>>520753698
>through the NT t just means to wash
No, water baptism is always described by immersion. That's why they always need a body of water.
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:"
>and its not a salvation issue if you do it 'wrong'.
True, but that is not what Lutherans teach.
>never noticed any in the worship area where ive been, or do you extend it to printing pictures in magazine etc?
I always see pictures and/or crucifixes from them.
Pictures for historical reasons are fine, but have no place in locations of worship.
>and i say that you are simply wrong. totally wrong. ive gone to an LCMS church for years and can tell you've never even read what they believe.
Is picrel not true? Every Lutheran I have heard gives lip service to "Sola Fide", but then promptly deny it by declaring that you must be baptised to be saved. Many high-churchy type Cavinists do the same.
And if it is true then no, you cannot define baptism as "God's work" because that is completely farcical and a concession by attempting to redefine words.
>like what?
Like the ones here (images, sprinkling, etc). They're just generally toned down and less egregious.