Paul Dixon wrote:
> All I am pointing out is that we cannot automatically infer from Peter's
> construction an if and only if proposition, to wit, that if and only if
> you repent and get baptized, then your sins will be forgiven and you will
> receive the Holy Spirit.
I think your argument is faulty here. Enough passages exist linking
baptism and forgiveness, salvation, receiving of the Spirit, etc., are in
the NT for us to conclude that baptism is part of the normal pattern of
becoming a Christian in the understanding of Matthew's Jesus, John's Jesus,
Paul, Luke's Peter, Luke's Paul, Peter, and possibly the writer of Hebrews
(read Justin on Hebrews 6.4, and compare some of the versions--Syriac, I
think--on this verse).
Your argument--that not enough data exists for a scientifically constructed
"if and only if" proposition could be expanded to include *just about*
every other idea in scripture--pity the NT writers weren't logicians, isn't
it? <G> Your statement (which I just cut and deleted, sorry) regarding an
"if and only if" position on faith could be quibbled with semantically
(although I think you're right on this one). For example: "By whose
definition of faith?"
Please don't respond to this post on-list. We ain't talkin' Greek no more.
Perry L. Stepp
(Permission granted to quote any or all and to name the writer.)
****************************************************************
DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University
Keeper of the Top-10 List, alt.fan.letterman
#1 Cowboy Homer
***************************************************************