Why is it that when some error is brought to light, then the Scriptures are being *misquoted*, or *twisted*, or *taken out of context*?
For the same reason that we would both agree that, for example, when the ‘error’ of the Trinity is ‘brought to light’ by Jehovah's Witnesses, then the Scriptures are being misquoted, twisted and taken out of context. Insisting that you have ‘brought an error to light’ does not actually make it an error that you have brought to light. That is called the Circular Reasoning Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning.
Since I have studied the subject in depth, nothing has been misquoted.
Yes, it has; evidently, your study was not sufficiently deep. By the way, you are utilising a fallacious form of the argument from authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#General.
If you believe that is true, then prove it, or agree that even many Baptists don't teach about (and practice) water baptism according to Scripture.
I have proven it, but you have disregarded most of my proofs.
Here's a good example of misreading what was stated. The majority of Baptist churches regard water baptism as something which gives a new convert access to membership in their local church.
Of course they do!
They have defined ‘local church membership’ to be the group of all persons baptised in that church! But, again, what is wrong with that?
I did not say that the Scripture given teaches that. What I did say is that that Scripture establishes that every believer is *baptized* into the Body of Christ (which goes way beyond the local assembly).
Er… and… how exactly does that mean that you cannot join your local church upon baptism as well? Wow! I mean, you must love to use informal fallacies, right? It is the third one already! This time, you have used the False Dilemma Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma.
So the true teaching would be to explain this to the new convert, and then let him/her know that they are welcome to be in full fellowship in that local church, but not through their water baptism.
Any non-Christian is welcome to be ‘in full fellowship’ with my church. However, we are not discussing
fellowship with a local church, but rather
membership in a local church, which — I have already said — we have defined to be achieved through baptism. And that is the fourth fallacy — the Straw Man Fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.
I could go on to refute many of your comments, but I will refrain from that. It is up to every Christian to not only read those Scriptures, but also meditate on them in the light of the entire doctrine.
If you are able to, and yet refuse to, refute my incorrect arguments, I will assume that they are correct. Prove to me that they are incorrect, if indeed they are.