Re: Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

In article <1C5DEB9B-F328-DFD8-DC08-1F91DA3311B7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
checker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...

>On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:31:46 -0500 (CDT), Matthew Johnson
><matthew_member@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>In article <1386ED76-41E1-5716-7D5E-E31F23A5BC47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>checker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 says...

>>>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:15:53 -0500 (CDT), Bart Goddard
>>><goddardbe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>>>>checker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote in
>>>>news:000B6A15-52DE-2DD3-3418-7FDBA901C7A8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

>>>>> Since I HAVE NO "works-righteous" doctrine, the fact is that you
>>>>> are lying about me.  Do you not realize that lying is a sin?

>>>>1.  Denial of Baptism is work-righteousness.  

>>>I have never denied baptism.

>>That depends on what definition you follow for the word,
>>'baptism'. According to your rather limited definition, no, you have
>>not denied it. But according to Bart's, you have.

>How about the definition of the Bible?

What definition? There are very few definitions in the Bible.

>God's definition.  HE did not begin any infant baptism program
>anywhere in Scripture.

Sure, He did. Did you miss the verse about baptizing the _entire_
household of Cornelius? Surely there were children there.

>>[snip]

>>>>No, I like Jesus' words just fine.  Yours, OTOH, are quite
>>>>abrasive. 

>>>Abrasive is not unbiblical.  I find YOURS just as abrasive.  So what?

>>Ah, the perennial problem of this newsgroup! All the easy answers to
>>your question are not very good.

>You are welcome to your opinion, erroneous though it may be.  ;-)

That was an easy answer, therefore, not good;)

>>I think you are both being abrasive. And I do not expect that you
>>will consider that to be a good answer either;)

>I have no problem with it.  Jesus was abrasive when He called certain
>folks a "brood of vipers," and another "whitewashed sepulchers."

Actually, I think He was showing great restraint. More im****tantly, He
was MUCH more selective about who He was 'abrasive' with, and in what
_way_ He was 'abrasive'. I do not see you following the same
principles. In fact, nobody does, because you are not doing it.

>>>> I already gave an explanation of this: If I drive to Dallas, and
>>>>someone says "How did you get here?"  All of the following are
>>>>truthful and accurate answers: 1.  "By car".  2.  "By driving"
>>>>3. "By I-35."  It's fine with me to say "faith saves" provided one
>>>>has the correct grace-oriented understanding.  You do not.

>>>Nice analogy.  It doesn't work at all.

>>Sure it does, if you understand what it is meant to accomplish. He
>>was trying to explain to you how many different meanings are
>>included in the one word, 'by'. It appears to me that you do not yet
>>get the point. It even appears to me that you are avoiding the
>>point. But it is precisely such behavior that gets Bart _really_
>>upset, hence the "abrasive" words.

What? No reply? Does this mean you still don't get it?

[snip]

>If I stick a dollar bill in your pocket "just because," you "have" the
>dollar bill even though you have DONE nothing.  You have DONE nothing
>more than to receive it through no DOING of your own.

True. But it is doubtful that the same sense of the verb 'have' is
used in both "have the dollar bill in your pocket" and "have faith".

>>>something means I am "doing" something.  No, your theory sinks into
>>>the hole.

>>This is the weak point of his theory. Like a modern day physicist
>>who talks about energy of so many different forms being 'work', Bart
>>has latched onto a very wide sense of the word 'work', without
>>noticing that Scripture does NOT use it in such a sense. Not, at
>>least, in the relevant passages in Paul (primarily Romans and
>>Galatians), where 'work' is usually synonymous with "work OF THE
>>LAW".

>I agree.

That is good news.

>>>>> I HAVE (possess, it is within me) Faith because Jesus died and
>>>>> rose for me.  I didn't put that faith within me; Jesus did.  I
>>>>> don't keep it there; Jesus does.  Your theory falls in the
>>>>> toilet.

>>>>I'm not sure what your obsession is with the washroom, but 
>>>>that's really between you and your therapist.  

>>>No obsession with the washroom.  It is just better than saying it
>>>goes to hell.

>>Not sure why you believe it is better. But I have to sympathize with
>>Bart when he calls it an obsession. You really did resort to the
>>expression too strongly and too often. That IS the mark of
>>obsession.

>Naah.  It is just the useage of a good analogy.

No, it is neither. It is 'usage', not 'useage', and a bad use. And the
analogy is not good at all. Stubbornly insisting that it is will not
win any converts to your point of view.


-- 
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96) 


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a
moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org
for details about this group BEFORE you post. 
 )))