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

[Wittenberger]

I'll turn the tables on you: Mormons, RCs, JWs, and Magisterial Protestants cannot substantiate their beliefs using scripture alone; they all have to resort to extra-biblical and unbiblical sources, whereas the Baptists can substantiate their beliefs based on scripture alone. So, which of these groups has introduced "new" doctrines?

Baptists do not follow the simple, plain, literal interpretation of ALL of Scripture. Whenever a verse seems to indicate that salvation can occur at the time of baptism, Baptists change the word "baptism" from "immersion in water" to "immersion into the Holy Spirit".

You change the meaning to make it fit with your doctrine.

If you read the Bible literally you will read that God can save at baptism and He can also save when an adult pagan hears the Word preached and believes. Since your theology won't allow salvation to occur in two different situations, you reinterpret the verses that don't agree with you.

Lutherans believe both...literally.

 

[The Biblicist]

Baptists do not follow the simple, plain, literal interpretation of ALL of Scripture.

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

Whenever a verse seems to indicate that salvation can occur at the time of baptism, Baptists change the word "baptism" from "immersion in water" to "immersion into the Holy Spirit".

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.

If you read the Bible literally you will read that God can save at baptism

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Baptists do not follow the simple, plain, literal interpretation of ALL of Scripture. Whenever a verse seems to indicate that salvation can occur at the time of baptism, Baptists change the word "baptism" from "immersion in water" to "immersion into the Holy Spirit".

NO baptist believes one is saved apart form placing faith in jesus as their Lord/Saviour! faith alone/Grace alone!

You change the meaning to make it fit with your doctrine.

No, we fit out doctrine to what the Bible actually teaches!

If you read the Bible literally you will read that God can save at baptism and He can also save when an adult pagan hears the Word preached and believes. Since your theology won't allow salvation to occur in two different situations, you reinterpret the verses that don't agree with you.


Lutherans believe both...literally.

remember that taking the plain and literal intended meaning of the text also means have tio take into account things like genre, context, progressive revelation, grammar, etc!

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!

 

[Wittenberger]

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.

Lutherans believe that all Scripture should be interpreted in its simple, literal understanding unless the context and language used make it very obvious that an allegory or metaphor is being used.

 

[Wittenberger]

Interpret this verse for me please:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

 

[Yeshua1]

Lutherans believe that all Scripture should be interpreted in its simple, literal understanding unless the context and language used make it very obvious that an allegory or metaphor is being used.

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!

 

[Wittenberger]

Ok, so I guess I'll be the first to give my impression of what the literal interpretation of Mark 16:16 is:

Belief + baptism = salvation
Disbelief = damnation

It seems to me that what this verse says is:

A sinner who believes in Christ and is baptized will be saved. A sinner who fails to even believe will be damned to hell.

Anyone else see another literal interpretation?

On another thread, I am having a discussion with "Biblicist" and "DHK" regarding scriptural interpretation. They seem to believe that you should establish an overall contextual position on a doctrine first, before you read the individual verses on the topic. But isn't that backwards?? Wouldn't it be better to read all the verses on the topic first and then come to a conclusion about the overall scriptural doctrine. Their way seems like putting the cart before the horse!

 

[The Biblicist]

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

 

[The Biblicist]

Interpret this verse for me please:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lutherans believe that all Scripture should be interpreted in its simple, literal understanding unless the context and language used make it very obvious that an allegory or metaphor is being used.

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.

 

[billwald]

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.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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 Biblicist]

Interpret this verse for me please:

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16

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.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

 

[Wittenberger]

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.

Brother Biblicist,

You are absolutely correct that you cannot build a doctrine on one verse. A good example is this verse "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". By the one verse you might think that Christ built his church on Peter. He did not. That is why you have to read ALL the verses on a certain topic BEFORE you form a doctrinal position.

How about this idea: I will start with the first chapter of Mark and post every verse, one at a time, that includes the words "salvation,, save, baptism, baptize," or any discussion of water in the context of a spiritual event. We can all give our interpretations of each verse. If we would all keep an open mind until we have read ALL the verses, maybe we could come to an agreement on the literal interpretation of the Bible. I promise not to bring in the ECF if you promise not to bring in outside verses to interpret the plain, simple interpretation of each verse. Deal?

 

[Revmitchell]

Have you ever debated a Mormon on the LDS beliefs? How many times have you covinced a Mormon that his "church" is wrong? How many times have you converted a Mormon? I will bet that your answer willl be: not many or none.

Why?

The reason it is so hard to convert a Mormon is because his "proof" of his beliefs is a circular argument:

"I know that the LDS are right, because the Holy Spirit tells us we are right."

If your Mormon friend believes that God tells him in an internal voice that Mormonism is correct, it will be almost impossible to make him see that he is being deceived. A well-trained Mormon will have an answer from Scripture for every criticism of Mormonism that you can think of. Trying to debate Scripture with a Mormon is a waste of time.

But, ask a Mormon for any evidence that early Christians held LDS beliefs. Ask him for Church Fathers' statements that support LDS doctrine. His reply will be one of the following:

1. We don't need historical or acheological evidence because the Holy Spirit has already told us the "truth".

2. The early Church was already apostate immediately after the Apostles. Any statements from "apostate" Church Fathers are unreliable and most likely false doctrine.

3. The "Catholics" destroyed all evidence of the early "Mormons", that is why there is no historical evidence to support Mormon beliefs.

Don't belive me? Check out what this Mormon "Apostle" says about the evidence supporting the Mormon Church:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

No harder than it is a Lutheran :laugh:

 

[Wittenberger]

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.

I would be shocked to learn that any fundamentalist Baptist who holds the beautiful KJV as God's Word, would believe the nonsense that Mark 16:16 as found in the KJV is not God-inspired Holy Scripture.

 

[steaver]

I would be shocked to learn that any fundamentalist Baptist who holds the beautiful KJV as God's Word, would believe the nonsense that Mark 16:16 as found in the KJV is not God-inspired Holy Scripture.

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

 

[Wittenberger]

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.

Once again, brother, your rules of interpretation sound very educated, reasonable, and logical but bottom line...they are man made rules, therefore fallible. You start with a preconceived conclusion and then reinterpret the simple, plain text to fit your conclusion. You have the cart before the horse, brother.

One verse, two verses, three verses do not a doctrine make.

Read ALL verses on a particular topic, in context, and THEN arrive at a conclusion. Your "rules" are designed to prove you right, not to find the truth.

Let's put Mark 16:16 on the back burner and start from the beginning of the Gospel of Mark as I suggested above.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I would be shocked to learn that any fundamentalist Baptist who holds the beautiful KJV as God's Word, would believe the nonsense that Mark 16:16 as found in the KJV is not God-inspired Holy Scripture.

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