LDS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!

[DavidFirth]

Interesting.

Obviously my study of the Bible has lead me to different conclusions than yours. I do greatly appreciate you even-toned and Christ-like manner here. Thank you for sharing.

Well, I certainly don't hate Mormons, the ones I know are very friendly, very nice people.

 

[Jane_Doe]

There is no doubt about the basic meaning of John 14.6. There is no doubt about the basic meaning of 1 Timothy 2.5. There is no doubt about the basic meaning of John 1.14.

I'm not sure how that's an answer to my question. Can you help me out?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Well, I certainly don't hate Mormons, the ones I know are very friendly, very nice people.

Thank you. Your post is a breath of fresh air.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm not sure how that's an answer to my question. Can you help me out?

Your question seemed to indicate the belief that what the Bible actually says about doctrine is merely a matter of opinion; with Biblical references to central doctrines, I have given examples which demonstrate differently.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Your question seemed to indicate the belief that what the Bible actually says about doctrine is merely a matter of opinion; with Biblical references to central doctrines, I have given examples which demonstrate differently.

Here, I'll pull an example of what I'm talking about:
Person A reads the Bible and comes away believing that baptism is needed for salvation.
Person B reads the Bible and comes away believing that baptism is not needed for salvation, because faith alone is Christ saved and no works are needed.

How do you determine which is True?

Note: For this question, I'm interested in your methodology to determine which is True, and not particularly which conclusion your reach.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Here, I'll pull an example of what I'm talking about:
Person A reads the Bible and comes away believing that baptism is needed for salvation.
Person B reads the Bible and comes away believing that baptism is not needed for salvation, because faith alone is Christ saved and no works are needed.

How do you determine which is True?

Note: For this question, I'm interested in your methodology to determine which is True, and not particularly which conclusion your reach.

John 3 does not mention baptism. This is a simple observation; a simple methodology.

 

[Jane_Doe]

John 3 does not mention baptism. This is a simple observation; a simple methodology.

Person A read Mark 16:16 and observed "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", and read John 3 understanding being born of water to mean being baptized. Hence Person A concludes the Bible plainly teaches the necessity of baptism.

And hence, the two different views on a very basic matter. How do you determine which is True?

 

[faroukfarouk]

Person A read Mark 16:16 and observed "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", and read John 3 understanding being born of water to mean being baptized. Hence Person A concludes the Bible plainly teaches the necessity of baptism.

And hence, the two different views on a very basic matter. How do you determine which is True?

You didn't quote the rest of Mark 16.16, which is relevant to the matter which you raised.

 

[Jane_Doe]

You didn't quote the rest of Mark 16.16, which is relevant to the matter which you raised.

We're talking about those being saved, not those being damned.

 

[faroukfarouk]

We're talking about those being saved, not those being damned.

Opposite sides of the same coin.

But I am reminded of Luther's comment that if a person is not submitting to the final authority of Scripture, prolonging an argument serves no purpose.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Opposite sides of the same coin.

But I am reminded of Luther's comment that if a person is not submitting to the final authority of Scripture, prolonging an argument serves no purpose.

You're totally ignoring the verse and my question.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You're totally ignoring the verse and my question.

Please read what I said about Mark 16.16 in its entirety. And John 3 speaks strongly about the new birth though the words of the Lord Jesus, and says nothing about the new birth.

I do think this discussion is becoming circular and unprofitably prolonged.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Please read what I said about Mark 16.16 in its entirety. And John 3 speaks strongly about the new birth though the words of the Lord Jesus, and says nothing about the new birth.

You're interpreting the verse, not letting it speak for itself.

Note: my point here is that everyone interprets when they read, hence conflicting interpretations of the Bible on something as simple as "what is required for salvation?". Through some process you (and everyone else) has decided on which interpretation they hear, whether or not they are conscious of that process. This is not discounting the value of scripture, but stating the flawed nature of humans.

I was simply asking about your process of determining which was True.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Person A read Mark 16:16 and observed "16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", and read John 3 understanding being born of water to mean being baptized. Hence Person A concludes the Bible plainly teaches the necessity of baptism.

And hence, the two different views on a very basic matter. How do you determine which is True?

An absolute statement like "baptism is required for salvation" must hold up to scrutiny (Acts 17:11). It doesn't. John 3:16, 6:48, Romans 10:9, Eph. 2:8-9, etc. have not such requirment attached to them. Therefore, the lds absolute statement of "baptism is required for salvation" cannot be True.

 

[faroukfarouk]

You're interpreting the verse, not letting it speak for itself.

Note: my point here is that everyone interprets when they read, hence conflicting interpretations of the Bible on something as simple as "what is required for salvation?". Through some process you (and everyone else) has decided on which interpretation they hear, whether or not they are conscious of that process. This is not discounting the value of scripture, but stating the flawed nature of humans.

I was simply asking about your process of determining which was True.

"Ye must be born again." In and around the verse in John 3 there is no mention of baptism; if this is not letting the passage speak for itself, I don't know what is.

It's not profitable to continue in this way.

 

[mmksparbud]

You're totally ignoring the verse and my question.

The question has been answered. You see this as 2 different opinions---it is not. The bible is taken in it's entirety, not just by one verse. The question of baptism and salvation has had it's own thread and the same questions asked and answered each time. These are not 2 "opinions"---it is the same answer ---those who can it is best to be baptized. AGAIN, AND AGAIN---The thief on the cross was not baptized, death bed conversions often can not be baptized. This is not a matter of which theory do you believe---it is plainly written---baptize--but if something has prevented it--God will save you because you have chosen him and declared it so to Him. God alone judges the heart---baptism is a public confession of choosing God in our lives---if there is no public to confess to and no one to baptize you and no water to immerse in and or it is medically or physically impossible-----God still knows the heart and will save you--It is His decision, His stated words, not JS's demands, that counts----no discussion needed and it is off topic.

 

[Jane_Doe]

"Ye must be born again." In and around the verse in John 3 there is no mention of baptism; if this is not letting the passage speak for itself, I don't know what is.

And Mark 16:16 plainly states that it is; if this is not letting the passage speak for itself, I don't know what is.

It's not profitable to continue in this way.

Know how someone determines what is True is an extremely important endeavor-- else we are left with choosing to embrace some scriptures while ignoring others.

 

[faroukfarouk]

And Mark 16:16 plainly states that it is; if this is not letting the passage speak for itself, I don't know what is.

Know how someone determines what is True is an extremely important endeavor-- else we are left with choosing to embrace some scriptures while ignoring others.

It indicates that baptism is linked - should occur - after the person believes, as in Acts 2.41.

Nowhere does it state that the administration of water produces regeneration and faith. The Acts passage makes it clear that baptism is a result of the people having 'gladly received his word'; baptism was not what produced in them the faith response. Plain and clear meanings speak for themselves.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It indicates that baptism is linked - should occur - after the person believes, as in Acts 2.41.

But is it required for salvation? Again, Mark 16:16 clearly indicates yes while others indicate no. I myself am not taking a position on the matter, and just want to know how you reach your conclusion.

 

[BigDaddy4]

And Mark 16:16 plainly states that it is; if this is not letting the passage speak for itself, I don't know what is.

Know how someone determines what is True is an extremely important endeavor-- else we are left with choosing to embrace some scriptures while ignoring others.

Do you not see the irony in your above statements?? You rely ONLY on Mark 16:16. In doing so, you are "choosing to embrace some scriptures while ignoring others".