I'm not sure why you think that logic applies to what I said. I was just trying to explain a doctrine held. Publishing a doctrine does not save or condemn anyone.... only Jesus can do that.Judas Maccabeus wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 9:37 pmSo you think by putting out that doctrine, and publicizing it, they are condemning more people that are saved if they do not submit to it, than they are saving people who do?Praxis+Theodicy wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:14 pmI haven't read the whole argument back and forth in S&T, but even I can see the nuance in FotW's position in this sentence alone. It seems to clearly mean that salvation is granted to those who have faith, repent, and are baptized; but that it is only a REFUSAL to participate in the process that would result in a lack of salvation, not in an incidental lack of participation. For example, someone who has faith but is killed before baptism would be saved, but someone who professed faith and then said "but I am not going to be baptized, no way!" may not be saved.We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.
Better to stop teaching it, if that is your logic.
This is insane.
The purpose of publicizing the doctrine is the same as any statement of faith: to enunciate truth as understood by a group of people derived from the Bible. The Bible talks about baptismal regeneration. Some people explain it away one way or another. Others try to explain it without explaining away any text. This is not the only doctrine that faces this difficult choice. Predestination, eternal security, etc. all have differing conclusions by different denominations, but all are dealt with in their own way.