Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is the Bible 100% correct? Message-ID: Date: 24 Jan 91 08:41:22 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Northwestern University Lines: 45 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >[This continues a discussion on the necessity of baptism. It's hard >to be sure who said what beneath all the widgets, but I believe >Frank Farkas cited Mark 16;16: >>I believe that you are incorrect about your statement that Mark 16:16 >>doesn't cover "one who believes but is not baptized". >>In fact, it says that to be saved one must believe *and* must be baptised. >--clh] > >Um, Frank, it says that if you have x and y, then you get z. This does not >prove that if z, then you must have x and y. You could have x and v. >A simple math demonstration will show this: 2 plus 2 equals 4, but 4 does >not always equal 2 plus 2, you could have 3 plus 1, 0 plus 4, -3 plus 7, >2 times 2, square root of 16, all of these could give you 4. Thus your >statement that Mark 16:16 says that to be saved one must believe *and* must >be baptized" is not true. It only says that if [believe & baptized], then >saved. Geoff Allen is right, you are wrong. You need to take some courses >in logic and argument. I have, and it often helps me catch mistakes like >this. Hmmmmm... But there are an *infinite* number of mathematical expressions for which the result is 4; if your analogy is carried through, there must also be an infinite number of ways to attain salvation. I guess the only issue is to decide which one is right for you, huh? "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of the world?" [ I Cor. 1:20 ] My point is not that a disciple of Christ should throw out all logic in his spiritual life, but that we should be extremely cautious when applying mere intellectual knowledge to the doctrine of God, lest we over-intellectualize it and miss the point entirely. Christianity is based on a relationship with God and a desire to put His will before *anything* else in your life. The doctrine (mind knowledge) will come, but it means nothing if one's heart really isn't sold-out for God. To justify your views on salvation by application of your study of logic is as mis-applied as science trying to prove the existence of God. It's like trying to measure a cup of justice or a pound of love. Peace, Arthur Miller art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu