Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Baptism of Christ


Cold Steel

Recommended Posts

Some sectarian Christians believe that sprinkling is okay for baptism, even though some acknowledge it was originally done by immersion. But which teach that Jesus went all the way to the Jordan River, only to have some water poured over his head or to be sprinkled by a wet hyssop? If so, what evidence is there?

Edmund Fairfield's Letters on Baptism are unconvincing to me because they're speculation. He notes: "I have not succeeded thus far in finding one instance in which anybody was required to dip or immerse himself, or to be dipped or immersed by another, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi. And yet the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of this Old Testament Dispensation as embracing 'divers baptisms.'"

The whole point of immersion was to be representative of Christ's burial and resurrection, but Fairfield argued: "The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, understood the matter. Long before this the word baptism had come to mean ceremonial water cleansing, and not immersion, in all the sacred writings." Yet if one visits the ancient sites in Jerusalem, one can see that purification rites were performed by immersion in water, or at least in fonts with steps leading down.

Fairfield also notes: "The people had always known that even after having touched a dead body the "baptizing" was by sprinkling. The ceremonial cleansing from the leprosy was by sprinkling. 'The priest shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times' (Lev. 14:7)."

My grandfather was a confirmed Methodist, but as he "began to be old" (to use Mormon's phrase), he began to worry that perhaps he should be immersed.

To those who are not LDS but believe in immersion, do you believe not being immersed jeopardizes one's eternal salvation?

baptism-in-the-holy-spirit.jpg...baptism.jpg

Link to comment
My grandfather was a confirmed Methodist, but as he "began to be old" (to use Mormon's phrase), he began to worry that perhaps he should be immersed.

To those who are not LDS but believe in immersion, do you believe not being immersed jeopardizes one's eternal salvation?

Outside of the Bible, the first instructions on baptism seem to come in the Didache.

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able.

I don't see the ordinance of baptism as salvific, rather as a necessary act of obedience. So I don't think in and of itself an inappropriate method of baptism is jeopardizing salvifically. However, sprinkling is an inappropriate method that has no basis in Scripture. Those who use Leviticus as a crutch for messing it up, are mistaken.

If you Grandfather was worried about it, I think he should have found a way to be immersed and think his feelings were most likely driven by the spirit.

Link to comment

It is strange to take such a legalistic interpretation of this word given:

  • LDS insist that "hot drinks" can mean coffee and tea but not hot chocolate, soup or herbal tea. (D&C 89)
  • That"eternal punishment" does not follow all of the rules of English grammar, suggesting that "eternal" applies to subject and not the verb. (D&C 19)
  • Water can be substituted for wine in both practice and the wording of ordinance.
  • Ordinances my be vicariously applied to individuals who had nothing to do with the ordinance at all.
  • Ordinances may be changed in 2005, including verbiage and practice, to only reference prior practice.

The list could be added to. My point is that this sort of argument is one-off and does not hold as a principle of Mormonism. In other words, the brethern could announce tomorrow that sprinkling is OK and it wouldn't invalidate Mormonism. It doesn't, in and of itself invalidate any other religion either.

Link to comment
Digging deeper into the root of the word, it means to overwhelm with water, like a flood or a tidal wave.

Actually the true meaning of the word "baptizo" would connotate change, and not simply getting wet with water. Here we see an example of the use of the word to describe the immersion in a vinegar solution.

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!

None of us would wish to be immersed in vinegar until it produced a permanent change, but we would desire the permanent change of heart that only the Lord can see. Which action do you believe is more important to the Lord? Is the means of baptism more important, or the result? Elder David A. Bednar referred to this change of heart in Conference of April 2007.

Link to comment
Actually the true meaning of the word "baptizo" would connotate change, and not simply getting wet with water. Here we see an example of the use of the word to describe the immersion in a vinegar solution. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! None of us would wish to be immersed in vinegar until it produced a permanent change, but we would desire the permanent change of heart that only the Lord can see. Which action do you believe is more important to the Lord? Is the means of baptism more important, or the result? Elder David A. Bednar referred to this change of heart in Conference of April 2007.
I really don't like this example. I don't like pickles and don't like thinking of baptism as being pickled. Just my opinion. :P
To those who are not LDS but believe in immersion, do you believe not being immersed jeopardizes one's eternal salvation?
I am LDS and consider baptism to be a symbolic act, but I really do not understand how anyone can interpret Biblical baptism as being anything other than a full immersion.
Link to comment
I really don't like this example. I don't like pickles and don't like thinking of baptism as being pickled. Just my opinion. :(I am LDS and consider baptism to be a symbolic act, but I really do not understand how anyone can interpret Biblical baptism as being anything other than a full immersion.

It is simply an example of how the baptizo was used in Greek. Wish I had a better example for you, but alas, so few exist. It is all about the change of heart. Isn't that what the Lord had to say? Here are some examples:

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me.

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

Link to comment
. It is all about the change of heart. Isn't that what the Lord had to say? Here are some examples:

Like all language, context is everything. Certainly, when John said, "I baptize you with water unto repentance", the people were experiencing a change of heart since repentance requires a change of heart and I don't doubt that "baptizo" was used in a very active sense. The meaning of Jesus baptizing with fire is a little less clear.

Link to comment
Actually the true meaning of the word "baptizo" would connotate change, and not simply getting wet with water. Here we see an example of the use of the word to describe the immersion in a vinegar solution.

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptized' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptized shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!

None of us would wish to be immersed in vinegar until it produced a permanent change, but we would desire the permanent change of heart that only the Lord can see. Which action do you believe is more important to the Lord? Is the means of baptism more important, or the result? Elder David A. Bednar referred to this change of heart in Conference of April 2007.

The word βαπτίζω (baptizo) is the only one that ever appears in the New Testament when it is talking about "baptism". Yes, it does initiate a change, but the word means what it means, and that is "immerse", nothing else.

The word βάπτω (baptō) means "dip", and never appears in a context about baptism. This Nicander quote shows up frequently in these discussions, but it doesn't make any sense as critics use it.

Lehi

Link to comment
The word βαπτίζω (baptizo) is the only one that ever appears in the New Testament when it is talking about "baptism". Yes, it does initiate a change, but the word means what it means, and that is "immerse", nothing else.

The word βάπτω (baptō) means "dip", and never appears in a context about baptism. This Nicander quote shows up frequently in these discussions, but it doesn't make any sense as critics use it.

Lehi

Okay, how do you see the difference between bapto and baptizo in context of pickle making. The pickle was first bapto (dipped) (would not that be similar to being dipped into the baptismal font also because surely it doesn't mean the cucumber was sprinkled) then it was baptizo (immersed) until the change occured.

Link to comment
Okay, how do you see the difference between bapto and baptizo in context of pickle making. The pickle was first bapto (dipped) (would not that be similar to being dipped into the baptismal font also because surely it doesn't mean the cucumber was sprinkled) then it was baptizo (immersed) until the change occured.

If they held people under as long a time as cucumbers are immersed in becoming pickles, it would improve the ratio of people falling into apostasy by 100%.

Link to comment
It is strange to take such a legalistic interpretation of this word given:
  • LDS insist that "hot drinks" can mean coffee and tea but not hot chocolate, soup or herbal tea. (D&C 89)
  • That"eternal punishment" does not follow all of the rules of English grammar, suggesting that "eternal" applies to subject and not the verb. (D&C 19)
  • Water can be substituted for wine in both practice and the wording of ordinance.
  • Ordinances my be vicariously applied to individuals who had nothing to do with the ordinance at all.
  • Ordinances may be changed in 2005, including verbiage and practice, to only reference prior practice.

The list could be added to. My point is that this sort of argument is one-off and does not hold as a principle of Mormonism. In other words, the brethern could announce tomorrow that sprinkling is OK and it wouldn't invalidate Mormonism. It doesn't, in and of itself invalidate any other religion either.

John, I don't agree with your point of view and 90% of what you say but here you are head on. Today Mormonism can change everlasting laws and ordinances, and it's called "continuing revelation." Early Christians changed everlasting laws and covenants, and that is called the "Great Apostasy." Whatever it is that Joseph Smith restored, it's clear that the LDS Church has been trying to continuously revelate it under the rug or into the dustbin since 1890. Joseph Smith said "The Gospel has always been the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements the same." TPJS p. 264.

Link to comment
It is strange to take such a legalistic interpretation of this word given:

LDS insist that "hot drinks" can mean coffee and tea but not hot chocolate, soup or herbal tea. (D&C 89)

That's because guidance was given, specifying what was meant. There's a huge difference in apostolic clarification and that offered by learned doctors and commentators.

That"eternal punishment" does not follow all of the rules of English grammar, suggesting that "eternal" applies to subject and not the verb. (D&C 19)

There is no difference between the esoteric meanings of "eternal" in "eternal punishment" and "eternal life." Creedal Christians acknowledge the latter is more than just living forever; that it is, in fact, "salvation" or "exaltation." Those who gain eternal life gain the Celestial Kingdom, while those who don't, won't. Even those said to be thrown into hell live forever, but it is not said that they have eternal life. So it is with eternal punishment. It doesn't necessarily mean punishment that lasts forever, but is punishment meted out by God. Eternal life is life meted out by God.

Water can be substituted for wine in both practice and the wording of ordinance.

Quite so, but again, this is something given through revelation. It is not some innovation concocted by popes, priests or kings, but by the mouth of God's appointed servants.

Ordinances my be vicariously applied to individuals who had nothing to do with the ordinance at all.

Nothing? The individuals most assuredly do have the final word in such ordinances. When applied vicariously, those who are qualified to either accept it or reject it do so in a formal ceremony on the other side of the veil. There are records kept both on Earth and in Heaven, and out of those records shall the sons of men be judged. If they reject the ordinance, then it is not effective. If they are not qualified (say, they are murderers), the ordinance also is ineffective. It matters not how many times someone like Saddam Hussein or Stalin are baptized; they will suffer the consequences of their actions.

Ordinances may be changed...including verbiage and practice, to only reference prior practice.

How true. The Lord can authorize such changes, again through revelation. He can command that missionaries go without purse or script, or He can turn around and reverse it. He can raise up seed by authorizing plural marriage, or He can do away with it by command. These ordinances and commandments cannot be changed through the whim of church leaders, but only by divine oversight. Thus, if war or other emergencies prevent someone from being immersed by someone in authority, the Lord will not accept it if done in good faith by those without the authority or in ways not allowed.

Regarding the word baptizo, Fairfield and others argue that it can be translated "sprinkle" or "pour." Since the Law of Moses was quite practical and promoted health, it's difficult to see how sprinkling someone who had touched something unclean would kill or remove bacteria. Still, the arguments for sprinkling are just that: arguments. If it could be proved that the apostolic Christians baptized by sprinkling, it would settle the matter. Fairfield writes: "Baptizo had long before that [70 A.D.] come to express the idea of ceremonial purification; such ceremonial purification was never once required to be by immersion; it was, in many instances, commanded to be by sprinkling, and hence it is the most natural conclusion possible that they never dreamed of baptizing tables and couches by dipping them."

These arguments are further evidence that the Bible is not complete and inerrant, and that continuing revelation is vital to the church. Joseph Smith, by revelation, was told that the lesser priesthood "holds the keys of the ministering of angels...and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the Earth...." (D&C 13:1)

I've done some reading on baptism and the proponents of sprinkling believe strongly that they have evidence that sustains their views, but their arguments aren't proof; they're only evidence that the issue is debatable.

Link to comment
Outside of the Bible, the first instructions on baptism seem to come in the Didache.

I don't see the ordinance of baptism as salvific, rather as a necessary act of obedience. So I don't think in and of itself an inappropriate method of baptism is jeopardizing salvifically. However, sprinkling is an inappropriate method that has no basis in Scripture. Those who use Leviticus as a crutch for messing it up, are mistaken.

If you Grandfather was worried about it, I think he should have found a way to be immersed and think his feelings were most likely driven by the spirit.

The ordinance of baptism as being salvific{?} is the very same reason other ordinances are commanded; first off its a promise made to the lord, a covenant or bond in agreement with him; {done with sincere intent of heart and mind}.

When we make a binding agreement it is a lot hearder to justify breaking that promise than simply claiming trueness of heart, therefore God will forgive me because he knows my heart; with a covenant it is not for anyone to claim temporary ignorance;

Yes it is nessacery act of obedience; And it is nessacery to enter into the kingdom of God. "And jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway 'Out of the water". Add this to other biblical verse and we definately have immersion nessacery. :P

Link to comment

Baptism seems to stab at the theology of those who say that works are unnecessary for salvation. Although the works themselves do not save, people cannot be saved without them. Thus, when Nephi says a man is saved by grace "after all he can do," it is not the same as saying that works save.

We're told by numerous denominations that revelation has ceased; that it is no longer needed. So, say we, show us chapter and verse in the Bible where the directions are for baptizing. Oh, and while you're at it, show us where it says that people should no longer receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism. Both are mentioned in the scriptures, but nowhere are we told who can perform the ordinances and, indeed, if the second is now unnecessary.

If baptism is to be done solely by immersion, that seems to be a blow against infant baptism; so those sects that baptize infants must, by necessity, baptize by sprinkling or pouring. Surely if the Bible was complete, we would have these things spelled out for us in holy writ. "What need have we for the Book of Mormon," critics charge. "Where is the deficiency in the Bible?" Well, this is a perfect example. The BOM does tell us how the ancients baptized.

The sprinklers and the pourers can argue their case, but they cannot win it; yet the largest Christian sects sprinkle or pour. I was hoping that someone could speak for them. The Catholic church believes that baptism is a sacrament and not an ordinance. LDS believe that baptism is an ordinance and that sacrament is a sacrament. Joseph Smith was criticized because he was thought to have added the controversy of infant baptism into the Book of Mormon. This, they said, was a dead giveaway that he was merely addressing the issues of his day. Nevertheless, Catholic.com reports: "In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (re-baptizers) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly." So it wasn't a modern controversy at all!

One of the arguments put forth by the Catholics is, to me, bizarre:

...for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). More detail is given in Lukeâ??s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, â??Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of Godâ??" (Luke 18:15â??16).

This is where it begins to get strange. Continuing a bit later:

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek,
Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha
). The Greek word
brepha
means "infants"â??children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."

But where in this scripture does it say anything about baptism? My reading of the Bible indicates that Jesus never baptized anyone, much less children, and that in this case he was blessing them. Mormon, in sorting the issue out in his day, fully acknowledged that little children are of the kingdom of God and that they needed no baptism. And in a fit of passion, he added that anyone who supposed infants needed baptism to be saved was in danger of condemnation. In this case I think he meant those who thought that babies would be consigned to hell without it would be condemned, not necessarily those who thought it should be done. Current Catholic doctrine states that a person can be saved irrespective of baptism; that salvation was one event and baptism was another. This really negates baptism altogether and it flies in the face of centuries of previous Catholic thought.

Christening_Baptism_favor_3.jpg

baptism1.jpg

Link to comment

If Christ were not baptised by immersion, then other scripture is invalidated such as Romans 6 where baptism is compared to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is no inherent power in the method of baptism, the power comes from the obedience in doing it the right way.

Link to comment
If Christ were not baptised by immersion, then other scripture is invalidated such as Romans 6 where baptism is compared to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. There is no inherent power in the method of baptism, the power comes from the obedience in doing it the right way.

It works in the same way that a little piece of Wonder bread and a swallow of SLC tap can signify the Lord's flesh and blood.

Link to comment

Baptism, according to many, "means to apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing." (Luther's Small Catechism, par. 244, p. 170.) Advocates of sprinkle or pouring baptism point to examples where the word baptizo doesn't exclusively mean immersing.

Still, the Catholic Dictionary makes this significant admission: "The Scripture makes it clear enough that water is to be used, but it is not so plain at first sight that sprinkling or pouring of water will suffice. In Apostolic times the body of the baptized person was immersed, for St. Paul looks on this immersion as typifying burial with Christ, and speaks of baptism as a bath." Anciently, it goes on to say, "baptism was constantly given to adults and the rite of immersion prevailed...." (The Catholic Dictionary on "baptism" and "baptistery," pp 60-64.

Joseph Fielding Smith, in speaking of the apostasy, noted: "Through darkness which covered the earth they had lost the knowledge of God; they had transgressed the laws and changed the ordinances; and instead of teaching the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they taught the commandments of men just as the Lord Jesus Christ declared to the Prophet Joseph Smith." (Conference Report, April 1956, Afternoon Meeting, p.58 - 59)

Where Catholics once taught that no one entered heaven unless they were baptized, they now teach that salvation and baptism are two separate events, and that the former is to precede the latter. If one dies between the two events, then it's okay because salvation does not require the outward display of accepting Christ. Just a few centuries ago, the church would not allow infants who died without baptism to be buried in hallowed cemeteries. But which position is correct? The position now is totally different than it was then. What are we to make of Jesus' pronouncement that no one can be saved except they be born of the water and of the spirit?

Link to comment
Baptism, according to many, "means to apply water by washing, pouring, sprinkling, or immersing." (Luther's Small Catechism, par. 244, p. 170.) Advocates of sprinkle or pouring baptism point to examples where the word baptizo doesn't exclusively mean immersing.

Still, the Catholic Dictionary makes this significant admission: "The Scripture makes it clear enough that water is to be used, but it is not so plain at first sight that sprinkling or pouring of water will suffice. In Apostolic times the body of the baptized person was immersed, for St. Paul looks on this immersion as typifying burial with Christ, and speaks of baptism as a bath." Anciently, it goes on to say, "baptism was constantly given to adults and the rite of immersion prevailed...." (The Catholic Dictionary on "baptism" and "baptistery," pp 60-64.

Joseph Fielding Smith, in speaking of the apostasy, noted: "Through darkness which covered the earth they had lost the knowledge of God; they had transgressed the laws and changed the ordinances; and instead of teaching the simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, they taught the commandments of men just as the Lord Jesus Christ declared to the Prophet Joseph Smith." (Conference Report, April 1956, Afternoon Meeting, p.58 - 59)

Where Catholics once taught that no one entered heaven unless they were baptized, they now teach that salvation and baptism are two separate events, and that the former is to precede the latter. If one dies between the two events, then it's okay because salvation does not require the outward display of accepting Christ. Just a few centuries ago, the church would not allow infants who died without baptism to be buried in hallowed cemeteries. But which position is correct? The position now is totally different than it was then. What are we to make of Jesus' pronouncement that no one can be saved except they be born of the water and of the spirit?

Roman rite Catholics have used non-immersion techniques since around the 4th century. Other Catholics of Eastern Rites still use and always have used immersion, and it has been considered a valid baptism.

Link to comment
It works in the same way that a little piece of Wonder bread and a swallow of SLC tap can signify the Lord's flesh and blood.

Heh. Indeed.

The Didache (first century) alludes to the problems of baptizing which were inherent in societies lacking modern plumbing. The Catholic Church thought God would think it was okay not to break holes in the ice so grandmama could get to heaven without getting hypothermia. The Catholic Church thought God gave them the authority to retain the symbol (of immersion), by sprinkling or pouring in circumstances where it was inconvenient.

Cold Steel

Baptism seems to stab at the theology of those who say that works are unnecessary for salvation. Although the works themselves do not save, people cannot be saved without them. Thus, when Nephi says a man is saved by grace "after all he can do," it is not the same as saying that works save.

3DOP

Sounds okay.

Cold Steel

We're told by numerous denominations that revelation has ceased; that it is no longer needed. So, say we, show us chapter and verse in the Bible where the directions are for baptizing. Oh, and while you're at it, show us where it says that people should no longer receive the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism. Both are mentioned in the scriptures, but nowhere are we told who can perform the ordinances and, indeed, if the second is now unnecessary.

3DOP

Catholics believe that apostolic tradition is an authority beside Scripture to guide us in Scripture interpretation. But it also means that our liturgies (that would be the ritual words and actions performed for all the sacraments) which have come down to us from antiquity carry a weight of authority. On the other hand validity is not dependent on strict adherence, otherwise, a mistake could leave a person unbaptized, unmarried, or without the gift of the Holy Ghost. For prudent reasons, the Church has authority to make changes as circumstances warrant. It seems that we don't think scrupulous adherence to some form is as critical as it is in your faith. It is a defined teaching of the church that the minister of the sacrament must merely have "the intention to do what the church does" when the action is performed. Why should God spell everything out to a "t" unless scrupulous conformity to words and actions are required? Thankfully, if the correct intention is present, it is difficult to invalidate a sacrament.

Apparently, in your faith you have the words and actions of the ordinances/sacraments precisely laid out in the Book of Mormon. Great for you. But presumably great care is taken lest an error in pronunciation or movement should invalidate the act? We just have a completely different belief in the way God has given us these rituals for our benefit. Our sacraments seem to us too important to depend on ritual perfectionism.

Cold Steel

If baptism is to be done solely by immersion, that seems to be a blow against infant baptism; so those sects that baptize infants must, by necessity, baptize by sprinkling or pouring.

3DOP

Sure. It would also be a blow against desert baptisms and winter baptisms. Obviously, our Church is different than yours with regards to the seriousness of perfect adherence to ritual forms. Assuredly we have forms too, and it would be sinful to be lazy or deliberately make one's own changes, but we do not think that God will withhold His graces from the person desiring a sacrament because of a mistake of the minister or approved variations in form and mode to conform to circumstances.

Cold Steel

Surely if the Bible was complete, we would have these things spelled out for us in holy writ. "What need have we for the Book of Mormon," critics charge. "Where is the deficiency in the Bible?" Well, this is a perfect example. The BOM does tell us how the ancients baptized.

3DOP

You would I suppose be correct, if God was real concerned that we dot our i's and cross our t's in order to maintain perfect uniformity all over the world. But if the intention is what God cares about, and He accepts different ritual forms that are accompanied with the correct intention, there is no need for these things to be spelled out. I am not a critic of Latter Day revelation. You are welcome to all the revelation you want, but this is a poor example of why I should feel deprived of needed spiritual guidance. Uniformity is of secondary importance in the Catholic faith because the salvation of souls does not depend on a human minister's ability to perfectly perform every gesture and pronounce every word according to an unvarying form that is so important it has to be included in the Bible. We also think that God in His mercy does not insist that every invalid who would like to receive baptism be carried down to a river. If some are so carried, great, but God is liberal in this respect.

Cold Steel

The sprinklers and the pourers can argue their case, but they cannot win it;

3DOP

I am not sure what "case" there is to argue. I am not asking you to do what we do. You are welcome to your ways. I don't say it makes you wrong. I think all the baptisms in the Bible were by immersion. I don't care. I think you are confusing description with prescription. Not everything that is described in the Scriptures is strictly prescribed. Do you think that we think we can find confessionals and cardinals or cathedrals and convents in the Bible? We hold that there are principles from Scripture which permit us to be more than the minimalists that we would be by only trying to mimic the first century church. We think others misguided if they try to perfectly imitate the apostolic church. I suggest it is impossible to do everything and imprudent to try to imitate everything and only those things that are described in the Bible.

Christ told Peter and the Apostles, "Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". We understand this to mean that God gave the children of the Kingdom the authority to legislate new laws so as to adapt to the varying circumstances in which the Church would find Herself. What the kingdom on earth legislates, the kingdom in heaven ratifies. This vividly implies that we can't be looking at the Bible and trying to imitate the first century church. Worse, is when someone like insists on chapter and verse for an action in order to prove that we are "biblical". I guess they think we don't have any liberty to do anything unless it was done in the years that the Bible was written. Catholics think it is folly to suppose that we can perfectly imitate the infant Church. The Church is no longer in Her infancy. To scrupulously imitate the Acts of the Apostles in every respect is the "wisdom" that would put a diaper on a teenager because of a picture in Dr. Spock's Baby Book and there are no pictures in the Baby Book of any teenage apparel.

Cold Steel

yet the largest Christian sects sprinkle or pour. I was hoping that someone could speak for them.

3DOP

I looked in on this thread when you started it but you prompted me to silence by saying, "To those who are not LDS but believe in immersion, do you believe not being immersed jeopardizes one's eternal salvation?" Not "believing in immersion" myself as the only mode of baptism, it seemed like you were soliciting the points of view of baptistic (immersing) Protestants as to whether they think baptism is salvific.

Cold Steel

The Catholic church believes that baptism is a sacrament and not an ordinance. LDS believe that baptism is an ordinance and that sacrament is a sacrament.

3DOP

Do you really think that our respective jargon is so uniform that you can make this judgment accurately? Most likely, we do not know what you mean by ordinance or sacrament and likewise, you do not know what we mean by sacrament.

Cold Steel

Joseph Smith was criticized because he was thought to have added the controversy of infant baptism into the Book of Mormon.

3DOP

I don't know anything about those criticisms. I don't know much about the Book of Mormon. It would seem that this criticism of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are counterproductive. I have no intention of looking into this question or promoting this criticism.

Cold Steel

This, they said, was a dead giveaway that he was merely addressing the issues of his day. Nevertheless, Catholic.com reports: "In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism, e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists (re-baptizers) echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly." So it wasn't a modern controversy at all!

3DOP

Who thought infant baptism was only a modern controversy? Tertullian was vociferously against the practice in the early third century. No one with any knowledge of history would ever make this argument.

Cold Steel

One of the arguments put forth by the Catholics is, to me, bizarre:

...for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). More detail is given in Lukeâ??s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, â??Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of Godâ??" (Luke 18:15â??16).

This is where it begins to get strange. Continuing a bit later:

Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha). The Greek word brepha means "infants"â??children who are quite unable to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior."

3DOP

Bizarre? Strange? If I understand you correctly, you perceive the interpretation as not merely mistaken or wrong, but strikingly weird? I don't think you have the ability to understand our points of view because you are firmly rooted and grounded in a faith that sees the first century church as prescriptive of everything and limiting the Church to what it can do. We're from different planets. I think I have visited yours. You are welcome to it. I don't see your ideas as weird, spooky, or strange. I just see them as rigid and ultimately impractical. I could try to explain how the site you visited makes the connection between the blessing of the infants and baptism. But you've looked at it and you believe that everything has to be spelled out. We proceed by intimation (not imitation) and principle. Two truths add up to one action that is not described in the New Testament. For you, that is bizarre. For us, it is an implicit conclusion reached on the basis of two clear principles in the absence of an explicit instruction. Maybe it is a useless exercise in futility to work hard on arguments to people whose presuppositions disable them from comprehending the argument? If one of us would understand the other he must work to understand the foundational presuppositions of the other party. I can imagine we appear not only bizarre, but perhaps even a little stupid (though you were kind enough not to say it) with your presuppositions superimposed on our doctrines and practices.

I'll tell you a story about how I once thought Catholics were just stupid. I was a minister if you didn't know; Protestant of course, and one time I was ragging on the Catholics a little because Jesus healed St. Peter's mother-in-law. "See", I pointed out, "the 'first pope' was married. Even if he were pope, the pope was married and everyone knows they don't let popes be married now. Popes are supposed to me married!" I thought the Catholics just never read this passage of the Gospel. I truly thought Catholics were well...bizarre maybe? But that is because I was looking at it presupposing that like me, they held that description in Scripture is almost always prescriptive.

Cold Steel

But where in this scripture does it say anything about baptism?

3DOP

See what I mean? You don't understand at all, asking for where in the passage it speaks of baptism. The argument concedes that there are no descriptions or discussions of infant baptism anywhere in Scripture.

Cold Steel

My reading of the Bible indicates that Jesus never baptized anyone, much less children, and that in this case he was blessing them.

3DOP

Same reading, different presupposition. According to our presuppositions, the presence and description of a legitimate act in Scripture makes the act legitimate, but the mere absence of an act from Scripture does not necessarily invalidate an act. We may do more things than were explicitly recorded in Scripture. There are no records of baptisms in a Scandinavian winter in Scripture. If the Ethiopian eunuch hadn't seen a pool of water in which he could have been baptized, you must suppose he would have needed to remain unbaptized and the Scandinavians could endure the cold or wait for spring. We suppose that Philip could have used a different mode and that the salvation of souls cannot be so easily hindered by external circumstances and that we can sprinkle or pour for any good reason, although immersion is certainly the best illustration of the symbol of death and resurrection. Moving by principles rather than descriptions, allows us to modify our behaviors according to conditions that would never have been present in the fledgling apostolic church.

Cold Steel

Mormon, in sorting the issue out in his day, fully acknowledged that little children are of the kingdom of God and that they needed no baptism. And in a fit of passion, he added that anyone who supposed infants needed baptism to be saved was in danger of condemnation. In this case I think he meant those who thought that babies would be consigned to hell without it would be condemned, not necessarily those who thought it should be done.

3DOP

With all respect, a fit of passion seems inappropriate unless he thought it was being taught that babies are burning in hell. The Catholic Church has always taught that babies, committing no actual sin, cannot be justly said to be suffering sensual pain:

We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent...The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.
---Denziger's #410, The Effect of Baptism (and the Character), Pope Innocent III, 1198-1216

Now I don't suppose to convince you that we are correct, but I would need to ask if Mormons hold that every dead baby receives the fulness of the highest joys in heaven. Perhaps they are among the most privileged in the celestial kingdom. I would not know but I might have thought that their potential exaltation would have been reduced by such an abbreviated probation on earth. In any case, Catholics cannot hold that unbaptized dead babies are burning and suffering. We can hold that in His mercy God permits them to enjoy an eternity of natural goodness free of pain, suffering, and the fear of death. Recommending the souls of the little ones to the mercy of God, we can even hope that somehow they are in heaven. But we do know they are incapable of suffering any pain of the senses. Presumably, Mormon would not be thought to be having a fit of passion over such a reasonable and mild teaching as this.

Maybe it would help to think about it in terms of money. The Beatific Vision is partaking of the Divine nature...deification...an unimaginable delight...it is supernatural...it is what is meant when we hear the Apostle say that "eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard, nor has it entered the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love Him." Do Mormons think dead babies have loved God? It doesn't seem like it to us...but God knows. Assuming that the baby dies with original sin, the punishment is as if a court should say to a person guilty of a crime, that for their sentence, they will never be permitted to own a million zillion dollars but they can be a billionaire. Such a "punishment" is something I think that can be borne without too much difficulty. The only thing that a human soul that dies in a state of original sin but not actual sin is deprived of, are the unimiganible joys attached to those who actively loved God. The only limit to the natural goods available to such a soul would be those that are so delightful as to be beyond the imagination. Imaginable goods, even if it is so imaginable as to be analagous to a billion dollars are possible. But to get a million zillion, you have to live long enough to make free acts. With no possibility of suffering, pain, or annihilation is this really so awful, unjust, or unreasonable?

Cold Steel

Current Catholic doctrine states that a person can be saved irrespective of baptism; that salvation was one event and baptism was another. This really negates baptism altogether and it flies in the face of centuries of previous Catholic thought.

3DOP

Salvation has always been a continuous, ongoing "event". Ordinarily, water baptism is the significant beginning to the ongoing possibility of salvation. Any "current Catholic doctrine" is subject to compatibility with defined Catholic dogma, which is ordinarily the same as "centuries of previous Catholic thought". I cannot vouch for internet Catholicism. There has to be a baptism...of water ordinarily...or of blood (martyrs)...or of desire (for those who through no fault of their own never understood the Gospel). It has never been the teaching of the Church that we can know who is in hell. It has always been the teaching of the Church that we can hope for anyone, that by means other than water baptism, they received the grace of it. Baptism of desire is in the Council of Trent (1540's to 1560's), and it took from the Fathers the teaching explicit in St. Augustine:

Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism.
---St. Augustine, Baptism (4:22:29), third volume of Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, #1630, p. 67

The current and ancient teaching permits us to hope that the grace of water baptism is supplied to those who wish it, or who suffered for Christ. Again, the Church adapts to the supreme law of God, the salvation of souls who are well-disposed is more important than exclusive savlation limited to scrupulous adherence to external forms. It is ordinarily necessary to be baptized in water. But when circumstances are extraordinary, the ordinary law is repealed. While you think it is necessary to give the dead who never heard a choice to be baptized after, we would believe that anyone who would have made such a choice already receives the grace. If you want to suggest that in comparison to Mormonism Catholic teaching "negates baptism altogether" that is fine. I know of no prizes to be gained by the church that emphasizes the absolute necessity for water baptism the most. I can concede that Mormons are more serious about water baptism than Catholics. But there has been no change in the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Yours Truly,

3DOP

Link to comment

You, 3DOP, leave the looooooooongest messages. But I appreciate your willingness to respond. In our history, we have chipped holes in ice a few times. Under no circumstances do we have the authority to change the ordinance for convenience. Even when the sacrament was changed from serving wine to serving water, it was because the Lord commanded it.

In our way of doing things, an inadvertent slip of the tongue that goes unchecked will not nullify the ordinance. Mistakes happen and the Lord understands that. Where it can be corrected it should be, but if not, the Lord still recognizes the legitimacy of the ordinance.

We believe that one should not assume that ordinances can be changed by man, even for the best of reasons, without the explicit command of God. If one loses the symbolism of being buried in Christ's death and coming forth, it ceases to be a meaningful teaching tool. It would be as if the ancient Jews had changed animal sacrifice to the sacrifice of vegetables and fruit, simply because there were no animals available. In our way of looking at it, you just can't do it.

Link to comment
You, 3DOP, leave the looooooooongest messages. But I appreciate your willingness to respond. In our history, we have chipped holes in ice a few times. Under no circumstances do we have the authority to change the ordinance for convenience. Even when the sacrament was changed from serving wine to serving water, it was because the Lord commanded it.

In our way of doing things, an inadvertent slip of the tongue that goes unchecked will not nullify the ordinance. Mistakes happen and the Lord understands that. Where it can be corrected it should be, but if not, the Lord still recognizes the legitimacy of the ordinance.

We believe that one should not assume that ordinances can be changed by man, even for the best of reasons, without the explicit command of God. If one loses the symbolism of being buried in Christ's death and coming forth, it ceases to be a meaningful teaching tool. It would be as if the ancient Jews had changed animal sacrifice to the sacrifice of vegetables and fruit, simply because there were no animals available. In our way of looking at it, you just can't do it.

Hi Cold Steel,

I would agree no one should "assume that ordinances can be changed by man". I cited one passage to show why the Church understands She has authority from God to tweak things.

May I assume that you don't want me to make another long post? Heh. I try to apply the Golden Rule! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, ya know. I have never got one of those long posts from someone else analyzing the best things I say. I have thought I would like it. Maybe not. You notice how people always pick up on the worst thing that you write? Yesterday, I got home around 11 AM, intending to get a nap. But first there were two threads I was considering making a little post in. I picked yours although I had said I would get to the other one. (I am sure the author is just holding his breath waiting for the response of Mr. Can't Quit Typing) I had been up since half past midnight and thought I was tired. I guess I was wrong. Before I know it its 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I really enjoy making the long posts...it is fun. I get so locked in though that it is hard to detach me. My daughter called on the phone yesterday and knew I wasn't paying attention. I am told that I talk aloud and make gestures while I am so engaged.

So anyway...I know people skim or skip...I will try to be less wordy...This is a little hard to believe. It isn't just when religion is the subject. I pick up biohazard waste at hospitals. That is the cruddy stuff that can't be allowed in the sewer (liquids) or the ordinary garbage (solids) until our plant sterilizes it. I hand truck it into my trailers. And no, I would resent those jerks from "world's dirtiest jobs" profiling me. I don't want the clean world enjoying my job in that way. These jobs and those who perform them shouldn't submit to be studied by "cleanies" who take their little showers and baths...before work! Ha! What kind of "work" is that? So sometimes the customer does something I don't like. If I don't watch myself and remember I am on company time I'll spend a half-hour writing and re-writing, trying to perfect a note about the garbage. How crazy is that? I wonder if my psychological condition has a name? Another guy here was just told to reduce his long posts to Cliff Notes! Heh. Pretty funny since it wasn't me, but I am sure I deserve it. Oh man...I don't want to be perceived like that. I will try harder to be brief...but I have made that resolution before. Anyway...thanks for your patience Cold Steel! You seem like a good guy...God bless you.

3DOP

PS: I am editing this...How do you leave something up that you wrote quickly, and then you think of a better way to say it...and not go back and change it? I don't want to change that. I am not admitting I am a nut you know. It might sound like that. Like Sammy Davis sang "I gotta be me, I gotta be me what else can I be, but what I am" eh? I'm fine. I'm fine. Don't be making any interventions on me, okay. I am really stopping. I need to go to bed anyway pretty soon. I am stopping this post. Can you tell I am almost done?

PPS: The PS was not for you Cold Steel. Not you alone anyway...but for anyone who is crazy enough to read...yet another post that is way toooooo looooooooong!!!!!

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...