Wikipedia states: In formal logic, reductio ad absurdum is used when a formal contradiction can be derived from a premise, allowing one to conclude that the premise is false.
There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it is because of a fallacy in the reasoning used to arrive at the contradiction, not the act of reduction itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
All ideas have inherent consequential inferences and necessary logical extensions whether they are stated or not. Have you ever talked to a baptismal regenerationsist and they said lets talk about Mark 16:16 or Acts 2: 38 and you thought, lets not, again. They will ignore part b of Mark 16:16 and try to wish it away. They will try to say baptism is for (not because of) remission of sins when Acts clearly states in later chapters that remission of sin come from belief in Jesus shed blood.
But have you ever asked yourself why your so repugnant and repulsed by their insistence to talk about a hand full of verses and call it gospel? It is because they have existentially asked you to believe that the bible cannot be understood without these hand full of verses.
http://www.deafmissions.com/tally/bkchptrvrs.html claims there is 1189 Chapters, 31,103 verses in the bible with 23,145 OT verses.
You are repaginated by the fact that baptismal regenerationist expect you to believe that over 3000 verses and 1100 chapters are no good by themselves and cannot be understood correctly without their interpretations of 6-15 verses. Even the most resourceful advocate of baptismal regeneration can only talk about 15 or so verses that they claim mandates salvation through water baptism. And they have to impose water baptism every time they see the word water or cleansing ETC to do that. The way they interpret these handful of verses are in stark contrast to the rest as far as salvation goes.
Never mind that no one in the OT was baptized for remission of sins but God had a program of salvation in effect and even the Father of that faith was saved by grace and faith and not baptism. Never mind that Jesus did not baptize and Paul was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel which is the preaching of the cross 1Co 1:17 which bewilders the unsaved and is foolishness to him in it’s simplicity.
Just remember that when they don’t want to talk about the 150+ verses that say salvation is by grace through faith, how anyone in the OT was saved, salvation as the gift of God, or salvation as by the blood of Jesus, they are asking you to disbelieve the rest of the bible and rest your faith on their interpretation of a handful of verses that if are true as they interpret them, they are in contradiction to the rest of the bible and claim by default that the rest of the scriptures are useless for your salvation.
Just remember, I honestly believe that the argument for baptismal regeneration cannot be logically reduced further to absurdity than this.
The truth = over 31,000 verses.
The lie= private interpretations of less than 15 verses.
This article is created and copyrighted by Damon Whitsell 2008. All free duplicating is allowed provided this Commons copyright licensing requirments is kept intact and attached.
Water salvation/baptismal regeneration reduced to absurdity! By Damon Whitsell by Damon Whitsell is licensed (FOR YOUR FREE USE) under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.Based on a work at how2becomeachristian.webs.com.
Posts
