Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 69 of 163 (558388)
05-01-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Dawn Bertot
04-30-2010 5:55 PM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Hi EMA,
you can't take Marc 16:16 ans say Baptism is required for salvation, doing so would be Denyin the antecendent (a logical fallacy)
Here is why:
The verse says :
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
So the first part is formed like a p implies q:
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved. ( p -- q)
Now denying P does not negate Q. So you cannot say
If you are believed and baptized then you will be saved.
You are not baptized,
therefore you are not saved
To see how this is fallacious, we just have to take another more obvious example:
If you are a human, then you are mortal
A deer is not a human,
therefore, a deer is not mortal.
Now this is the very same fallacious logical procedure (denying the antecedent). Therefore it is a wrong usage of this passage to want to make it say baptism is required for salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Dawn Bertot, posted 04-30-2010 5:55 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 2:58 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 9:04 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 82 of 163 (558610)
05-03-2010 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dawn Bertot
05-01-2010 2:58 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
this is human reasoning trying to explain biblical concepts, in this instance faith and belief. Human logic does not work here.
This is Kantian philosophy that has gotten even amongst the mind-thinking of many christians. You are separating Faith and Reason, when in fact God asks us to love him with all of our mind as well as everything else. But by doign this you are giving reason to the humanistic worldview on religion.
Logic is logic, it is a God given capacity of humans to think and reason to arrive at the correct conclusions.
You would be correct if baptism were seperate from belief, it is not. It is an action of active faith and a requirement of God himself, not me
Again Belief is what is required, it just so happens that Baptism is just another expression of belief. without an active faith, in this instance Baptism, condemnation is the result
In short you cannot BELIEVE God without being baptized, because Baptism is what he requires as a part of Belief in this instance. They are inseprable, therefore immutable
EAM
Then dare explain, what happened to the criminal, who did not get baptized, yet was saved by pure grace only because God opened his eyes and he believed.
There are many acts who are actions of faith: praise is an example. Yet you do not consider them to be necessary for salvation. If you are consistent, neither should you consider baptism to be any different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-01-2010 2:58 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by anglagard, posted 05-03-2010 3:19 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2010 1:40 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 83 of 163 (558611)
05-03-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by jaywill
05-01-2010 9:04 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
Yes, I just used it at the must basic level. But you are right there are two conditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jaywill, posted 05-01-2010 9:04 AM jaywill has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 98 of 163 (558986)
05-06-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Dawn Bertot
05-04-2010 1:40 AM


Re: FELLOWSHIP
I understnd what you are saying my simple friend. however, this is not a discussion on Faith and reason, it is a biblical discussion in a comparative religion thread on what constitutes fellowship. One can discuss what is involved in faith from a bilical perspective, without getting into a discussion about whether faith involves reason. I most certaily believe faith involves reason, but what faith is from a Biblical perspective can and is often differnt from that topic I wll be more than happ to disuss faith and reason at some other point. lets stay with one thing at a time
Ok I'll take another approach.
We have no hcoice but to use logic to analyse a biblical text. Even if we have no basis in logic, we will still be doing it uncounsciously. Now since we have no choice, the question then becomes are we using correct logic ? We must do everything in our capabilities to analyze a text the most truthfully possible, and this requires us to have correct logic and be able to avoid logical fallacies.
What I was saying is that Marc 16:16 cannot be used to prove that baptism is required for salavation, because doing so involves Denying the antecedent, a fallacy. This makes it a bad interpretation of the text.
What I'm trying to say, is that Marc 16-16 by it's logical structure is not conclusive enough to prove the statement ''baptism is required for salvation''.
With all due respect it is clear you are not paying attention. If you were you should have seen that I gave detailed discription and explanation to ICANT as to why the thief did not rquuire baptism. Please refer to that post
See next post
AbE I'll have to come back to this later.
Besides this. you write to jaywill, the above statement. If there are two conditions, what is your further contention????
Maybe I miss the correct terminology in english, but I used conditions in the sense that they are the two parts of a conditional statement ''if p&r, then q''. Not in the sense ''only if P&R, then Q'' which would be required for your affirmation to hold true.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-04-2010 1:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024