The Dimonds argue that
aut, which means 'or' can also mean 'and'.
But this is wrong. Also, they believe that if it did mean 'and' that this would somehow support the dogma of the necessity of water baptism. It does not. They are completely illogical.
If the decree read "this translation cannot be effect without the laver of regeneration and the desire thereof,"
Then BOTH would have to be missing for justification to be impossible, not just either one or the other.
If both have to be missing, then the presence of only one is enough, but this is illogical. If you accepted this false understanding, then you would have to say that not only can a person be justified who desires baptism, but never receives it, but you would also have to say that a person can be justified who received baptism but desires not to.
Do you see?
Topic: 40 Holy Martyrs of Sebaste (Read 10687 times)