Inerrant Bible, fallible interpretation?

[bmerr]

This has always kind of bugged me: the Christians who insist on Biblical inerrancy are often also those who deny that there is any kind of infallible teaching authority to interpret the Bible. So what's the point? What's the point of having an infallible Bible if the best we poor humans can come up with is a fallible interpretation?

Matt,

bmerr here. In Luke 10:26-28, Jesus first asks a certain lawyer, "What is written in the law?", and then, "how readest thou?" He is asking "what does the bible say", and "how do you interpret it?" In his answer, the lawyer quotes from two Scriptures, Deut 6:5, and Lev 19:18. These are the same two verses Jesus said all the law and the prophets hung from (Matt 22:37-40).

Following the lawyer's answer, Jesus said, "Thou hast answered right..." The implication is that he could have answered wrong. But by simply speaking where the Bible spoke, the lawyer gave the correct answer. Likewise, men today can "answer right" if they would simply speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent. The Bible is it's own best interpreter. Man's "interpretations" are often attempts to twist the meaning of Scripture to their own preconceived ideas.

To answer right, just say what the Bible says on any given subject. That way we can know that our "interpretation" is infallible.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[gekko]

bmerr.... most of them are talking about interpretations from the original text to say english or spanish. that kind of thing.

which brings up the idea of: men wrote the original text of greek, hebrew, and aramaic - man is fallible. and so is their writings.

now. i dont believe that. but their reasoning comes down to that.

 

[Matt Black]

what other answer would there be?

throw it out and provide the infallible interpretation

And how does one do that?

BTW - aorist = eg: "As we're staying with my parents, we go to their church today"

Present continuous = eg: "....but usually we go to our local Baptist church"

Bmerr, that's fine until you ask the question "But what does that text actually mean? How do apply it to my life today? What doctrinal implications does it have?"

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr, that's fine until you ask the question "But what does that text actually mean? How do apply it to my life today? What doctrinal implications does it have?"

Matt,

bmerr here. Perhaps a "sample text" might be helpful. Did you have anything particular in mind when starting this thread?

IN Christ,

bmerr

 

[stan the man]

Private judgement
The fact that the doctrine of private judgment would result in chaos was perceived long before the time of the Protestant Reformers, however. It was, in fact, perceived in the time of the apostles, when there was also an explosion of new heresies.

The word "heresy" (Greek, hairesis) means "opinion," "preference," or "what one has chosen on one's own" and comes from the verb haireomai, meaning "to take for oneself" or "to choose for oneself." In the first century it already had a negative connotation of going off on one's own, in rebellion to the established teachings (it is used this way in Acts 24:14, where it is rendered "sect" in some translations).

In a Christian context, a heresy—a Christian heresy—occurs when a person professing to be a Christian has insisted on exercising private judgment in an absolute manner and preferred his own interpretation to the established teachings of the Church. That is the historical meaning of the term in Christian history, but this linkage between private interpretation and heresy was well understood by the writers of the New Testament itself, as they were fighting to establish a consistent set of teachings in a community of new believers who were not yet fully grounded in the faith an often reached erroneous personal interpretations (the correction of these views being is one of the key reasons the epistles of the New Testament were written).

Thus it is no surprise when we read the New Testament and find the principle of private interpretation linked to heresy and condemned. In writing about the value of God's word, St. Peter tells us:

"You will do well to pay attention to this [God's prophetic word] as to a lamp shining in a dark place ... First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled" (2 Peter 1:19b-2:2).

Peter's logic is clear: For the sale of our souls we must pay attention to God's word, but as we do this the first thing we must keep in mind is the fact that no utterance of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation. Why? Because Scripture did not originate from the views of a private individual but from the Holy Spirit. And we must be warned that not all who purport to speak for the Holy Spirit are telling the truth. In the Old Testament age there were false prophets who deceived the people, and Peter tells us that, in the same way, in the New Testament age there will be false teachers who will circulate among the people and "secretly bring in destructive heresies." Why secretly? Because they are wrapped in a cloak of Scripture verses, read according to the false teacher's personal interpretation of them. It is the private interpretation of the false teacher which twists Scripture and results in the destructive heresy, but it is still a heresy which is secret, not open, because the heretic has cloaked it in a mantle of Scripture verses.

Peter thus warns us that we must stay away from private interpretations. Instead, we must look to the public interpretation that Christ deposited in his Church. Only in this way can we avoid the errors of the false teachers circulating in the Christian community. Peter is so concerned about it that he makes it the first rule of Bible interpretation, telling us that we must pay attention to God's word, but that in doing so we must know first of all that no utterance of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation. The rejection of the interpretations of private individuals, as opposed to the teachers Christ appointed for his Church, is thus the first rule of biblical hermeneutics. We must cling to Christ's Magisterium and not to our own judgments, for that way lies the way of heresy, Peter tells us.

And he warns of a time when the situation will be very bad in this regard, telling us that eventually "many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled." In a day when there are over 33,000+ Christian denominations and when the division in the Christian community has become an object of scorn among unbelievers ("Oh… You are a Christian? Which franchise?"), it is safe to say that the day Peter prophesied has arrived.

Yet people still cling to private interpretations, and some have even dared to eradicate Peter's statement concerning them from Scripture. The force of his statement is so strong that some Protestant translations, such as the New International Version (NIV) have tried to mask it by deviating from a literal translation of the text and inserting words into the verse which do not appear in the Greek.

Perhaps the most literal rendering of the Greek is that we must pay attention to the prophetic word, "knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture is not of one's own interpretation." An acceptable rendering would be "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture is of one's own interpretation," but the Protestant translators of the NIV cannot bear this and so replace "is of one's" with "came about by the prophet's," resulting in the "translation": "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation."

This is simply not what the Greek text says. The Greek says "of one's" (idias) not "the prophet's" (tou prophetou). In making this translation error the NIV does provide us with a marvelous illustration of the extent to which private interpretation can corrupt a Bible text. Here the translators have not only shown willingness to impose a private interpretation on a text but to impose their private interpretation into the text, deviating from what it literally says, and thus bringing in a destructive heresy in the most secret form of all—where it is insinuated into the words of the translation itself, so the faithful reading the passage have no opportunity to even compare the private interpretation with the actual words of Scripture, because here the private interpretation has replaced the actual words of Scripture.

This is, in fact, a regular thing with paraphrastic translations like the NIV, which also shows its anti-Catholic bias in suppressing the word "tradition"(paradosis) in passages like 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, where it is used in a positive sense. The Protestant translators of the NIV always want the word "tradition" to be used in a negative sense, and so in those verses replace it with the word "teaching" instead.

They thus again insert their private interpretation into the very words of the text itself and, functioning in a magisterial capacity, deny the reader the ability to compare their interpretation of the text with what the text actually says.

 

[stan the man]

If they were a Magisterium authorized by God to teach the people, this would not be as big a deal as it is, but the only authority the translators have is the supposed right of private judgment and their knowledge of Greek. The latter is also a force that will inevitably lead to Magisterium-like action on the part of some Christians, because no matter what anybody does, the great majority of Christians are simply never going to become fluent, much less expert, in New Testament Greek, meaning that the actually text itself will be forever locked away from them and only mediated to them by translators.

This is not insignificant. Sometimes Evangelicals try to minimize the role of translation by saying that it does not affect any substantive teaching of the Bible, but that is manifestly false, as the very example I have cited shows, for it pertains to the very first rule of Bible interpretation itself—the first thing we must bear in mind as we are reading God's prophetic word. What are the consequences of making a mistake in this area? Peter tells us a little later in his epistle, saying,

"[O]ur beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking … as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the unlearned and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability" (2 Peter 3:15b-17).

The price of error in how to read the Bible is one's own destruction, and it is easy for the unlearned and unstable to do with the Scriptures, for there are "things in them hard to understand." Thus we must again beware of the false teachers, the lawless ones who come to us with unauthorized interpretations, and be moved from our own stability in the true teachings of Christ. The need for a Magisterium is key.

At best, only a class of magisterial Christians could even attempt to apply the rule of private judgment and the "Bible only" theory to which it is a part. But for the average Christian, not a member of his denomination's magisterial class, not one of the pastors or presbyters or Bible translators, the source of Christian authoritative teaching would have to be Bible as interpreted by the Magisterium.

This is the way it is in all of the Protestant churches, just as much as it is the case in the Catholic Church. The difference is that the Catholic Church is honest about the role of the Magisterium and does not try to hide it while preaching the absolute right (and the correspondingly enormous responsibility) of the individual Christian having to be his own theologian and thoroughly evaluate all the issues for himself.

The fact that all Protestant denominations have had, of necessity, to reinvent the Catholic model, just clothing it in a rhetoric which masks its true nature, shows that the doctrine of private judgment simply does not work. It cannot work even in theory given the learning and inclinations of the average Christian and the fact denominations and pastors actively work to prohibit its exercise; it has been shown not to work in history, by the explosion of denominations and sects when its implementation was attempted; and it is condemned in the very pages of Scripture itself. But since the teaching of an absolute right of private judgment is an essential component of the doctrine of sola scriptura (for if one looks to a Magisterium then one is not looking to Scripture alone), this means that the doctrine of sola scriptura itself does not work.

So let us cast aside the false promise of "Just-me-and-my-Bible" Christianity, let us remove the crushing burden of telling every individual Christian, no matter how poor, uneducated, or illiterate, that he must be his own theologian and that his soul hangs in the balance, let us remove the hypocrisy Protestant pastors are forced into by the doctrine as they permit for themselves a right they prohibit for the members of their congregations, and let us be honest, about the matter: Sola scriptura, and the absolute right of private judgment which it entails, is simply not God's plan.

 

[stan the man]

Here are some quotes from the Early Church Fathers about the topic of Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church (part 1)

"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199),in ANF,I:508

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, ?n, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith."
Tertullian,On Prescription against the Heretics,32 (c.A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258


"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy."
Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,7:16 (post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:553-554


"When heretics show us the canonical Scriptures, in which every Christian believes and trusts, they seem to be saying:'Lo, he is in the inner rooms [ie., the word of truth] ' (Matt 24.6). But we must not believe them, nor leave the original tradition of the Church, nor believe otherwise than we have been taught by the succession in the Church of God."
Origen,Homilies on Matthew,Homily 46,PG 13:1667 (ante A.D. 254),in CON,392


"For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet to be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines: also there is need of a wakeful soul, since there are many that make spoil through philosophy and vain deceit. The Greeks on the one hand draw men away by their smooth tongue, for honey droppeth from a harlot's lips: whereas they of the Circumcision deceive those who come to them by means of the Divine Scriptures, which they miserably misinterpret though studying them from childhood to all age, and growing old in ignorance. But the children of heretics, by their good words and smooth tongue, deceive the hearts of the innocent, disguising with the name of Christ as it were with honey the poisoned arrows of their impious doctrines: concerning all of whom together the Lord saith, Take heed lest any man mislead you. This is the reason for the teaching of the Creed and for expositions upon it."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,4:2 (A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:19


"And, O wretched heretic! you turn the weapons granted to the Church against the Synagogue, against belief in the Church's preaching, and distort against the common salvation of all the sure meaning of a saving doctrine."
Hilary of Poitiers,On the Trinity,12:36 (inter A.D. 356-359),in NPNF2,IX:227


"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to shew that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error."
Athanasius,Discourse Against the Arians,I:37(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:327-328


"To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one's own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency."
Basil,EpistleTo the Canonicae,52:1 (A.D. 370),in NPNF2,VIII:155

 

[stan the man]

Private Exegesis apart from Tradition and Church (part 2)

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures. For they have corrupted the sacred copies; and words which ought to have but one interpretation, they have wrested to strange significations. Whilst, when one of them attempts this, and cuts off a member of his own body, the rest demand and claim back the severed limb....It is the church which perfect truth perfects. The church of believers is great, and its bosom most ample; it embraces the fulness (or, the whole) of the two Testaments."
Ephraem,Adv. Haeres. (ante A.D. 373),in FOC,I:377-378


"Who knows not that what separates the Church from heresy is this term, 'product of creation, ' applied to the Son? Accordingly, the doctrinal difference being universally acknowledged, what would be the reasonable course for a man to take who endeavors to show that his opinions are more true than ours?"
Gregory of Nyssa,Against Eunomius,4:6 (inter A.D. 380-384),in NPNF2,V:162


"For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted. And so, dearly beloved, ought we very cautiously to hear those things for the understanding of which we are but little ones, and that, too, with pious heart and with trembling, as it is written, holding this rule of soundness, that we rejoice as in food in that which we have been able to understand, according to the faith with which we are imbued;"
Augustine,On the Gospel of John,Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416 et 417),NPNFI,VII:117


"If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19) "
Maximinus(Arch-Arian Heretic),Debate with Maximinus,1 (c.A.D. 428),in AAOH,188


"Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism."
Cassian,John,Incarnation of the Lord,6:5 (c.A.D. 429/430),in NPNF2,XI:593-594


"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,2:4 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132


"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,?here be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,?, and nothing else,?has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,23:59 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:148-149


"[A]ll heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and ...make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers...."
Vincent of Lerins,Commonitory,24:63 (c.A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:150


"His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was, that the holy Virgin, who bore the Word of God, who took flesh of her, ought not to be confessed to be the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ; though of old, yea from the first, the preachers of the orthodox faith taught, agreeably to the apostolic tradition, that the mother of God. And now let me produce his blasphemous artifice and observation unknown to any one before him."
Theodoret of Cyrus,Compendium of Heretics' Fables,12 (c.A.D. 453),in FOC,I:449

 

[Eric B]

Your discussion of Peter is something you should heed yourself, since you don't believe the "magisterium" that erupted out of the 3rd century could possibly have been wrong. Peter was writing 2000 years ago about what was going on in his day, and, the "33,000 + Christian denominations" you keep speaking of came over 1½ millennia later, so what you are descrinbing is the corrupt system you are arguing for.

And even then, the Church of Irenaeus' day was very different from the Church of the 5th century quotes you gave. So even though they thought whatever was handed down to them came from the apostles, we see that things were gradually being changed. And it still continued after that, with the first major schism being between East And West, over the West continuing to add new interpretations.

What you want is for a class of all powerful men to be exalted to this position, where they get to make their own private interpretations of the scriptures, and claim it was really handed down to them from before. But nobody needs to have that kind of power. We have seen here it has gone in history. They do not cease being men just because of some religious title.

 

[gekko]

II Timothy 3:16
-----

no argument needed
​

 

[Matt Black]

Bmerr, just to pick one verse, does I Peter 3:21 teach baptismal regeneration or not?

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr, just to pick one verse, does I Peter 3:21 teach baptismal regeneration or not?

Matt,

bmerr here. Sorry to be so long in getting back to you. It's been a busy last couple of days.

In answer, I'd have to know what you mean by "baptismal regeneration". I've seen that phrase used to mean a couple of different things, and I want to be sure I properly understand the question.

If by "baptismal regeneration" you mean the teaching that baptism is the requirment for salvation, as with infant baptism, etc, then no, I don't think 1 Pet 3:21 teaches that, at all.

However,if you mean that baptism is a requirement for salvation, then, yes, I would say that 1 Pet 3:21 does teach that.

It is clear that "baptism doth also now save us" from something. If not from sin, then what?

If I have failed to adress your question properly, Please let me know.

I'll do my best to reply more promptly.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Matt Black]

I mean by 'baptismal regeneration' that baptism saves you ie: you are not saved before you are baptised, and you are saved after you are baptised (whether that salvation can subsequently be lost or whether that is the only requirement for salvation is kind of a side issue to the text) - my question is: does I Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves - yes or no?

 

[bmerr]

I mean by 'baptismal regeneration' that baptism saves you ie: you are not saved before you are baptised, and you are saved after you are baptised (whether that salvation can subsequently be lost or whether that is the only requirement for salvation is kind of a side issue to the text) - my question is: does I Peter 3:21 teach that baptism saves - yes or no?

Matt,

bmerr here. Flat out, yes, 1 Pet 3:21 says it outright, "...baptism doth also now save us..." No interpretation required. Matt, if it doesn't mean what it says, I don't know what it means, or who I could trust to tell me.

Also, I will do my best to avoid chasing rabbits if you will :smilewinkgrin: !

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[carpro]

We can know the truth (John 8:32), but just because we believe something does not make it truth (II Tim 4:1-4). Some people don't want the truth, because it is not pleasant to the ears, but would rather hear a message that is pleasing to the ears. I can't think of anything more pleasing to the ears than "once you are saved, there is nothing you can do to lose your salvation" and "belief only will save you". How could this be relaxed any futher???

You are, in effect, saying that those that dare to interpret differently than you are lost.

Could it possibly be that you are the one that does not want the truth because it doesn't match the bedrock doctrine of your denomination?

 

[Jim1999]

Carpro, I am not at all familiar with this Church of Christ, except its history and what I have read on here, and I think I quite agree with what you said.

Pity us poor Anglicans! And former Baptists!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Matt Black]

...and thus is admirably demonstrated the interpretative problem to which I earlier alluded....and we're only talking about one verse!

QED I think.

 

[Claudia_T]

Baptism?

How do all these threads seem to end up being about Baptism? :sleeping_2:

 

[Matt Black]

Because this is a BaptistBoard? (Fine. Pick another verse then.)

 

[Jim1999]

Accordingly, I am good and "saved"....I was baptized as an Anglican and 9 days old, and again as a Baptist in my teens......sprinkled and immersed........wait, doesn't the Greek Church "pour"? I better cover all the houses.

It is a lark, isn't it?

Cheers,

Jim