344 replies to this topic

[Pa Pa]

In our lesson on Sunday in Priesthood it was noted in the lesson that Baptism was necessary for the remission of sin. When I debate this issue among Evangelicals they love to quote the Apostle Paul and Romans as evidence that this is not so…what are we and they to make of these scriptures and commentary?

Quote

From Lesson 20; Under heading… We Must Be Baptized for the Remission of Our Sins
From the scriptures we learn that John the Baptist “did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). The Apostle Peter taught, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Following Paul’s conversion, Ananias said to him, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16).
Could it be any clearer? If Paul had to be baptized to “wash away his sins”; then why not all?

Simple question…how can many in the EV community dance around this one?

[Uncle Dale]

Pa Pa, on 23 November 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

...
Simple question…how can many in the EV community dance around this one?

Can't speak for the Evangelicals -- they are a mixed bunch when it
comes to baptismal doctrine.

Some biblical scholars would argue that the Book of Acts is among the
least historically reliable texts in the Bible -- that it was essentially
the early church's book, promoted to enhance the traditions and practices
of the post-apostolic era.

Whether or not the Book of Acts is reliable history, the story of Paul's
conversion has two (and perhaps three) versions, which are not identical,
and which raise the possibility that the story was not reported exactly
as it happened, with perfect quotations of all that was said and done.

Given that situation, I suppose that there are some Christians who would
argue that Paul's conversion is not a hard-and-fast doctrinal basis for
congregational practice and ordinances.

In the first chapter of Mark, the gospel writer tells us that the baptism
given by John the Baptist was for repentance and the remission of sins. I
suppose that Jesus' baptism (or that conducted by his disciples) was for
a similar purpose, but with the added element of conveying church membership
in its confirmation (the baptism of fire).

So far as I know, the vast majority of Christians adhere to those principles.
Some, like the Quakers, believe that baptism is only for new converts, and
that the children of righteous families need not be baptized. Some, like
the Methodists, promote baptism but do not teach that it must be entered into
for the granting of eternal life.

Does water (properly administered) "wash away sins," or (as in the JS story)
can sin be forgiven directly by God? Does the blood of Christ "wash away sins,"
or is it a medium by which sinners can come unto God and receive remission?

It is a great, knotty controversy among the Christians, and you'll get many
different answers from the various sects.

As for the Reorganized LDS, their teaching is that, where baptism is possible,
it is to be administered, by adult believer immersion, to new converts -- the
exceptions being a convert on his death bed, and similar unusual situations.

God is all-powerful, and God will exercise that power unto salvation -- even if
human beings do not always properly understand the details of the ordinances.

Uncle Dale

[Hick Preacher]

In the foundational official LDS Standard Works, there is an order of the workings of God toward salvation described.

Quote

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

Even in the Bible a similar in theory workings(Soteriology) of God toward salvation is described.  The person who has a heart toward God, that would have a remission of sins is baptized. Otherwise they are disobedient, and a disobedient person does not have a heart toward God that is positioned for God's forgiveness.


But in practical terms, a person who makes contact with any Christian Church, attends, and in reality has been affected by God's salvation will be a person that has been baptized-- or will be in short order.  Otherwise God's Spirit is not with them.  Baptism is thus necessary for the kind of salvation which could be described as leading to Christian growth, sanctification, and living a Christian life.   I do not know of any Christian Church that will take a person in as an official or a true and full member unless they have been baptized.  A person being baptized in Christ has made a sure move, and a social and public declaration to the body of the Saints, that they have made a covenant of obedience toward God and the gospel of Christ.

[Uncle Dale]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

...I do not know of any Christian Church that will take a person in
as an official or a true and full member unless they have been baptized.  
...

As I mentioned, the Society of Friends (Richard Nixon's church) baptizes
new converts but then extends full membership to the convert's children,
so long as they remain righteous (or faithful, or whatever their standard).

The baptism of the convert extends down upon all those over whom he has
authority in his own family.

Quakers are generally considered to be Christian.

I've fellowshiped for years with the Methodists, and was once offered an
"associate" (non-voting) membership, based upon my Latter Day Saint professions.

I know from time spent with that group of Christians that, while they require
a proper baptism for church membership, they do not teach that those who are
unbaptized end up in the lake of fire and brimstone.

I guess that the theologian would boil the controversy down to these
two questions:

1. Is God indeed Almighty?

or

2. Is God Himself bound by justice, to damn the unbaptized?

One of those two precepts should probably take precedence in theologizing.

UD

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Uncle Dale, on 23 November 2010 - 09:34 AM, said:

As for the Reorganized LDS, their teaching is that, where baptism is possible,
it is to be administered, by adult believer immersion, to new converts -- the
exceptions being a convert on his death bed, and similar unusual situations.

Is baptism then administered in some other way, or not at all?

[Uncle Dale]

DispensatorMysteriorum, on 23 November 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

Is baptism then administered in some other way, or not at all?

I once saw baptism administered to a dying man. He was put into a wheel-chair
and his body washed with water, to the same effect as total immersion. His
confirmation was scheduled for a later time. If I recall correctly, he did
not survive long enough to be confirmed.

I heard of another instance in which an Australian aborigine was baptized
with a small gourd of water, out in the dry desert. I do not know whether
he was re-baptized by immersion after that.

The point is, among the RLDS, the teaching is not that total immersion
saves the convert, but that God saves us all -- and that God has power
to sanctify even a faulty ordinance.

UD


.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 23 November 2010 - 11:09 AM.

[LeSellers]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

Even [sic] in the Bible a similar in theory workings(Soteriology) of God toward salvation is described.  ...

... in practical terms, a person who makes contact with any Christian Church, attends, and in reality has been affected by God's salvation will be a person that has been baptized-- or will be in short order.  Otherwise God's Spirit is not with them.  

You're so close, but miss out on the bubble gum by just this much: =>|  |<=.

Hick Preacher said:

Baptism is thus necessary for the kind of salvation which could be described as leading to Christian growth, sanctification, and living a Christian life.   I do not know of any Christian Church that will take a person in as an official or a true and full member unless they have been baptized.  A person being baptized in Christ has made a sure move, and a social and public declaration to the body of the Saints, that they have made a covenant of obedience toward God and the gospel of Christ.

That misses a critical point.

Baptism is the process by which God (through the Atonement of Christ) remits our sins.

Mark 1:4 said:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3 said:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Acts 2:38 said:

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Then, too, let's not forget that Peter, the Apostle, told us that it is baptism that saves us.

1 Peter 3:21 said:

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

If it is by baptism that our sins are remitted, and it is baptism that "doth now also save us", how can anyone hold to the apostate idea that baptism is not required for salvation?

Keep in mind that for fifteen centuries, the idea that baptism was requisite for salvation was universal throughout Christendom. It was only when Zwingli (knowing he, nor any other man on earth)ad no authority to act in the name of God (i.e., he had no Priesthood), and recognizing that a baptism performed without Divine Authority (i.e., Priesthood) had no validity, decided that baptism was unnecessary, that the ordinance was a showpiece and nothing more.

Zwingli, like most Evangelical Christians, was absolutely wrong: the Bible evidences this most powerfully.

Lehi

[Uncle Dale]

LeSellers, on 23 November 2010 - 11:10 AM, said:

...
how can anyone hold to the apostate idea that baptism is not required for salvation?
...

Perhaps in the same way that I hold such a precept --
by holding the omnipotence of God above any attempt at
human language to place restrictions upon God.

If somebody says that God cannot grant eternal life,
save it be through baptism, then he/she had better
be speaking as Heavenly Father's latter day oracle,
prefacing that communication with a "Thus saith the Lord..."

UD

[Hick Preacher]

Uncle Dale, on 23 November 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

As I mentioned, the Society of Friends (Richard Nixon's church) baptizes
new converts but then extends full membership to the convert's children,
so long as they remain righteous (or faithful, or whatever their standard).

The baptism of the convert extends down upon all those over whom he has
authority in his own family.

Quakers are generally considered to be Christian.

I've fellowshiped for years with the Methodists, and was once offered an
"associate" (non-voting) membership, based upon my Latter Day Saint professions.

I know from time spent with that group of Christians that, while they require
a proper baptism for church membership, they do not teach that those who are
unbaptized end up in the lake of fire and brimstone.

I guess that the theologian would boil the controversy down to these
two questions:

1. Is God indeed Almighty?

or

2. Is God Himself bound by justice, to damn the unbaptized?

One of those two precepts should probably take precedence in theologizing.

UD

That is an interesting bit of information, thanks.

Hick-

[Uncle Dale]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 11:40 AM, said:

That is an interesting bit of information, thanks.

Hick-

Having said all of that, my profession is that faith, repentance,
restitution and a public believer's baptism are all requirements
for a convert's entrance into the Body of Christ.

I do not suppose that we should act as if that were not so. But
how we bring believers into the Body of Christ is not necessarily
how our Heavenly Father absolves sin.

Suppose that Enos had been struck by lightning the very moment that
the Book of Mormon says his sin was remitted.......

Should we suppose (if lacking a latter day proxy baptism) that
poor Enos was destined for the telestial kingdom, or worse?

That is the sort of dead-end theologizing that we encounter, when
we attempt to mix the precepts of men with God's holy will. There's
a darn good chance that we'll end up with false doctrine that way.

UD


.

.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 23 November 2010 - 12:02 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

I will be happy to discuss this question with anyone who agrees that Paul's teaching in the NT epistles that bear his name is authoritative and binding on Christians today.

Pa Pa, on 23 November 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

In our lesson on Sunday in Priesthood it was noted in the lesson that Baptism was necessary for the remission of sin. When I debate this issue among Evangelicals they love to quote the Apostle Paul and Romans as evidence that this is not so…what are we and they to make of these scriptures and commentary?...
Simple question…how can many in the EV community dance around this one?

[Hick Preacher]

There is a high dimension to baptism however.

Peter preaching baptism probably had a very odd and significant meaning in the ancient world of religion.

As he preached

Quote

Acts 2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost

What Peter is saying was hugely radical in the world of religion in the Roman world. And how Peter included baptism in his preaching is HUGE!

In many religions of the ancient world, people were taken in and educated by  those religions of the day.  These religions prepared people for civilized improvement, to teach them morals and character – and for the next world use a rite of passage method of religion.
  
Baptism in the  Roman era cult of mitra was a rite of passage, earned only after the initiate finished a series of difficult ordeals.  The ordeal was the knowledge gaining, behavorial modification, respect and authority gaining, and/or educational phase of the religion.

Typically a rite of passage religion has:

an initiation stage,
an ordeal stage--
and a rite of passage stage.  

It seems to Gentiles of the early Church, and even Jews living in Rome knew of baptism as also being associated with a pagan mystery religion's rite of passage.

http://newsgroups.de...5/msg00092.html

Audiences being preached to would probably associate baptism with ritualitic Mikveh washings that had various elaborate drawn out preparatory regulations.

http://en.wikipedia....hing_in_Judaism

In Christianity however, there was NO usual religious phase of Ordeal before a rite of passage, like baptism was earned in the usual way on other religions.

Instead in Christianity,  the  initiate  only had to believe, and put forth a good faith promise to change (repent), then the convert would receive the rite of passage;  in the form of of baptism.


So when Peter taught-- 1 Peter 3:

Quote

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Apostle Peter was teaching about a religion where the ORDEAL phase of  other religions were omitted.   Because the convert did not under go the difficult  knowledge gaining, behavorial modification, respect and authority gaining, and/or educational phase of the religions of that day.  This would be looked upon by the religious teachers of the day as foolishness and impossible becase anyone joining that Christian relgion,  would have been left ignorant, earning no respect or authority, and still a carnal uneducated brute.

But in Christianity a comforter is given instead,  that is the Holy Ghost was given—replacing the gainful benefits of the traditonal ordeal experience.
  
By the Gift of the Holy Ghost the Christian is educated, empowered, refined and regenerated-- all the benefits and more ever gained by the old religoius systems using  ordeals followed by rites of passages.
The Ordeal of course was done vicariously by Christ for the convert—the Atonement.

The means Baptism as a rite is HUGE in Christianity and pivotable in the Christianites message.( it was getting the gift of a rite of passage without an antecedent Ordeal).

But the message that comes with baptism  is dual.  Baptism is also about the convert understanding that human based rite of passage systems were not at play—and that human knowledge gaining, human and human empowerment as a Christian came from God, and not from one's own human efforts.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 12:15 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

...
In Christianity however, there was NO usual religious phase of Ordeal
before a rite of passage, like baptism was earned in the usual way
on other religions.
...

I'll not attempt to speak for other born-again Jesus followers,
but in my case, dying to my old self was indeed an "ordeal."

It meant, practically, giving up an old, assured life and being
ready to begin anew, almost like an infant. It meant trusting that
I'd make it through the re-birthing process --- not just avoiding
being drowned in the baptismal font, but a danger far deeper and
more frightening than physical death.

Trusting 99.9% did not appear to be a viable option.

And trusting 100% was (for me at least) an ordeal.

UD

[ELF1024]

Pa Pa, on 23 November 2010 - 06:52 AM, said:

In our lesson on Sunday in Priesthood it was noted in the lesson that Baptism was necessary for the remission of sin. When I debate this issue among Evangelicals they love to quote the Apostle Paul and Romans as evidence that this is not so…what are we and they to make of these scriptures and commentary?

Simple question…how can many in the EV community dance around this one?

For those Evangelicals that use the Bible, and there seem to be many who do not, it would seem they use the idea of the "Roman's Road".

Quote

• Admit you are a sinner.
• Understand that as a sinner, you deserve death.
• Believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death.
• Repent by turning from your old life of sin to a new life in Christ.
• Receive, through faith in Jesus Christ, his free gift of salvation.

Number 4 could be baptism, however some may see it differently.

Evangelicals tend to confuse me.

[Hick Preacher]

Uncle Dale, on 23 November 2010 - 12:06 PM, said:

I'll not attempt to speak for other born-again Jesus followers,
but in my case, dying to my old self was indeed an "ordeal."

It meant, practically, giving up an old, assured life and being
ready to begin anew, almost like an infant. It meant trusting that
I'd make it through the re-birthing process --- not just avoiding
being drowned in the baptismal font, but a danger far deeper and
more frightening than physical death.

Trusting 99.9% did not appear to be a viable option.

And trusting 100% was (for me at least) an ordeal.

UD

That is a good point UD.

I was focusing on the Ordeal of Christ for us. But also giving-up ones old life and self is indeed a kind of ordeal.  So the repentant person who turns to Christ for life does undergo an ordeal of sorts before allowed a rite of passage.  This is a different kind of Ordeal than that of some other religions, but is certainly a kind of ordeal.

[Hick Preacher]

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

For those Evangelicals that use the Bible, and there seem to be many who do not, it would seem they use the idea of the "Roman's Road".



Number 4 could be baptism, however some may see it differently.

Evangelicals tend to confuse me.

Yes baptism could fit at number  four.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 12:25 PM.

[Uncle Dale]

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

>Admit you are a sinner.
>Understand that as a sinner, you deserve death.
>Believe Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death.
>Repent by turning from your old life of sin to a new life in Christ.
>Receive, through faith in Jesus Christ, his free gift of salvation.

I'd say that practically everyone (except for sociopaths) realizes now and then
those pangs of guilt which come from injuring others, or not living up to
our own principles -- so, admission of sin is not such an unusual thing. What
is out of the ordinary, is admitting to sinful acts, or a sinful nature, in
being compared to the standard of the Mosaic Law.

It is only by accepting the validity of the "Law of Moses," that "deserving death"
begins to make any sense. Some of the points of that law were punished by death,
when transgressed --- so the connection with physical death can be contemplated.

But, under biblical doctrine, physical death is not all that is entailed in this
"deserving" --- there is also a death beyond physical death to be pondered.

At this point, the "Roman road" becomes unrecognizable by most Latter Day Saints;
who profess that Jesus' resurrection only ends physical death for all people. We
still see people die, physically -- we do not see them resurrected.

"Believing Jesus Christ died on the cross to save you from sin and death," is
indeed a core biblical precept. But it will not make sense to all people. For
centuries it has made little sense to Jews. Muslims side-step the tenet entirely.

"Repent by turning from your old life of sin to a new life in Christ," also
is a core biblical teaching --- but, for some people, perfect repentance is as
untenable as perfect observance of the Law of Moses. How can an imperfect
human being effect a "turning from the old life of sin" to a new, sinless life?
Even if such righteous perfection can be attained for an instant, how can a
subsequent sinless life be maintained by the new convert? Again, this makes
little sense to some would-be converts.

"Receive, through faith in Jesus Christ, his free gift of salvation" is also
found in the Bible. But, again, how can the process work, if the convert's
faith is imperfect? And, even if salvation is thus attained, what does it entail?
We still see human beings die -- their bodies rot away -- their graves untended --
their very names and life stories forgotten.

Obviously, the "Roman road" paradigm is not accepted by all -- probably not even
experienced by the vast majority of Christians.

Only when "salvation" is made real, in a person's life, does the word begin
to take on an ultimately important significance.

And, I suppose that for many people, the word is meaningless, apart from
some sort of temporal salvation -- here and now -- in physical reality.

UD


.

Edited by Uncle Dale, 23 November 2010 - 12:28 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

For those Evangelicals that use the Bible, and there seem to be many who do not,...

Just imagine if I had written, "For those Mormons that use the Book of Mormon, and there seem to be many who do not...." Do you think anyone here would have let that pass without challenge?

You wrote:

Quote

Evangelicals tend to confuse me.

I would be happy to do what I can to help un-confuse you. Can you agree with me that the teaching of the NT epistles that bear Paul's name is authoritative and binding for Christians today?

[Hick Preacher]

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

Evangelicals tend to confuse me.

A side comment-- I do not want to derail the discussion on Baptism.

Evangelicalism is often misrepresented in the media.

There is a lot to discuss about Evangelicalism.


Evangelical Christianity covers a very broad spectrum of Biblical Christianity, also known as "Traditional Christianity" or "Mainstream Christianity".

Evangelical Christianity is NOT a denomination.

Evangelical Christianity crosses denominational boarders. Evangelicals are found in all kinds of demoninations such as : Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, and on and on ( both liberal and conservative).

NOT all Evangelicals are "Fundamentalists".  NOT all Evangelicals are "Protestants"

Evangelical Christianity could perhaps be best described as a Christian orientation or world view. This orientation includes general set of beliefs about Jesus Christ's Divinity, the authority of the Bible, and how God saves humans from this fallen world. This orientation runs accross most Protestant Traditions but often is also held by many Roman Catholics and other 'Orthodox' believers.  This orientation is today growing fast world wide.

It is believed that there are 200-300 Million Evangelical Christians World Wide.  Evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and original Ancient Disciples were Evangelical in orientation.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I will be happy to discuss this question with anyone who agrees that Paul's teaching in the NT epistles that bear his name is authoritative and binding on Christians today.

I so believe, as do all LDS.  But we also believe the rest of the Bible to be the word of God as well.