08-09-2008, 03:33 PM
Prowler Wrote:
wkirscher Wrote:
Prowler
And why do you quote Mk 16:16 to support your position when it actually opposes it? “Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” What part of AND is unclear? The verse does not say “he who believes and is saved shall be baptized.”
And the second part … “but whoever does not believe will be condemned” means simply that – you are condemned if you do not believe. You cannot infer, without “adding to scripture”, and defying principles of logic, that this verse means you are saved by believing - it only says you are condemned by not believing. It would contradict the very sentence that precedes it!!!!
Cont …
An intelligent person will at least admit and see that this verse can be interpreted both ways.
I clearly see how you interpret it by adding definitions to words and therefore changing whom that verse is condemning.
Reading the same scriptures as you I believe the bible teaches a person can be healed without the anointing of oil from the elders and I also believe that a person is saved when he believes on Christ alone.
I'm sorry its so simple and that I sound so liberal. You are free to take up any extra weights you desire.
Regarding your response (Post #367) where you claim “An intelligent person will at least admit and see that this verse can be interpreted both ways.”. Are you saying that either interpretation is correct? Sounds like relativism to me – “scripture means whatever you want it to mean”. This is a tool of the enemy!!!! I’ve stated many times in my posts that I believe that scripture is infallible. What is not infallible is our interpretation of it. That is why Jesus gifted the Church with the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church, as Paul states, is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth” (1Tim3:15), not our own personal interpretations of scripture. So we can turn to this Pillar and Foundation of Truth to understand baptism and use this as a guide to interpreting scripture. As I’ve stated (and no one has yet proven otherwise), until some time after the Protestant reformation, nearly all Christians believed in the regenerative nature of baptism. It was not until some time after the reformation and after the “age of enlightenment” that a minority of Christians began to believe that baptism was merely symbolic. Why should I reject the teachings of the Pillar and Foundation of Truth over a tradition of man invented some 1500 years later?