Unity & Diversity

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>I'm curious what specific Arminian influence you see in this interpretation.
>The opposing position, Calvinism, would seem to be far more compatible with
>this view. No one argues "grace alone by faith alone" more strongly than the
>Calvinists.


You are correct, of course.  I afriad this is an example of lack of
communication between my fingers and my brain.  I'm afraid my post was
somewhat of a rush job as evidenced by my rather poor choice of words (e.g.
"getting fed up with...").  In retrospect, it appears that this word choice
was offensive to some.  For this I offer my sincere apology as it was not
intended to be construed as such.

Of course, Calvin himself, as well as the other reformers, did indeed
uphold baptism as salvational.  Likewise, few contemporary Arminians would
agree that baptism is essential to salvation.  It is funny how things
change.  One thing is for sure--the concept that baptism is not essential
to salvation is decidedly novel.  Not a trace of this line of thinking can
be found until the post-refermation era.  As I have stated in the
past...doctrines characterized by  modernity are usually false.



>>The bottom line is we cannot assume that the objector(s) to the phrase
>>"full salvation" did not believe that baptism was essential.
>
>I'm assuming nothing of the kind. "Full salvation" was the broader
>terminology for the initial Christian experience, allowing enough latitude
>in interpretation to be acceptable to all. What was defeated was a motion to
>remove just the word "full." Removing the word would have created a more
>rigid statement pointedly declaring baptism essential to salvation.


Ok.  I see what you are saying here.  However...I don't see how being in
favor of leaving the word "full" in the questioned phrase necessitates
believing that baptism is not essential.  I think you have made too much of
this rather insignificant episode.


You appear to be an intelligent individual, Bro. Robison.  I am sure that
you are well aware that Acts 2:38 is not the only portion of Scripture that
demonstrates the essentiallity of baptism.  How would YOU explain Mk.
16.16, Act 22.16, 1 Pet. 3.20-21, et. al.?


--
Kirk Van Ooteghem
00kmvanooteg@bsu.edu
vanoo@ecicnet.org

* PENTECOSTAL PRESS WEB SITE *
http://bsuvc.bsu.edu/~00kmvanooteg/pp_index.html