The Argument From Silence is Invalid

Ah, yes...it's found in the book of Hesitations.

 

Without a link, you indeed claimed it as your own work. That is plagiarism. Second, I didn't say you weren't JAC, but your reply makes it plain you are not, which further validates my claim of plagiarism. I'd quit while you are ahead. You have been proven wrong, and the comment you stole from the other site has been proven wrong as well.

 

It isn't all silliness. If you read up on Church History, particularly on the subject of baptism, there was an evangelical sect that believed in baptizing new converts naked. There was no authority given to baptize the clothes. Now the COC ought to be in full agreement with this church or sect's practice. Baptism is one of the ordinances given to the church, and as such is and should be a worshipful service.
You ought to agree with their practice, correct?

 

Just because you call them silly arguments doesn't make it so. If you were being as logical about this as you'd like us to think, then you would know that the comparisons are legitimate and that your argument is sinking because of the holes being poked in it.

One of my favorite parts about your "Law of Exclusion" argument is that this is the first time you've mentioned it. Where was your "Law of Exclusion" argument on October 10th when you started this thread? Where was your "Law of Exclusion" argument on August 24th when you started the other thread about this topic? Have you been saving this argument for your final, "brilliant" masterstroke of an argument? Is this your way of saying, "I'm not left-handed either" and then you proceed to overwhelm everybody and win the debate? Or, have all of your other arguments been devastated so much that you're making a final, desperate grab at something that might resemble an argument?

 

Often what we think of as naked would not be an issue today in North Dakota. However, what scripture teaches would apply everywhere.

 

Guess Jesus didn't realize that when He made His comment to the thief that was crucified beside Him, huh????

Boy I'll bet both were surprised a few hours later when they both died.:BangHead:

 

That's totally false. Baptism isn't a requisite for conversion, it's a sign of conversion. To make a presumption on a person's salvation based on whether that person was baptized is a ridiculous presumption. Not to mention, it makes salvation works based instead of faith based.

 

Interesting to note that it seems the CoC has the same view with the RCC about that particular issue.

 

How do you explain away what happened with Cornelius in Acts 10?

BTW, I have a question that nobody from the CoC has ever answered adequately. Maybe you'd like to take a crack at it.

Let's say that I do this:

The rub is that I do this on, say Thursday night. Immediately after I do this, I say I want to get baptized, but the church isn't open and since Romans 10 tells me that I'm saved, I decide to wait until Sunday. But, on Friday, I die in a car wreck.

Since I didn't get baptized, does this mean I'm not saved?

 

The difference being that the RCC recognizes alien baptism (baptism performed in good faith by any christian church is a valid baptism). CoC leans toward only a baptism in a CoC as being valid.

 

Your view on the theology of baptism is not the question here.
Your view on morality is not the question here.
Your view on what the Bible authorizes and does not authorize is what is on trial here. Your view on what you are arguing from silence is what is on trial here.

According to you they took the Biblical stance and baptized the body only; for clothes were not authorized to be baptized. Can you provide Scripture where God authorized clothes to be baptized? I am afraid your arguments will all be from silence, from assumption. And you have no authority to baptize clothes. Pope John XXIII baptized a bell. He had as much authority to baptize a bell as you do to baptize clothes (so the argument can be made)

Concerning morality, you have no idea of what the complete practice was. It may have been that women baptized women, and men baptized men; thus there was no morality problem. They probably had some female deacons. But that is not the question here. That is a red herring. Don't take that bait. You know that you have no authority in the Bible to baptize clothes, correct?

 

I recall that you claimed to be reformed. How did you go about reversing salvation by grace through faith to works based salvation?

 

No, you pretty much have been.

The same tired old arguments for the same Church of Christ precepts.

When one thread fails to convince anyone, you try another.

You show no sign of ever being willing to reconsider any Church of Christ precept, or admit when your arguments have failed.

Your attitude has seemed to have been so: `These are Church of Christ precepts, and I will assert them to be the truth -- period. I will continue to think what they have told me to think. I will simply try to promote them a different way.'

So yeah, you have been a mouthpiece for the Churches of Christ.

 

Johnv: you are correct.

How else would it be possible to obey Jesus Christ?

Here is what He said: Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations|. Baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey everything that I have taught you,| and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (NASB|NCV|NASB).

The word translated "baptize" means "completely submerge." How is it possible to baptize = "completely submerge" "disciples" if no one is a disciple until s/he arises from that? We would be baptizing = `completely submerging' non-disciples. Therefore, it is impossible that no one is a disciple of Jesus Christ until after baptism.


______
* Stamatis, Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church, page 191.