pan, and Jesus saves them.  Got it.

Sure, it's heresy. Now engage the texts that discuss baptism "for the remission of sins" (and a bunch more passages) and talk about the place of baptism in salvation/justification/sanctification/.... in a way that shows where salvation is not dependent on baptism without completely ignoring (or completely re-writing) passages you don't like.

As usual, you fly off on tangents.  I addresses "for remission of sins" to Chuckbob in the very beginning of the thread.  The truth is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9 et al) which is widely attested to in a variety of NT Scriptures.  A rule of sound hermeneutics is that when a clear theme or doctrine is established then seemingly contradictory passages must be explained in such a way that they systematically cohere with the entirety of the clear teachings.  Anything that goes against such clear teachings is either error, or heresy.  It's really not difficult.

I don't really care for your typical do-si-do.  The fact is that you could simply admit that baptismal regeneration is heresy, the Robertsons preach it, and this little two-step would be over, but you like to go round in circles too much to do that.  You'd rather talk about baptist shiboleths than stay on topic, which is repeatedly what you've done from the beginning.

So you accuse me of something then when I ask you to prove it, you back away. See false witness.

You accuse Baxter of heresy, and me of being a liar.  Seriously, who cares?  Go back to Chuckbob's reply#35 and your followup response, or here, I'll show it for you....

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.


ChuckBob
But...but...but...

..."we" believe in a "literal" meaning, except in those cases where that meaning screws with our personal theology. Those other guys get it wrong because they don't believe in what the Bible plainly teaches, except those spots that they do where they are clearly wrong.

Chuck said they believed in a <strict> literal meaning, and you agreed with him, plain and simple.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I was not raised in the church.  I attended church sporadically in my youth, by invitation of friends.  I attended many sorts of services -- Catholic, non-denominational, protestant, Southern Baptist.  I was a military brat.  Many services I attended were on base, so I might not understand all the correct denominations...but I considered myself as "protestant" for most of my life.  Somewhere in my sporadic hearing of the Gospel, I honestly believe I accepted Christ as my savior, even though no specific date comes to my memory.  But I knew I wasn't baptized (I would have hung my hat on infant baptism), which always troubled me, even during all the years I didn't attend any church  -- from the age of 16 until the age of 44.  At 44, I started attending a specific Baptist church for a specific purpose, not related to my own relationship with Christ...but that church felt like home.  And I was convicted.  One Sunday, about 6 months later, I literally ran down the aisle for baptism.  During that 6 months, I was taught that baptism was simply an act of obedience...but I remember coming home that Sunday and reading Revelation straight through...and waiting for Pastor to come talk to me so that I could be baptized the very next Sunday...praying that I wouldn't die before that day...oh, how I needed to be baptized...I had worried about it for all those years...

OK, Alayman and rsc2a, what do you make of my true story?

I can relate to it.  I was saved as an adult in a nondenominational church.  I didn't want to immediately be baptized, all for carnal reasons.  I simply didn't want to follow the Lord completely.  A couple years of floundering passed by, where I outwardly followed the Lord very distantly, then I essentially abandoned church and any pursuit of obedience to Christ for nearly a decade.  When I was almost 30, due to personal crisis, I went back to church.  It was boring, but me and and Mrs ALAYMAN muddled through, until a new pastor came who preached the Bible in such a way that it came alive to me.  My apathetic spirit felt unchained, and in a matter of weeks I knew that I needed to be baptized.  All my disobedience was now glaringly shameful to me, not just my lack of baptism, but my selfishness with my money, time, and everthing that God had allowed me to have.  I began to grow, and the rest is history, as he is still working on me to conform me to his image.

So, short answer.  Those who are His will never be left alone, and the Holy Spirit works on them to finish the work He started.  Some come around quicker, some a little slower, but He always gets his man/woman.

 

[rsc2a]

Can the Spirit use the gospel to grant someone a knowledge of God? Sure...He can also use a car crash, a sunset, bad (or even erroneous) preaching, and or a cult.

Well, if the Bible only taught that you'd be okay, but since the Bible don't teach that God uses the foolishness of sunsets, well, you're full poo-poo.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

<whistles>

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Again, Jesus saves. Period.

Yes, Jesus alone saves, and you being the good reformed <ahem  :> sort that you are undoubtedly knows that He has appointed means to do so.  Wonder what those means are, according to the Bible, God's word, not Rob Bell or some POMO.

And you again repeat the same error. We are not saved by what we believe. We are saved by Jesus.

So people can believe in Peter Pan, and Jesus saves them.  Got it.[/quote]

I don't put limitations on the Creator of the Universe.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Sure, it's heresy. Now engage the texts that discuss baptism "for the remission of sins" (and a bunch more passages) and talk about the place of baptism in salvation/justification/sanctification/.... in a way that shows where salvation is not dependent on baptism without completely ignoring (or completely re-writing) passages you don't like.

As usual, you fly off on tangents.  I addresses "for remission of sins" to Chuckbob in the very beginning of the thread.[/quote]

Yes, you explained your view by changing a word (that appears in virtually all translations) to another phrase (that doesn't appear in any), in spite of the fact that the word is common to koine Greek and is consistently translated throughout Scripture. (Of course, you haven't touched other difficult passages because this is a lot harder to hide.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]The truth is that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9 et al) which is widely attested to in a variety of NT Scriptures.  A rule of sound hermeneutics is that when a clear theme or doctrine is established then seemingly contradictory passages must be explained in such a way that they systematically cohere with the entirety of the clear teachings.  Anything that goes against such clear teachings is either error, or heresy.  It's really not difficult.[/quote]

It's not difficult. The argument will be about what is "a clear theme or doctrine". Coc'ers will say one thing; Baptists will say another. I will say Jesus alone saves; you will say your belief about Jesus saves.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

So you accuse me of something then when I ask you to prove it, you back away. See false witness.

You accuse Baxter of heresy, and me of being a liar.  Seriously, who cares?  Go back to Chuckbob's reply#35 and your followup response, or here, I'll show it for you....

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.


ChuckBob
But...but...but...

..."we" believe in a "literal" meaning, except in those cases where that meaning screws with our personal theology. Those other guys get it wrong because they don't believe in what the Bible plainly teaches, except those spots that they do where they are clearly wrong.

Chuck said they believed in a <strict> literal meaning, and you agreed with him, plain and simple.[/quote]

So you point out where I mock the fundy "literal means literal except where I don't like it" version of hermeneutics (something that I am mocking both the CoC'ers and the more 'Baptist'-types for) as "holding to a literal hermeneutic" when I plainly state that "they hold to an inconsistent interpetative scheme at best"...

...and say I'm claiming CoC'ers hold to a strict interpretive hermeneutic...

when I am clearly doing the exact opposite and call that "proof"?

I guess if putting liquid water in a freezer to make ice is proof that removing heat from liquid water converts it to steam, then you might have a logical argument.

 

[ALAYMAN]

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

<whistles>

Seriously laughed out loud at your contortion.

Natural law or natural theology is not sufficient for salvation, but rather is sufficient unto damnation.  You knew that.  Or, well, at least I hope you knew that.

I don't put limitations on the Creator of the Universe.

ROFLOL! 

You spit on Biblical revelation with such sophistry, but nothing surprises me from your pretzel-like hermeneutics.

Yes, you explained your view by changing a word (that appears in virtually all translations) to another phrase (that doesn't appear in any), in spite of the fact that the word is common to koine Greek and is consistently translated throughout Scripture. (Of course, you haven't touched other difficult passages because this is a lot harder to hide.)

Whatever you say bub.  I could go through the arguments for how the preposition "eis" may mean because of, but you don't want to hear it because, well, I'm not sure why you don't want to hear it accept for the fact that you like to argue more than you do breathe.

It's not difficult. The argument will be about what is "a clear theme or doctrine". Coc'ers will say one thing; Baptists will say another. I will say Jesus alone saves; you will say your belief about Jesus saves.

To borrow a line from your playbook.....liar.

Yeah, but if you're going for a strict literal interpretation Phil's on the money. That's what it says. Not a thing about spiritual symbolism of water  and "for the remission of sins. This is just an area where a literal reading doesn't jibe with Baptiost dogma.


ChuckBob
But...but...but...

..."we" believe in a "literal" meaning, except in those cases where that meaning screws with our personal theology. Those other guys get it wrong because they don't believe in what the Bible plainly teaches, except those spots that they do where they are clearly wrong.

Chuck said they believed in a <strict> literal meaning, and you agreed with him, plain and simple.

So you point out where I mock the fundy "literal means literal except where I don't like it" version of hermeneutics (something that I am mocking both the CoC'ers and the more 'Baptist'-types for) as "holding to a literal hermeneutic" when I plainly state that "they hold to an inconsistent interpetative scheme at best"...

...and say I'm claiming CoC'ers hold to a strict interpretive hermeneutic...

when I am clearly doing the exact opposite and call that "proof"?

I guess if putting liquid water in a freezer to make ice is proof that removing heat from liquid water converts it to steam, then you might have a logical argument.
[/quote]

Chuck wasn't mocking, he was serious.  You quickly resorted to mocking, because, well, it's how you roll.