Yeah Ed. And the tiny matter that tongues will die out as a gift. How oh how must we know, then? Maybe it’s because apostolic authority told us that baptism saves us. I pointed out a awhile back how you tend to confuse your terms, and take contradicting positions. I don’t believe you have a clear concept of the distinctions between laying on of hands, what the Holy Spirit actually does, etc. You have a tendency to to deny clear words of Scripture, but you don’t back it up with other Scripture, you simply go off your theology. For instance your priceless interpretation of what Ananias really means by washing away sins. Apparently he meant guilt. Right. Sure Ed. Based off of what? That verse you provided that I refuted in the Greek that you never responded to?
Your opinion of making progress in this debate tends to revolve around bring up a scatterblast of verses that actually COMPLEMENT our theology. However, when I come up with a passage that does not complement yours, but actually contradicts it, you don’t turn to Scripture, you turn to what you believe about Scripture.
For instance, you stated that the laying on of hands is merely sealing the presence of the Holy Spirit. However, you have also stated that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in a sinful man. Because of this, you run into the contradiction that Ananias “received” the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, but did not have his sins washed away. So then you have to redefine what Ananias really meant. To do this, you provide one verse, which I refuted. You do not respond to this refutation. Then you try to argue out of it by providing random other verses that fit our theology quite well, for instance the blood being what washes away our sins. However you ignore that the baptism is what makes us partakers in that atoning death. Everywhere you turn, you have to change the definition of words and passages to escape the hole you dig yourself into.
You keep pointing to “belief” but ignore the fact that Jesu equates belief with obedience. Then you ironically try to point to Paul to say that “it isn’t what Jesus meant.” You say that would be a work, but you ignore Catholic theology of works through grace, so you don’t seem to understand that that in itself does not refute our position.
This is why I am so relentless with you on one particular passage at a time, because otherwise you tend to wander in circles. You have been unable to explain that Ananias really meant guilt for sins, as opposed to exactly what he said.
