ellauri092.html on line 229: In contrast, Baptists traditionally hold to only baptism by immersion and only for one who is confessing faith in Jesus Christ for themselves, and old enough to responsibly do so. They reject pedobaptism and other modes such as a sprinkling or pouring or pedophilia as unbiblical. Baptists normally insist upon baptism for membership in a local church.
ellauri092.html on line 285: One of the main errors within the Keswick Movement is their unbiblical view of sanctification. Keswickians believe when a person becomes saved, they are immediately justified. This is certainly Scriptural fact (Romans 3:21-26; 5:18-19; 2 Corinthians 5:21). There is nothing I can do to justify myself before God. Only salvation provides this immediate and eternal justification as Christ’s righteousness is literally imputed to my account.
ellauri092.html on line 295: …the problems in the Keswick theology are severe. Because of its corrupt roots, Keswick errs seriously in its ecumenical tendencies, theological shallowness or even incomprehensibility, neglect of the role of the Word of God in sanctification, shallow views of sin and perfectionism, support of some tenants of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, improper divorce of justification and sanctification, confusion about the nature of saving repentance, denial that God’s sanctifying grace always frees Christians from bondage to sin and changes them, failure to warn strongly about the possibility of those who are professedly Christians being unregenerate, support for an unbiblical pneumatology, belief in the continuation of the sign gifts, maintenance of significant exegetical errors, distortion of the positions and critiques of opponents of the errors of Keswick, misrepresentation of the nature of faith in sanctification, support for a kind of Quietism, and denial that God actually renews the nature of the believer to make him more personally holy. Keswick theology differs in important ways from the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. It should be rejected.
ellauri478.html on line 96: Our inability to understand, however, does not mean the doctrine of the Trinity is untrue or unbiblical, although it was invented ex post facto in big patriarchal meetings. Below is the best symbol for the Trinity we are aware of:
ellauri478.html on line 222: I am aware that some Christian schools of thought oppose the death penalty as unbiblical, appealing to such things as the image of God in man, or to the fact that only God has the right to take a life. These arguments go against clear biblical mandate. God specifically instructed that certain criminals and sinners were to be put to death, or could be put to death. He did not impose a standard of absolute certainty regarding their crimes, nor did he say that to put such people to death was an affront against the image of God in man. Why, if anything, it makes them more alike. In fact, in Genesis 9:6 it is precisely because the murderer has struck out against the image of God in another man that the murderer is to be put to death. The death penalty respects and protects the image of God; it does not attack it!
5