[awelliott]

The problem of commenting without reading is that you have to make assumptions. The debate does not mention baptism except to say that it is a part of the hardliner CoC plan of salvation. And baptism is a work because it is something we have to do. You CoC say it is not a work but baptism is not a passive act that the one being baptized does not do. God did not drive you to the CoC church and neither did the pastor (or anyone else) get in the baptistery for you. The only baptisms that are truly passive are the baptisms by proxy that the Mormons do. And of course you see and command and example to be baptized to be saved because of the CoC faulty CENI (command, example, and necessary inference) hermanuitic. You should give that up and go with what the bible says and not what you say it infers. CENI is just a way to make the bible say what you want it to say. And after all the CoC creed (that is “not a creed”) says you guys speak where the bible speaks and are silent where the bible is silent. But is should say “we speak where we say the bible infers and are silent when we want to be”.

Oh, so it does mention baptism, and your response was that it's part of the "hardliner" coC plan of salvation. I guess my assumption wasn't so far off after all, was it? Nice invectives, there, by the way. What's next, the "Campbellite" moniker? /roll eyes

[damonw]

But baptism is not debate in the debate. And as far as invectives, “hardline CoC is much more true than “the one true church”.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***What’s next, the “Campbellite” moniker? /roll eyes***

If the shoe fits...