Featured It is impossible to convince a Mormon that he is wrong!

Basic hermeneutics do not demand that "ALL" scripture be interpeted "LITERAL"! There is figurative expressions, symbols, etc. found in scripture. Surely you know that?

Depends upon what "Baptists" you are talking about (most likely "reformed"). More than likely you are talking about Romans 6:4-5 and Colossians 2:12. However, both refer to water baptism and neither demand water baptism occurs at the point of regeneration. I think we have already had that discussion. One basic rule of interpetation overlooked by this idea is that the immediate context must also be interpreted in light of overall context and it is at this point the Lutheran interpretation fails.

Proper interpetation of scriptures will not support that error at all. Both precepts and examples of Scripture completely repudiate that doctrine.

Lutherans fail to distinguish betwenn what is signified and the sign.

 

Think also that you have to realise that proper reading o fthe Bible means that we fir our doctrines and practices to what IT says, not that we take our church statement of beliefs, what our teacher s say etc and fir the bible to make it Approve all of that!

 

But you deny doing that in the case of salvation, for you take the plain meaning of faith alone/grace alone, and add another element of the Water baptism to it!

 

repeat -sorry

 

Thank you! This is an excellent text to consider (Mk. 16:16).

First note where The second half places the emphasis really is in regard to eternity.

Second, notice you want to force an isolation interpretation and defend and build a doctrine on one verse when the Bible has a greater overall context that speaks to this point in regard to clear precepts and ceremonial significance.

Third, Baptists can freely admit that beleiving and being baptized save a person. However, this text does not define HOW baptism saves although it does clearly place eternal salvation on the emphasis of faith and the lack of it in the second half.

Fourth, to determine HOW baptism saves require the greater context and that is where your doctrine completely falters and falls flat.

 

Sorry but there are more factors to consider than that. In this case there is overall context concerning the design and application of divine external rites. There is also the problem of clear and explicit precepts that would contradict your ISOLATED contextual interpretations of a very FEW proof texts.

 

It IS possible to convince a Baptist that he is wrong. I was convinced by reading the Bible cover to cover and Calvin's Institutes cover to cover that dispensational theology is wrong.

 

About Mark 16:16 -- If I was going to try to establish doctrine based on one half of one verse as Wittenberger does, I would pick one that was actually contained within the oldest manuscripts, not one which was not even part of the original and oldest manuscripts.

 

The way sacramentalists approach and treat baptismal texts is both lazy and irresponsible.

Mark 16:16 at face value teaches that a person is saved by faith and baptism. However, it does not say HOW one is saved by faith or baptism and here is the precise point where sacramentalists are both lazy and irresponsible in their approach to the scriptures.

Lazy because there are somethings in scripture that require more than mere isolated proof texting to arrive at the intended truth. The Bible provides an overall context for some things and it requires what the Bible calls "study" comparing spiritual things with spiritual things.

For example, take this issue about baptism and the Lord's Supper as both equally use the phrase "for remission of sins" (Act 2:38; 22:16; Mt. 26:28). HOW do external ordinances remit sins? The sacramentalists ASSUMES on the basis of mere PROOF TEXTING that it must be sacramental. He assumes this without:

1. Studying God's overal contextual design for external ordinances - Heb. 10:1-4

2. Studying the overall Biblical context of remission of sin in regard to divine ordinances - Leviticus

3. Comparing explicit PRECEPTS that define the nature of salvation in connection with ordinances - Heb. 10:1-18; Romans 4; Luke 5:15-17;

4. Including all pertinent passages on baptism - Mt. 3:6-8; 1 Pet. 3:21

For example, take Peter's baptismology in regard to remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 10:43; 1 Pet. 3:21).

1. Baptism remits sins - Acts 2:38
2. Faith remits sins during pre and post Mosaic ordinances - Acts 10:43
3. Baptism saves as a figure not literally - 1 Pt. 3:21

Look at examples where baptism is unnecessary for salvation (John the Baptist, Theif on the cross) or not mentioned (healing of leper - Lk. 5:15-17; Samaritan woman, etc.).

Sacramentalists are not merely lazy but irresponsible in the manner they approach and deal with scriptures in regard to this subject as they refuse to examine ALL the available data the scriptues provide, especially the data that provides a different interpretation to their proof texting conclusions.

 

I make it a practice to invite into my home any Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses who may drop by.

Instead of seeking to engage the Mormon boys in debate, I offer them ice water or lemonade, and ask them about their work; how long they'll be in the area; where they're from and the like. I never give them a chance to raise theological questions, and I don't raise them either. I usually grin and tell them, "guys, if I wished you success in your efforts, I wouldn't be telling you the truth, but you understand where I'm coming from. Before you go, let me tell you how God saved me."

There's a lot of good theology in the plan of salvation and I try to get in a few points. I pray that the Holy Spirit will use it. But I don't let become an adversarial situation, because there's no point to it.

I do deal differently with the JWs, and I'll discuss that in a later post.

 

No harder than it is a Lutheran :laugh:

 

Ooooo, I see a "check". Nice move :thumbsup:

 

Two points: (1) I am not a fundamentalist Baptist. (2) The most reliable early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.