Sie sind auf Seite 1von 24

Author Comment

Markus Salvation for the Dead


Unregistered User After reading the thread concerning the 'realms of the
(8/9/03 3:24)
departed', I can confirm that a lot of opinion expressed is
Reply
simply not accurate.

For example, there is no evidence in the NT that the


INDIVIDUAL human soul/spirit is immortal - a person is RAISED
immortal. Immortality of the individual ego (soul, 'self' et. al.) is
conditional - it only comes about by association with a spiritual
body acquired through resurrection. It is NOT immortal in itself
- we do not follow the doctrine of the philosopher Plato (i.e.
Platonism).

And btw., to distinguish between soul and spirit as different


aspects of a human being is false. The NT does not give us a
consistent anthropology and spirit and soul are interchangeable
terms. In short, the NT is not interested to tell us that we are
made up of A, B. and C, or whatever. When soul or spirit is used
for example, it used to refer to the ENTIRE person in the
spiritual world, a human being in every sense of the word. Of
course, its use can occur in other contexts as well.

But now for the main reason for this post. I would like to point
attention to a book - not written by a NAC - concerning the
nature of Christian exclusivism and how it effects those who
have never heard the Gospel. Here follows some quotations
from 'Dissonant Voices. Religious Pluralism and the Question of
Truth' , by Harold A. Netland (Vancouver: Regent College
Publishing, 1991):

"Mention should also be made of a fourth position, comprising


those evangelicals who hold that those who die without having
had an opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ might be
be given a future chance - at death or immediately after death -
to make a decision for Christ. In a controversial article in 1976,
for example, theologian Clark Pinnock stated, 'Of one thing we
can be certain: God will not abandon in hell those who have not
known and therefore have not declined his offer of grace.
Though He has not told us the nature of his arrangements, we
cannot doubt the existence and goodness of them' [they exist in
the NAC - my comment]. On the basis 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6,
Pinnock then left open the possibility that 'death is the occasion
when the unevangelized have an opportunity to make a decision
about Christ' ... (p. 275)

... Theologian Donald Bloesch seems to hold a position similar


to Pinnock's. In Essentials of Evangelical Theology, after stating
that 'God's love goes out to all, that his atonement is intended
for all, but at the same time ... not all accept the atonement,'
Bloesch says, 'we can affirm salvation on the other side of the
grave, since this has scriptural warrant (cf. Isa. 26.19; John
5:25-29; Eph. 4.8, 9; 1 Peter 3.19, 20, 4:6).' (p. 276)

Of course, the differences to the NAC position must be noted,


but this is to indicate, that there are a lot of non-NAC
theologians etc. who believe similarly to our position concerning
the salvation of the departed.
Let me also state, that the majority of protestant and catholic
scholars accept the fact that 1 Cor. 15.29 refers to proxy
baptism for the departed - something that Paul himself in most
likelihood supported (he uses the practise as an argument in
favour of the resurrection!). This is based on a lot of reading I
have done on the subject.

Cheers and God bless.


JF ez Re: Salvation for the Dead
Registered User “this is to indicate, that there are a lot of non-NAC theologians
Posts: 2181 etc. who believe similarly to our position concerning the
(8/9/03 4:49)
Reply | Edit
salvation of the departed.”

And this is to indicate, that the NAC is not the only one deceived
by the old serpent...

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, the old
serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the WHOLE
world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast
out with him.
Re: Salvation for the Dead
Ezekiel 20:30 So says the Lord Jehovah: Are you defiled in the
same way as your fathers? And do you go whoring after their
abominations?

Jeremiah 3:1 They say, If a man puts away his wife, and she
JF ez goes from him and will be for another man, will he return to her
Registered User again? Would not that land be greatly defiled? But you play the
Posts: 2182 harlot with many lovers; yet come back to Me, says the LORD.
(8/9/03 5:40)
Reply | Edit

These are those who were not defiled with women.


Revelation 14:4

They have not defiled their garments "with a woman", the


woman Jezebel. They maintained a profession of Christ and
his truths incorrupt; they did not defile it by embracing
false doctrines; they were neither erroneous in their
principles, nor immoral in their practices; few there are indeed
of this sort.

Defiled garments, in either sense, very ill become members of


the reformed churches. Among the Jews, if a priest’s garments
were spotted or defiled, he might not minister; if he did, his
service was rejected.
Markus Salvation for the Dead
Unregistered User JF ez, now are you going to attempt to illustrate why a belief in
(8/10/03 0:55)
the salvation for the dead is a "false doctrine"? - or are you
Reply
going to take refuge in your (exaggerated) self-concept of
following "true doctrine" without feeling the need to justify your
innuendo. Is your doctrinal "infallibility" - hence your criticism of
other with differing views - beyond reproach in other words?

Make it a detailed and worthwhile argument - i.e. avoid the "cut


and paste" approach and deal with all the relevant texts - for all
of us to see that you really know at least something about the
subject.
Karl N
Registered User Markus
Posts: 1607 Markus Quotes
(8/10/03 2:43)
Reply
“Let me also state, that the majority of protestant and catholic
scholars accept the fact that 1 Cor. 15.29 refers to proxy
baptism for the departed - something that Paul himself in most
likelihood supported (he uses the practise as an argument in
favour of the resurrection!). This is based on a lot of reading I
have done on the subject.”

Majority, I feel we are exaggerating as beside for the Catholic


church who the majority of are not part of the Church of Christ I
know of NO church who is part of this Body who believes in
such practises.
Can we have some examples please Markus?

Seeing you are well read, when you have time please read.
Salvation of the Dead I
Salvation of the Dead II

You are in good company


NAC in good Company

LOL

How we like to interpret the bible as we see fit….. Gay and


lesbian pastors, salvation of the dead, the re-appearance of
apostles and other devilish activities.

Take a step back….. Look at the NAC’s doctrine and practises as


a Whole….. Note the deviance in its scriptural teachings, the
secrecy and financial shenanigans and most of all the posts of
some of its members and it soon becomes crystal clear.

(Minister: As I was saying, Alex, you can be instrumental in


changing the public verdict. Do you understand, Alex? Have I
made myself clear?
Alex: As an unmuddied lake, Fred. As clear as an azure sky of
deepest summer. You can rely on me, Fred).

How to be master of emotions of suffering


No godly Christian minister would ever dare to tell suffering
fellow Christians that there might be an opportunity for souls to
get salvation without any suffering after death in Hades.

Such an absurd idea does not in the least encourage them, but
JF ez
Registered User rather could drive them to utter despair.
Posts: 2193
(8/10/03 6:17) To put Peter in charge of such ridiculous reasoning is IMO the
Reply | Edit height of impertinence and a complete distortion of the apostle’s
true intention. Namely, to confirm that God will vindicate
believers who suffer for Christ, and will hold their persecutors
accountable on the day of judgment.

Quote:
Remember that it is through God that you have had a share in
the world and have enjoyed life, and therefore you ought to
endure any suffering for the sake of God.

For his sake also our father Abraham was zealous to sacrifice his
son Isaac, the ancestor of our nation; and when Isaac saw his
father’s hand wielding a sword and descending upon him, he did
not cower.

And Daniel the righteous was thrown to the lions, and


Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael were hurled into the fiery
furnace and endured it for the sake of God.

You too must have the same faith in God and not be grieved. It
is unreasonable for people who have religious knowledge not to
withstand pain.

Edited by: JF ez at: 8/10/03 6:34

Re: How to be master of emotions of suffering

My brothers, take the prophets


who have spoken in the name of the
JF ez Lord,
Registered User
Posts: 2194 for an example of suffering ill, and of
(8/10/03 7:11)
Reply | Edit patience.
James 5:10

Men who have been highly honoured of God, with a gift of


prophesying, or foretelling things to come.

To whom God revealed his secrets, doing nothing without


acquainting them with it.

And who were sent forth by him, and prophesied in his name
what were made known unto them.

And yet, though these were his favourites, they suffered much;
as cruel mockings, scourgings, imprisonment, famine,
nakedness, and death in various shapes; some being stoned,
others sawn asunder, and others killed by the sword; all which
they endured with incredible patience.

These are a very proper example and pattern for New


Testament saints to follow and copy after. Let us serve our God,
and bear our trials, as those who believe that the end will crown
all. Our eternal happiness is safe if we trust to him: all else is
mere vanity, which soon will be done with for ever.
Re: How to be master of emotions of suffering
Others were tortured,
not accepting deliverance,
that they might obtain a better resurrection.
Hebrews 11:35
JF ez
Registered User
Posts: 2195 They were racked, or tympanized; referring to the sufferings of
(8/10/03 8:15) seven brethren, and their mother, in the times of Antiochus,
Reply | Edit recorded in 2 Maccabees 7 as appears from the kind of torment
endured by them; from the offer of deliverance rejected by
them; and from their hope of the resurrection: for it follows,

not accepting deliverance; when offered them by the king, see


the Apocrypha:

“24 Now Antiochus, thinking himself despised, and suspecting it


to be a reproachful speech, whilst the youngest was yet alive,
did not only exhort him by words, but also assured him with
oaths, that he would make him both a rich and a happy man, if
he would turn from the laws of his fathers; and that also he
would take him for his friend, and trust him with affairs. 25 But
when the young man would in no case hearken unto him, the
king called his mother, and exhorted her that she would counsel
the young man to save his life.” (2 Maccabees 7)

that they might obtain a better resurrection; which they died in


the faith of, see the Apocryha:

“7 And him he sent with that wicked Alcimus, whom he made


high priest, and commanded that he should take vengeance of
the children of Israel. 11 And said courageously, These I had
from heaven; and for his laws I despise them; and from him I
hope to receive them again. 14 So when he was ready to die he
said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for
hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou
shalt have no resurrection to life. (2 Maccabees)

The resurrection of the saints, which is unto everlasting life, is a


better resurrection than mere metaphorical, and figurative
ones, as deliverances from great afflictions, which are called
deaths; or real ones, which were only to a mortal state, and in
order to die again, as those under the Old Testament, and under
the New, before the resurrection of Christ; or than the
resurrection of the wicked.

For the resurrection the saints will obtain will be first, at the
beginning of the thousand years; the wicked will not live till
after they are ended; it will be by virtue of union to Christ,
whereas the wicked will be raised merely by virtue of his power;
the saints will rise with bodies glorious, powerful, and spiritual,
the wicked with base, vile, and ignoble ones; the righteous will
come forth to the resurrection of life, the wicked to the
resurrection of damnation.

The consideration of the better resurrection is of great use to


strengthen faith, under sufferings, for righteousness sake, and
this is obtained by suffering; not that suffering is the
meritorious cause of it, but saints in this way come to it; it is
promised to such, and it will be attained unto, and enjoyed by
such; for all that live godly, do, and must suffer persecution in
one way or another.
LACNAC
Registered User The Gospel According to Karl (or a remarkable facsimile)
Posts: 189 Majority, I feel we are exaggerating as beside for the
(8/10/03 11:14) Catholic church who the majority of are not part of the
Reply
Church of Christ (per the divine revelation of Karl )

Nice to see that you still have that wonderful divine knowledge
of who is and isn't part of the body of Christ. Bit exclusive
wouldn't you say?

How we like to interpret the bible as we see fit

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing Karl? We are still at
that same empass. Same concept, different thread. Karl has his
interpretation, someone offers a potentially valid, yet contrary
interpretation, and that person is wrong. Unless the Lord came
down to you (or anyone else for that matter)and specifically
said which that you (or anyone else) has THE RIGHT
interpretation, it should at least be accepted that many different
interpretations exist and that we can only speculate in many
cases as to which one is correct.

With that, have a blessed Sunday, All...


Karl N
Registered User LACNAC
Posts: 1609 Christianity is inclusive – It contains all those who follow Christ
(8/10/03 11:24) and His commandments as set out in His Word. These teachings
Reply
can be found in churches all across the world. You should try
visiting one…. It might just open up your eyes.
Jeffrey Dead..right Karl
Unregistered User Of course, the differences to the NAC position must be noted,
(8/10/03 15:33)
but this is to indicate, that there are a lot of non-NAC
Reply
theologians etc. who believe similarly to our position concerning
the salvation of the departed.

Let me also state, that the majority of protestant and catholic


scholars accept the fact that 1 Cor. 15.29 refers to proxy
baptism for the departed - something that Paul himself in most
likelihood supported (he uses the practise as an argument in
favour of the resurrection!). This is based on a lot of reading I
have done on the subject. - Markus

Majority of Protestant scholars ?

Not Born again, Bible believing scholars Markus!


Your "Majority" will not include thousands of Baptist Pastors,
Bible Church Pastors, Evangelical Free Church Pastors, Brethern
Pastors, Community Church Pastors, Presbyterian Pastors,
Independent Fundamentalist Pastors, Evangelical-Methodist
Pastors,.......
Your 'List' probably will include "Protestant scholars" of the
same cloth as those supposed, Scholars in support of the Jesus
Seminar. Yaour list will also incliude the Mormons (another cult)
and some Catholics...
Karl and JF are right.

Back to the beginning


Unregistered User Perhaps this is the right way
(8/10/03 16:51)
Reply

cfmbnainoach.freeyellow.com/
Jeffrey Do you know the Way to.....
Unregistered User "Perhaps this is the right way "- uu
(8/10/03 18:10)
Reply
The 'Right Way' is also the Only Way uu, not a perhaps
see" John 14:6
AnotherUU right and wrong ways
Unregistered User perhaps is the right word uu because even the only way
(8/10/03 18:23)
Reply mentioned in John 14 is either the Presbyterian way, or the
baptist way, or the NAC way, or the Evangelical way or the
whatever way.

Yep! Perhaps is the right word.

Jeffrey Getting warmer


Unregistered User Another uu-
(8/10/03 18:28)
Reply
Now you're onto something! There will be NO Baptists in
Heaven,.. or Presbyterians, or Methodists....
Only Born Again believers. True, some here attend those
churches but they know as well that there is only one church.
AnotherUU and warmer
Unregistered User and don't forget, uu, you can only be a born again believer if
(8/10/03 18:34)
Reply you follow the rules some spout here!

They even tell you who will be in heaven! And then they say
the NAC is bad!!!

Jeffrey And You?


Unregistered User Hi AUU-
(8/10/03 18:41)
Reply
What do you think? Will you be in Heaven? Why/Why Not?
Curious to Your beliefs- Thanks
AnotherUU and you?
Unregistered User you see, UU, when you confront them with a statement they
(8/10/03 18:45)
Reply don't answer you, but turn it into a question.

That's how they try and catch you out.

They don't even know what or where heaven is, but talk like
they're authorities on the subject. Best to ignore them.
Jeffrey Nice Try Sigmund, but I am serious
Unregistered User "That's how they try and catch you out.
(8/10/03 18:48)
Reply
They don't even know what or where heaven is, but talk like
they're authorities on the subject. Best to ignore them."
AnotherUU conversion attempts
Unregistered User and they act all caring and concerned until you tell them your
(8/10/03 18:51)
Reply beliefs and then they tell you how wrong you are
because their way is the right way.

Won't catch me like that again.


Jeffrey How caring is it to agree with untruth
Unregistered User Sorry you were 'caught' previously.
(8/10/03 19:00)
But, yes, if you pronounce a 'strange' way, I would try to
Reply
persuade you to look at the teachings of the scriptures again
and why I believe that you may be incorrect.
Conversion Attempts
Unregistered User AUU,
(8/10/03 19:09)
Reply
Count De Monet posted this on the quotes page and I have to
agree with him. And the sad thing is they all bow down and
worship the writings of a bunch of DEAD guys. Jews, Christians
and Muslims alike.

So oft in theologic wars,


The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

John Godfrey Saxe (1816 – 1887), The Blind Men and the
Elephant
Conversion attempts
Unregistered User AUU
(8/10/03 19:32)
Reply
And while we are on the subject of conversion attemts, follow
this link to the opinion of the "original" Protestant scholar

reactor-core.org/secret/o...-lies.html
Jeffrey Luther's Anti-Semitism
Unregistered User
(8/10/03 19:47)
Good link uu,
Reply

More Believers need to know the sad History of elements of the


church that some ignore. Martin Luthers Anti -Semitic
statements along with 'Golden mouth'
John Chrysotom, some previous 'Popes' and modern
'replacement and dual covenant theologies all need to be seen.
There is debate regarding whether Luther recanted late in life
and certainly alot of the quote "Christians " who did and said
some of the atrocities were not truly born again but your link
does make a good point.
Jeffrey Good book on the subject
Unregistered User As a follow up:
(8/10/03 19:52)
A good read on the subject:
Reply
Our Hand's Are Stained With Blood
-Dr. Michael L. Brown
AnotherUU and another thing uu
Unregistered User
(8/10/03 19:59) if your not a believer, your out, don't forget!
Reply
AnotherUU forgot to add
Unregistered User a believer according to their definition!
(8/10/03 20:00)
Reply
They won't forget us
Unregistered User AUU:
(8/10/03 20:29)
Reply
Even after they are gone they will still try and attempt to
convert us. Thoughtful, don't you think

www.raptureletters.com/index.html
JF ez
Registered User Re: Luther's Anti-Semitism
Posts: 2196 Quote:
(8/11/03 6:03) The following is an analogous situation for us Christians: God
Reply | Edit
gave us baptism, the sacrament of his body and blood, and the
keys for the ultimate purpose or final cause that we should hear
his word in them and exercise our faith therein. That is, he
intends to be our God through them, and through them we are
to be his people. However, what did we do? We proceeded to
separate the word and faith from the sacrament (that is, from
God and his ultimate purpose) and converted it into a mere
opus legis, a work of the law, or as the papists call it, an opus
operatum — merely a human work which the priests offered to
God and the laity performed as a work of obedience as often as
they received it. What is left of the sacrament? Only the empty
husk, the mere ceremony, opus vanum, divested of everything
divine. Yes, it is a hideous abomination in which we perverted
God's truth into lies and worshiped the veritable calf of Aaron.
Therefore God also delivered us into all sorts of terrible
blindness and innumerable false doctrines, and, furthermore, he
permitted Muhammad and the pope together with all devils to
come upon us.
JF ez
Registered User Anti opus vanum
Posts: 2197 No matter what race, you will never be master of your emotions
(8/11/03 6:45) by mere "opus vanum"!
Reply | Edit

For they have merely the sign, but not the thing itself.
They have the mere form, but not the power.
They have a shadow of good things to come, but not the very
image of the things.
They hear God’s words, but they do not do them.
They come in sheep’s clothing, but are ravening wolves.
They appear righteous, but are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
They teach others, but do not teach themselves.
They boast in Law, but break it.

They profess that they know God, but in their works they deny
Him, being abominable and disobedient and reprobate to every
good work.

The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of


them.
Edited by: JF ez at: 8/11/03 7:01
Markus
Unregistered User Baptism for the Dead - a scholarly perspective
(8/11/03 13:29) Karl, we need to distinguish between the official doctrines of
Reply churches, and the bible interpretation of their scholars – which
as a matter of fact, do not always cohere. (Jeffrey, we also need
to make a distinction between ‘pastors’ and ‘scholars’ – they do
not necessarily equate to the same thing, and no, the opinions
expressed here has nothing to do with the views of the Jesus
Seminar).

Karl, please do not confuse our understanding of salvation for


the dead with the practices of the Mormon Church. There is a
vast difference in theological content – a similarity in outward
form does not justify a simple comparison.

Those two websites you referred to are typical evangelical


apologetics – it illustrates chronic faulty exegesis and
presuppositions: e.g., that one’s ‘eternal destiny is fixed at
death’ (inevitably abusing Hebrews 9.27 – tough luck for those
who never heard the gospel, hey?) or making the laughable
claim that pagans near Corinth conducted baptism for the dead.
There is no pagan parallel to the Corinthian practise of proxy
baptisms for the dead! – least of all the customs followed at
Eleusis! Besides this, go and read some other commentaries
that discuss the bible verses they ‘interpret’ (e.g. 1 Pet. 3.19-20
etc. plus the references below re. 1 Cor. 15.29). Those two sites
lack what commentaries generally illustrate: objectivity, sound
exegetical principles/ability and intellectual honesty.

1 Cor. 15.29 admittedly has given rise to a myriad of


interpretations (see below), and some even though they
recognise that v. 29 refers to vicarious baptism for the dead,
are mystified by it, and withdraw to an exegetical agnosticism
as to its meaning and proper interpretation.

Nevertheless, besides the differences in interpretation (i.e. who


does the baptizing and who are the dead that is supposed to be
baptized; what does it mean? etc.) most scholars see this verse
as referring to a vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead. Here
is a list of scholars/literature with some quotations that should
be enough for now:

Barrett, C.K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the


Corinthians. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968.
Barrett writes:

"But would Paul have approved of it [i.e. 1 Cor. 15.29]? It is


true that in this verse he neither approves nor disapproves, and
it may be held that he is simply using an argumentum ad
hominem: if the Christians have this practice they destroy their
own case against the resurrection. This is the view held by
some; but it is more likely that Paul would not have mentioned
a practice he thought to be in error without condemning it." (p.
363)

Bruce, F.F., 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan:


Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.
Bruce writes:
"The prima facie meaning of these words [in 1 Cor. 15:29]
points to a practice of baptism by proxy." (p. 337)

Conzelmann, H., 1 Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,


1975. (p. 276)

Fee, G., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids,


Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.
Fee writes:

"The normal reading of the text [1 Cor. 15:29] is that some


Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf
of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add
that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text
that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives
were it not for the difficulties involved." (pp. 763-764)

Morris, L., The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. London:


Tyndale Press, 1964.
Morris writes:

". . . the most natural meaning of the expression [used by Paul


in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that some early believers got themselves
baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without
receiving that sacrament." (p. 21

Moulten, J. and Milligan, G, The Vocabulary of the Greek New


Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1981.
They write:

"Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all


attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful.
An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are "dead
in sin" does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead
are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is
writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that
under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead
relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing
baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the
dead to receive the benefits of Christ's salvation." (p. 651)

O’Neill, J.C., ‘1 Corinthians 15.29.’ Expository Times 91 (1980);


pp. 310-311.

Riesenfeld, H., ‘Huper’, in Theological Dictionary of the New


Testament, Grand Rapids: Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1974, vol. 8, pp. 512-513:

"None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious


baptism in primitive Christianity [as indicated in 1 Cor. 15:29]
seems to be wholly successful."
Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. tr. by W.
Montgomery. London: A. & C. Black, 1931 (pp. 283 ff.)
----- Paul and His Interpreters. tr. by W. Montgomery. London:
A. & C. Black, 1950. (pp. 211 ff..)

White, J.R., ‘“Batized on Account of the Dead”: The Meaning of


1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context.’ Journal of Biblical Literature
116 (1997); pp. 487-499.

Here are some other commentaries and bible dictionaries:

Harper's Bible Commentary:


"The first two rhetorical questions [asked by Paul in vs. 29]
refer to the practice of the Corinthians to undergo baptism
vicariously for their dead in the hope of saving them. More than
thirty interpretations have been proposed to explain this
practice, but none is satisfactory. Paul does not question the
merits of it but refers to it to elucidate his point."
(Harper's Bible Commentary, San Francisco, California: Harper
& Row, Publishers, 1988, p. 1187)

The Abingdon Bible Commentary:


"Paraphrase: 'We can scarcely bring ourselves to imagine what
is involved in denying the resurrection. Even some who deny
the doctrine prove that they really believe it by their otherwise
meaningless custom of undergoing vicarious baptism for their
relatives who have died before being received by baptism into
the Christian fellowship. . . .' The interpretation followed above
presupposes a local usage--namely, baptism in behalf of the
dead--which Paul neither commends nor condemns. . . . "
(The Abingdon Bible Commentary, Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1957, reprint, p. 1192)

One Volume Commentary on the Bible:


"St. Paul then, almost in parenthesis, touches on what appears
to have been a custom among the Corinthian Christians of
baptizing by proxy on behalf of some, presumably members of
the same family, who had died unbaptized and might therefore,
it was thought, miss their chance of being incorporated into the
fulness of Christ's Kingdom at his Advent. This practice, says
the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for
physical death, if there is no resurrection."
(William Neil, One Volume Commentary On The Bible, London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1973, p. 461)

The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible:


"After sketching briefly the drama of the end, Paul resumes his
attack on those denying the possibility of man's resurrection.
Scribes and commentators have sought to avoid translating vs.
29 as in the RSV, since it is difficult to think that Paul would
approve of baptism by proxy. But at this place he is throwing up
questions to expose the illogical nature of the beliefs and
practices of those denying the resurrection, and he withholds
his personal judgment of baptism on behalf of the dead."
(The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible,
Nashville: The Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 811)

The Expositer's Bible Commentary:


"Here Paul returns to his argument for the resurrection of the
dead. There is a special difficulty in understanding v. 29
because we do not know the background of the words "baptized
for the dead." There are many interpretations, but it is difficult
to find a satisfactory one. The present tense "baptize" suggests
that the practice of baptizing for the dead was current and
evidently well known to the Corinthians. . . .
. . . its ["huper's", the Greek word behind "for" in "baptized for
the dead"] basic meaning with the genitive is "for," "in behalf
of," or "in the place of." According to [H. A. W.] Meyer, this
verse means that believers already baptized were rebaptized for
the benefit of believers who had died unbaptized. This was done
on the assumption that it would count for the unbaptized dead
and thereby assure their resurrection along with the baptized,
living believers. . . . At any rate, Paul simply mentions the
superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify
his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead."
(The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, vol. 10, pp. 287-28

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible:


". . . [to judge from 1 Cor. 15:29, certain Christians] would
seem to have undergone the rite [proxy baptism] for the benefit
of departed relatives."
(The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Nashville: The
Abingdon Press, 1962, vol. 1, p. 350)

The Interpreter's Bible:


". . . whatever doubt some members of the Church had
concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in
the resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious
baptism on behalf of certain of their brethren, probably
catechumens, who had passed away before they had been
baptized and received into full membership of the Church."
(The Interpreter's Bible, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1952-
1957, vol. 10, p. 240)

The Jerome Biblical Commentary:


"It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo
baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives
and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure
them a share in the redemption of Christ. Paul sees in this
strange practice an implied faith in the resurrection of the
dead."
(The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968, vol. 2, p. 273)

robk1982
Registered User Thanks Markus...
Posts: 89 Very interesting.
(8/11/03 15:59)
Reply
Karl N
Registered User No confusion. - Markus
Posts: 1610 Been there, got the T-Shirt.
(8/11/03 16:25)
Reply
Unfortunately I am not as well read on the subject, so no quick
response although I am sure others will. As I have states
previously I am no Scholar and my experience is not akin to
those who left the NAC to find some higher function.

The way the NAC leads is followers is not the one of a loving
Shepard who cares for his flock……. It’s one of control and
giving them just enough so they tow the line.

99% of NA’s are Bible dead. It’s funny that – A church,


supposedly based on Christ’s teachings who do not encourage
its member to study the very thing it’s based on.

Markus, you are starting to remind my of the that person who


just yesterday told be about the millions I could get my hands
on if only I could help him get the money out of Africa. I’d
sooner follow Hulk Hogan than the any of the so called “elected”
officials of the NAC.

I could probably find 20 books on why the earth is actually flat


– I, like others can only relay what we experience. This is what
I do; still living in fear for those I love.

I hope you clowns can live with yourself…..

PS (I forgot) Cheers for all the info….


PPS Some Analysis
Edited by: Karl N at: 8/11/03 16:41
BrendaP
Unregistered User Confusion etc...
(8/11/03 16:59) I hope you clowns can live with yourself…..
Reply
PS (I forgot) Cheers for all the info….
PPS Some Analysis

Does that mean you're summarily dismissing various biblical


commentary just because an NAC member posted it?
Karl N
Registered User Brenda
Posts: 1611 Don't be silly...................
(8/11/03 17:06)
Reply
BrendaP
Unregistered User Karl
(8/11/03 17:11) I think it would rather be silly not to pay closer attention to
Reply what non-NAC's (in this instance) is saying about this
"controversial" topic. It reflects varied opinions and it confirms
that there is no absolute clarity, as you yourself very well know.

Brenda
Jeffrey
Unregistered User Why's a nice Jewish Rabbi Dunking for the Dead?- Not
(8/11/03 17:38) "something that Paul himself in most likelihood supported (he
Reply uses the practise as an argument in favour of the
resurrection!)"- Markus

Hi Markus,
This statement by you is what prompted me to post. And yes, I
referred to Pastors rather than scholars purposely because they
are often the only communicator of God's Word to the Layman
other than the Holy Spirit through the Word as the individual
studies it.
That said, I strongly disagree that Sha'ul (Paul) a Pharisee who
became a Believer would ever "support"
the practice of baptism for the dead.
You know that there is a real danger to use this verse to say
that he 'supported' a practice that is mentioned no where else
in scripture. Paul's arguements or comments are really speaking
about 'some among you who say that there is no resurrection'
(vs. 12). He then and I believe in verse 29 reduces the belief to
its absurdity.
He is not endorsing, approving... but showing the weakness or
inconsistency of the belief or where it leads.
In the case of those who say NO resurrection then of course
Paul and believers should be 'pitied' more than all
But, he adds that indeed Christ Has been raised. Now in verse
29 it seems that Paul is not condoning, blessing or supporting
any such practice as baptizing for the dead, instead,he again as
he does in other places, reduces the belief to the absuridity of
where such belief leads. It does not tell us who the 'they' is but
certainly could be the same that had been saying No
resurrection. It's as if he is saying "Look if the resurrection is
not true as they say, why in the world are they baptized for the
dead? (vs.29) AND, why if it is not true are we in danger every
hour ".(vs. 30) why don't we just 'Eat drink and be merry' (vs.
32 -
NO- Vs. 33 says do not be deceived [by them] they are
corrupting your thoughts....
Markus, I believe that taking this chapter as a whole that Paul is
saying exactly the opposite. He is not concentrating at all on the
practice that obviously some were doing (baptizing for the
dead) he is refuting false teaching that said there was (is) no
resurrection. He only mentions the practice in verse 29 to show
those practicing it the inconsistency of their beliefs.
I also am no scholar Markus, but I do try to diligently study the
verses through prayer, especially ones like these. SO, there you
have it, I disagree and that is why.- Thanks for the challenge.
Dr De Monet
Unregistered User The Dr is in da house
(8/11/03 18:37) Oh Karl, you are so preditable.
Reply

As you have told others "Good biblical response"

Seems Markus put you in a "bind" as the best you could come
up with was a lame "I, like others can only relay what we
experience." You even sounded a little down to Dr. De Monet!

Well, Karl old buddy, when Myule, LynneKC, Soul and Kevin and
others say this in defense of their beliefs and church you are
quick to prescribe medication to bring them back to their
senses. Maybe the following will help "unbind you".

Cheer up mate . Dr. De Monet is happy to prescribe these


with you in mind:

lordco.virtualave.net/enter/holyshit/

Take two and call me in the morning


Ken
Unregistered User re: Baptism for the Dead - a scholarly perspective
(8/11/03 21:27) Thanks Markus,
Reply
It's good to see 3rd party evidence of the validity of Baptism for
the Dead. I just wish this evidence was given out officially,
instead of the usual couple of bible verses as evidence, to prove
that it's not just the NAC making something up off the top of it's
head with a few bible verses as support. Maybe we should have
some full-time NAC employees (Apostles) doing this work full
time instead of being saddled with administrative
responsibilities (district administration). Maybe a true Apostles
College.

Ken
Karl N
Registered User Cheers Doc
Posts: 1612 Swallowed.....
(8/12/03 2:10)
Reply
Count...... Give us a chance.....

I have defended my beliefs, all I have NOT done is refute every


single onen that Markus posted, some of which inferred that
Paul did NOT practise or teach salvation of the dead.

But the pills are appreciated.


JF ez
Registered User Re: re: Baptism for the Dead - a scholarly perspective
Posts: 2199 Quote:
(8/12/03 3:51) Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without
Reply | Edit
approving it.

Paul sees in this strange practice an implied faith in the


resurrection of the dead.

JF ez
Registered User Re: Baptism for the Dead - a scholarly perspective
Posts: 2200 Tough luck for those who never heard the gospel, hey?
(8/12/03 4:35)
Reply | Edit

For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law.
And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through
Law.
Romans 2:12

1) without Law = the heathen or Gentiles


2) within Law = the Jews

This is a very important statement. The heathen who sin are


lost, because they do not keep the law of nature which they
have, not because they do not have the Mosaic law or
Christianity.

Their perdition will be for their sins committed without the law
of Moses, against the light of nature. Those have sinned who
have not lived up to their light.

Their not having the written law of Moses or the gospel will be
no plea in their favour, or be a reason why they should
not be condemned.

Their persons will not be regarded as with or without the


gospel, but their sins committed by them, to which facts their
consciences will bear witness.

The Jew shall be judged by the law; but the Gentile who sins
apart from the law shall perish.
JF ez
Registered User Baptism for what dead?
Posts: 2201 For those dead who in their lifetime with patience in good work
(8/12/03 5:25) were seeking for glory, and honor, and incorruptibility?
Reply | Edit
Or for those dead who all their lifetime have worked out evil?
Jeffrey
Unregistered User The Dr is in da house
(8/12/03 15:18) I'm surprised at the link you posted Count,
Reply
and disappointed
AnotherUU
Unregistered User surprised?
(8/12/03 15:36) Count, strange that they are disappointed with links but they
Reply
find it OK to deny others their beliefs.
Count De Monet
Unregistered User surprised
(8/12/03 16:00) AUU,
Reply
I'm not. However, I was very pleased to read Jeffreys even-
toned response to Markus' post. I personally did not think he
had it in him to be so polite and not refer to anothers belief as
trash, heretic, false teaching and other inflammatory remarks.
He very politely stated the reasons why he thought Mark was
wrong and backed it up with good references. In fact, as King
Agrippa once told Paul (and I paraphrase here) he almost made
a Fundamentalist out of me. I actully enjoyed reading it.
Didn't agree, but nonetheless enjoyed

You know AUU, its simply amazing what can be accomplished


when you use a little tact. But sometimes people forget that
there are those of us who are not afraid of getting down and
dirty when the need arises to make certain points about proper
behavior.
Markus
Unregistered User In answer to Jeffrey
(8/13/03 2:48) Ready for another challenge Jeffrey?
Reply
Jeffrey, you (an opinion you share with some scholars I admit)
say that those who practice baptism for the dead are the same
ones that deny the future resurrection. Let me first say that I do
not question your sincerity or your wanting to interpret
scriptures correctly. That is something I appreciate, and in the
end, whatever difference of interpretation we have I will respect
your opinion.

Is the above interpretation the most plausible one though?


Allow me to state a differing opinion. In Corinth, there were
some pneumatics (spiritualists) who thought that they were
highly ‘spiritual’. They had ‘knowledge’, they were narcists, who
looked down upon their fellow Christians. They thought they
could live according to an elitest and immoral religious ethic,
basing their lifestyle on the common slogan: ‘All things are
lawful for me’ (6:12; 10:23). Some Christians at Corinth were
evidently invited to banquets that encouraged gluttony,
drunkeness, and sexual indulgence, falling prey to the social
elitest ethic of the time where privileged citizens or those who
possessed power saw it as a prerogative to live a hedonistic
lifestyle.

Since these Corinthian Christians regarded themselves as


spiritually gifted, they assumed they could do the same.
According to them, any deeds in the body are irrelevant. It was
this same element that denied the future bodily resurrection.
But Paul rights against them (naturally) and he emphasised that
the reality of a future resurrection also had current moral
implications. Look what Paul writes in vv. 32-34:

“… If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we die." (33) Do not be misled: "Bad company
corrupts good character [Paul quotes a line from the Athenian
comic poet, Menander (c. 342-291 B.C.)]." (34) Come back to
your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some
who are ignorant of God--I say this to your shame.”

Now let’s ask ourselves the question: would those who deny a
future resurrection actually have themselves baptized for the
dead? Of course it is possible, but not very plausible. If they
did, then they could not have been all that bright, because with
the custom of proxy baptisms, they contradict their denial of the
resurrection (as you and others interpret it). Let me, however,
quote from an article by Jowl R. White (‘“Batized on Account of
the Dead”: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context.’
Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997); pp. 487-499) who
writes on pp. 489-490:

“…it is difficult to conceive how anyone who denied the


resurrection of the dead would wish to engage in any rituals on
their behalf. Belief and custom in Corinth would in that case
have become so diametrically opposed to each other that one
must postulate cognitive dissonance between the two in order
to sustain the argument.”

He also writes (p. 489 n. 13):

“It might be argued in response that the dualistic anthropology


of the Corinthians allowed for a spiritual resurrection that a
physical baptism could have been held to influence in some way.
It should be noted, however, that Hellenistic dualism [i.e.
between body and soul/spirit] tended in the opposite direction:
toward an antimaterialism which led to the denial that anything
done in the physical realm could have any effect whatsoever in
the spiritual realm. Barrett captures Corinthian attitudes quite
succinctly: ‘nothing done in the body really matters’…”

The above makes sense to me and lends support to my


argument. I agree with you that the focus of chapter 15 is not
on the baptism for the dead, but I disagree that those who deny
the resurrection are the same ones that performed proxy
baptisms. Being the ultra-spiritualists in their own minds (i.e.
‘nothing done in the body really matters’), they would have
thought of the custom as a waste of time themselves!

Very importantly, Paul does not criticize the custom! – so


although there is no explicit information about Paul’s support or
rejection of it I admit, his use of it in favour of the reality of the
resurrection, combined with the lack of criticism on his part,
according to my mind, gives implicit support for its validity.
Markus
Unregistered User In answer to others and a P.S.
(8/13/03 4:16) >> In answer to JF ez:
Reply
For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law.
And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through
Law.
Romans 2:12

Yes, JF ez, BUT … Romans 2.12 does not refer to the work of
Christ (which is relevant now), and what about 1 Timothy 2:

”(3) This is good, and pleases God our Savior, (4) who wants all
men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (5)
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus.”

So tell me JF ez, how can all men be saved if at least they are
not given the opportunity to come to the knowledge of the
truth? – ‘(5) For there is one God and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus’.

According to your interpretation, ‘general/natural revelation’ (cf.


Rom. 2.12) can make knowledge of Christ in order to be saved
(or damned) unnecessary, huh? On the other hand, since all are
sinners, all who never heard about Christ and believed in him
(even ‘good’ people) are damned. Tough luck for them, hey?

>> In answer to Ken:

Ken, I could not agree with you more. The job description of at
least some of our Apostles (and Bishops etc.?) must be
modified.

P.S. – this will be my last posting for now (too time consuming)
but I will like to add that the various interpretations offered by
the scholars of 1 Cor. 15.29, on balance, has some positive
consequences for the position of the NAC, in that

1) Most scholars see it as referring to a proxy baptism for


the dead
2) The lack of clarity about it (as mentioned by Brenda)
illustrates that fundamentally, the NAC belief for baptism for the
dead cannot be dismissed as false without being challenged.

As a result, those who are then so certain about themselves to


dismiss the NAC out of hand as following false doctrine in this
regard, can be said to illustrate a misguided bravado and a
theological imperialism.
Till later,
Markus Cromhout

markus@eject.co.za
JF ez
Registered User Re: In answer to others and a P.S.
Posts: 2203 As a result, those who are then so certain about themselves to
(8/13/03 4:53) dismiss the NAC out of hand as following true doctrine in this
Reply | Edit regard, can be said to illustrate a misguided bravado and a
theological imperialism.
Edited by: JF ez at: 8/13/03 4:57
Jeffrey
Unregistered User re: response to Jeffrey
(8/13/03 12:52) Hi Markus,
Reply Yes we still disagree but I will clarify and add a bit.
You presented a good case as to why the 'they' was not
the same ones that deny the resurrection. I have no real
dispute with that point and considered it myself, which is why in
my first post to you on this I was not dogmatic but said- "It
does not tell us who the 'they' is but certainly could be the
same that had been saying No resurrection." Again, the 'they' is
not so important to me as the statement you made last time
and again imply here that Paul gives "implicit support for its
validity." and last time you stated "something that Paul himself
in most likelihood supported (he uses the practice as an
argument in favour of the resurrection)"-Markus
It is this that I strongly disagree with still because of the
implications of such beliefs and 'Pauline' support of such
practices.
We both agree that the focus in Chapter 15 is not on the
baptism of the dead. In fact, seeing that chapter 15 is only a
portion of a long epistle that addresses many issues with the
church in Corinth I see this chapter as another example of Paul
speaking out against another false teaching that was influencing
or affecting believers in the church there. (The denial of the
resurrection). Many questions come to mind here Markus, If
Paul supported this practice as you believe, then he would have
supported it for a valid purpose Markus and there would have
been reasons to support it
from the scriptures. What would be the valid reasons for
supporting baptism for the dead? Where else could we find this
in practice or spoken of in scripture?
Paul taught clearly that a person was justified by grace through
faith (Ephesians) and other places. He also spoke of the
fruitlessness of ritual or rituals done in a wrong way. The
practice of baptism for the dead was certainly occurring but
could have been limited to just a small segment (Even if they
were in the church) So, the same apostle who addresses the
reality of reasons for doing certain things for God such as
giving, the Lord's Supper.... Would there not be a purpose for
such a baptism Markus? What then was the purpose? Paul
would not endorse an empty ritual (he spoke against such) He
continually stressed personal spiritual responsibility to believers
in their doctrine and practice
Why would he now endorse a ritual or act that one would do on
the behalf of someone who had died? This is inconsistent with
the teachings of Paul it would seem.
Also, I will admit, because Paul does not focus on the practice
may imply again that it was only done by a few and was not
presenting a pressing need to address it further. (Because
again, the issue in these verses was really on the denial and
reality of the resurrection of Christ).
I think to say Paul endorsed (implying the possibility he even
practiced but surely approved of) is spiritually dangerous today
Markus. The reason is that it seems to apply some sort of
'metaphysical magic' to a ritual.
This, Paul would NOT endorse.
The reason that this whole passage is being talked about was a
springboard from the SFD in the NAC talked about on this
thread. Think about the implications of much of scriptural
teaching if indeed there is a ritual we can do on behalf of a dead
person that somehow changes or influences their spiritual
status, position.. end, whatever! And if the practice is merely an
empty ritual that the participant realizes changes nothing, then
again WHY?
As for Paul's lack of criticism, the same can be said of his lack of
support. Verse 34 sums up a real theme of Paul to the
Corinthian believers 'Awake to righteousness, and do not sin;
for some do not have the
knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.'
Now why would Paul, who presses and corrects and even
admonishes believers to live a holy consistent life both
physically, in thought and doctrine endorse something we find
nowhere else in scripture and I believe find no purpose for? -
Jeffrey
deaconess once is not enough?
Registered User Jeffrey, I believe it is a faulty argument to suggest that because
Posts: 1448
something only appears once in the Bible that it can be
(8/13/03 13:06)
Reply discredited or not justify further consideration. Paul frequently
labled practices right or wrong... and it should be noted that he
referred to baptism of the dead, yet reserved comment on its
practice.
Karl N D
Registered User Not only does it appear once (I believe), it's vague and can be
Posts: 1617
read 10 different way (aka Markus’s reference books).
(8/13/03 13:59)
Reply
And you want to base a teaching on this?
JF ez
Registered User Re: once is not enough?
Posts: 2208 This superstitious custom was very suitable for only ONE thing,
(8/13/03 14:01) viz., to provide a good argument in the case of denying the
Reply | Edit resurrection of the body.

However, this strange practice is no longer suitable at all,


because the NAC DOES believe in such a resurrection.

BrendaP Karl
Unregistered User Not only does it appear once (I believe), it's vague and
(8/13/03 14:08)
can be read 10 different way (aka Markus’s reference
Reply
books).

And you want to base a teaching on this?

And for exactly the same reasons mentioned by you, can you
deny a teaching based on this? I don't think so. Preferred
interpretation should be as acceptable as preferred declination,
as both are without justifiable substantiation.

Karl N Logic
Registered User If x it is stated 10 times and once y 'could' (not if one knows
Posts: 1618
scripture - not talking about me folks) be inferred, I can
(8/13/03 14:27)
Reply guarantee that it was actually x.

Next it's 2 Peter


BrendaP Not even 2 Peter
Unregistered User Logic tells me that beliefs are based on faith, hence it is not
(8/13/03 14:31)
possible to argue about it. You cannot defend it, nor can you
Reply
substiantiate it to be "fool-proof".

Discuss till you're blue in the face, yes, it still won't lead to
100% clarity.

As the saying goes...."God alone knows..."

Brenda

Edited by: BrendaP at: 8/13/03 14:36


Karl N Fool proof.....
Registered User LOL, is that a play on words for NA's?
Posts: 1619
(8/13/03 15:47)
Reply Nothing is fool proof but it's easier to bolt wings onto a 747's
fuselage to prove it can it can fly than ostrich wings.

You can believe that your toothpaste tube is the next CA if you
wish but we have to draw the line somewhere.

Most NA theories are just plain fantasy – Even if you do want to


believe it.
BrendaP Karl
Unregistered User Let's get one thing straight for the future. When I write on this
(8/13/03 15:53)
board, I don't write as an "NA". I write my own personal views
Reply
and opinions. So there is no need to always drag the NA bit in.
Be a bit more original than that.

Brenda
Karl N But B
Registered User You have never ever stated what you believe so why argue.......
Posts: 1620
(8/13/03 16:04)
Reply Like bald men fighting over a comb.

BrendaP Well Karl


Unregistered User Firstly, I don't argue about faith. There's no point. I don't mind
(8/13/03 16:17)
discussing if people are willing to have an open mind. Once
Reply
you've decided that no-one can teach you anything, then you
might as well forget even attempting a discussion (according to
me).

When it comes to religion, I will talk about doctrine, yes,


because doctrine I believe is "man-made" and is open to error.
But unfortunately people don't always seem to be able to
differentiate between doctrine and the basic belief in God, and
as a result, the resulting discussion ends nowhere, as "faulty
doctrine" according to some leads to "faulty" belief in God,
which of course is a fallacy in itself as it is based on faith alone.

Maybe you understand better now where I'm coming from. My


beliefs where God/Christ is concerned is "personal". Not you nor
anyone else can argue with me about it. If you want to talk
doctrine, put your facts on the table.

Brenda

Karl N You keep - Covering your eyes


Registered User Too much time in the NAC.......... As its doctrine is built on
Posts: 1621
fairytales....... Even a lowly network bod like me can sometimes
(8/13/03 16:26)
Reply hold my own against the most staunch well versed indoctrinated
drone.......

Can you imagine how a few more Christian preachers would


make them look like the charlatans they are?

Maar B, Jy kan di laste se he, ek ken moes die boer.


BrendaP Covering my eyes?
Unregistered User Me? After I just wrote to you that I believe doctrine is "man-
(8/13/03 16:39)
made"?
Reply

Karl, if I had the knowledge to discuss the origins of all these


varied doctrines, I would certainly do so. If you take the Trinity
Doctrine for example, and the origins thereof, how many do you
think even take notice of that? The couple of times I posted
something about it here, it got overlooked, maybe on purpose...

When it comes to the NAC, having been brought up with the


teachings, sure I'm looking for justifiable explanations about the
famous gap, and for sure I know there's no guaranteed answer
about the SFD and I do not believe in any group claiming
"exclusive rights" to God based on their doctrine.

So what to do next? Negate it totally? Argue? How can I do that


if I can't back my statements?

En binnekort is ek nie meer 'n "boer" nie, hoor?

Brenda

Karl N Ja B
Registered User You must let me know what the latest is.......
Posts: 1623
(8/14/03 3:32)
Reply
YbG
Registered User
Posts: 2 Re: How caring is it to agree with untruth
(7/31/04 20:03) Those who believe in the lie of "salvation for the dead" are
Reply
cursed by God and are on their way to eternal damnation.

Repent and obey today, don't delay!

Turn or burn!