Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The issue here is that Faith is the keyword. A person can be baptized, can be obedient to the ordinances and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they can even have a testimony of the reality of Jesus Christ. Yet, if they lack faith in who Christ is, they are dead because they have not truly been converted. That is why the first principle of the Gospel is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Without faith, our works are dead (James 2:17). Faith in Jesus Christ is not merely having an intellectual knowledge of who Christ is. Remember, for even Satan and the demons confess that Jesus is the Christ, they don't believe in him. The problem we have here is that some take the Sola Fida (Faith Alone) with Sola Gratia (Grace Alone) as the Scriptural account and relegate all the other necessary commandments and ordinances as subordinate, or nonessential to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who insist that Baptism saves and is necessary. Yet, the middle ground is where the Latter-day Saints reside. It is the place that is not understood by modern evangelicals. As Mormons, we are not saying that salvation comes by Baptism alone, nor by performing the required ordinances of the Gospel as commanded by God. We know that the Pharisee's and Sadduccees of Christ's day believed they were of Abraham's seed, but in reality did not believe in who Christ truly was. The key factor is Faith. Faith in Christ is this: Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God, the promised Messiah to come and redeem fallen humanity. Once we have faith, the next step comes true repentance. We repent of our sins, and we seek the forgiveness of our Heavenly Father. This is where the Atonement begins to cleanse us. In a sense, we are forgiven once we repent of our sins. Third, we seek baptism for the remission of our sins. This is why Baptism is essential to the gospel of Jesus Christ because it is for the remission of our sins. What sins are washed away? Well, the first is that of our disposition toward sin because of Adam's transgression. In this sense, the Original Sin is washed from us.In a sense? I don't know why you put that qualifier in there. We are completely forgiven when we repent.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 That is not an answer to my question. I made the statement that the bible is insufficient todefine the doctrine of baptism. If it were, all Christian churches would share the samedoctrine and practice. They do not.Nephi, son of Lehi, of the tribe of Joseph. Before the foundation of the world...thus the Lamb slain from the before the foundation of the world.It is the eternal plan of the Father.BernardYou may believe the Bible is insufficient. I disagree. Please quote the passage where the father says we are to be baptized, before the foundation of the world.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Are you saying Jesus did not exist 600 years before his birth? Or that he was not capable of speaking?That sounds bizarre to me.BernardNope, but the quoting of the Gospel writers before they wrote is. We would call that revelation. Also, in 1 Nephi 10, Lehi, Nephi's father, saw in vision the ministry of Jesus,including the baptism of Jesus and the prophet who would baptize him. He shared his vision andknowledge with his family.BernardMore evidence to me that it was all made up in the mind of Joseph Smith. You see, there is no precedent for this. Prophets are quoted by the Gospel writers, not the other way around.
Hughes Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 You, in essance just said that both faith and works are required for salvation. If one does not have works "their salvation is lost". THat tells me it is required to be saved. Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth.What I said was works follows faith. I've said the same before, where I said that works follow "saving faith". If you think I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, then you must not understand what I'm saying.
webbles Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 1 - Faith is obedience as in, if you are obedient, you have faith, and yes both are necessary. 2- If one has Faith, they will also obey, if they don't obey, their salvation will be lost if they continue down that path, but only God judges when/where that point is. 3 - One can't enter if they only "do" things without faith. It is impossible to please God without faith.Thanks for the response. It looks like you accept #1 and not the other 2. I'd say that's the same thing that LDS believe. And since baptism is commanded of us, I'm going to assume that you believe that to be saved you must have faith and you must be baptized. Is that correct? If it is, then why are you arguing since that is what the LDS believe as well.
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Thanks for the response. It looks like you accept #1 and not the other 2. I'd say that's the same thing that LDS believe. And since baptism is commanded of us, I'm going to assume that you believe that to be saved you must have faith and you must be baptized. Is that correct? If it is, then why are you arguing since that is what the LDS believe as well.No. To be saved, one only has to believe. Was the Thief on the cross saved?
LeSellers Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Yet, Abraham and Moses didn't quote the NT gospels, as Nephi supposedly did. Gee, I thought this was several centuries before Jesus. 18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Further, the NT writers quote Abraham and Moses, but not Nephi?Odd, isn't it? I mean who'd a thunk that Paul could possibly have failed to quote a man he'd never heard of, and one only a few thousand miles away?Lehi
Pahoran Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Thanks for the response. It looks like you accept #1 and not the other 2. I'd say that's the same thing that LDS believe. And since baptism is commanded of us, I'm going to assume that you believe that to be saved you must have faith and you must be baptized. Is that correct? If it is, then why are you arguing since that is what the LDS believe as well.Hughes is an excellent example of a phenomenon I like to call "coyote Christians." He'd rather gnaw his own leg off than admit that LDS Christianity has anything in common with his brand of Christianity, so he goes to great lengths to make subtle semantic shades of meaning into iron-clad theological criteria that absolutely define what a Christian is or is not.C. S. Lewis once famously remarked that he thought that debating whether faith was more important than works was like debating which blade of a pair of scissors was more important. But not to Hughes! Do Latter-day Saints regularly and conventionally remind each other -- as Paul did -- to continue in good works? Then, for Hughes and other "coyote Christians," faith -- or rather, mere verbally expressed belief -- must become pre-eminent.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 No. To be saved, one only has to believe.You mean, to have "blind faith?"Clearly you don't understand that the notion of mere intellectual assent to a proposition is not what the New Testament describes; to "believe" was always to put faith into action. I know that such a notion is anathema to your antinomian heresy, but that's tough luck, really.Was the Thief on the cross saved?Did the thief on the cross go to heaven that day? Did Jesus go to heaven that day? What does it mean to be "saved?"Regards,Pahoran
webbles Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 No. To be saved, one only has to believe. Was the Thief on the cross saved?Wait, you've confused me again. Didn't you just say that you have to have both faith and obedience to be saved? And aren't we commanded to be baptized? So, if you aren't baptized, then you aren't obeying and thus you can't be saved even if you have faith, correct? We could change this to another commandment that is set more in stone, like "Thou shalt not commit adultery." So, if you commit adultery, then you aren't obeying and thus you can't be saved even if you have faith, correct?If these are not the case, then I guess you actually accept statement #2 (Faith is only necessary for salvation and disobedience will not affect it) instead of #1 (Faith and obedience are both necessary for salvation).As for the thief, yes he was saved and yes he was baptized. You know LDS believe in baptism for the dead, don't you?
LeSellers Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 The Heretics Message to the World: "Salvation can only come by baptism".That's a bit more than merely harsh, isn't it? It is also misleading, because we Saints do not believe that baptism is a guarantee of salvation, whatever you may have heard, or imagined.One of your fellow Evangelicals categorically rejects your position. The History of BaptismJack Cottrell is professor of theological studies at Cincinnati (Ohio) Bible College and Seminary.(These articles first appeared in CHRISTIAN STANDARD
LeSellers Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 No. To be saved, one only has to believe.That's not a reasonable interpretation of the words of the Bible. The Bible says "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved." It does not say, "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved." One would hope the difference is clear, but, since Zwingli, it is not so clear to those who, knowing they do not have authority to baptize, those like Apollos, reject the ordinance that is required for salvation. Was the Thief on the cross saved?Who knows? The Bible does not say. What the Bible does day is that the "good thief" would be with Him in Paradise that same day. As "being in Paradise" is not defined as "being saved" no one can legitimately make the assertion that the thief on the cross was saved. There are many reasons to reject that assumption, not least of which is that Christ did not go to the Kingdom of God that day, since Peter tells us where He did go, and that it was to what he calls "prison" wherein were spirits of the disobedient. But you are free to interpret the Bible as you will. Just please refrain from telling others that your interpretation is the only reasonable one. Lehi
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Wait, you've confused me again. Didn't you just say that you have to have both faith and obedience to be saved? And aren't we commanded to be baptized? So, if you aren't baptized, then you aren't obeying and thus you can't be saved even if you have faith, correct? We could change this to another commandment that is set more in stone, like "Thou shalt not commit adultery." So, if you commit adultery, then you aren't obeying and thus you can't be saved even if you have faith, correct?If these are not the case, then I guess you actually accept statement #2 (Faith is only necessary for salvation and disobedience will not affect it) instead of #1 (Faith and obedience are both necessary for salvation).As for the thief, yes he was saved and yes he was baptized. You know LDS believe in baptism for the dead, don't you?Having faith is obedience. IF you have faith you will also obey his commands, but first you must have faith, as it alone is what saves you, which is obedience. The separate actions of following Christ's commands is done out of love. You have faith, and love him for what he's done for you, so you do what he says out of a grateful heart. Sorry, the Thief on the cross wasn't baptized. The LDS are only fooling themselves on this point.
Nathair/|\ Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Having faith is obedience. IF you have faith you will also obey his commands, but first you must have faith, as it alone is what saves you, which is obedience. The separate actions of following Christ's commands is done out of love. You have faith, and love him for what he's done for you, so you do what he says out of a grateful heart. Sorry, the Thief on the cross wasn't baptized. The LDS are only fooling themselves on this point.CFR. By the way, I am still waiting for you to substantiate your absolutist claim that Isaiah didn't receive similar revelations to the ones Nephi ben Lehi recorded in what is now 2 Nephi 31. Remember, you claimed absolutely that he did not receive such revelations, not merely that we don't have any record of them, just like you are now claiming absolutely that the thief wasn't baptized, not merely that we have no record of it.
volgadon Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Sorry, the Thief on the cross wasn't baptized. The LDS are only fooling themselves on this point.Considering that at least 48 mikvaot were found in Jerusalem alone, and that the thief was probably one of the listim, who were politically and nationally motivated, and that those two were inseparably connected with religion in the ancient world, it seems reasonable that the thief had been baptised.
volgadon Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Ever since his basic assumptions were discredited, evangelist has been conspicuously absent from this thread.
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 That's not a reasonable interpretation of the words of the Bible. The Bible says "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved." It does not say, "he who believes and is not baptized shall be saved." One would hope the difference is clear, but, since Zwingli, it is not so clear to those who, knowing they do not have authority to baptize, those like Apollos, reject the ordinance that is required for salvation. Who knows? The Bible does not say. What the Bible does day is that the "good thief" would be with Him in Paradise that same day. As "being in Paradise" is not defined as "being saved" no one can legitimately make the assertion that the thief on the cross was saved. There are many reasons to reject that assumption, not least of which is that Christ did not go to the Kingdom of God that day, since Peter tells us where He did go, and that it was to what he calls "prison" wherein were spirits of the disobedient. But you are free to interpret the Bible as you will. Just please refrain from telling others that your interpretation is the only reasonable one. LehiSo you believe that a symbolic action of getting wet is a requirement for salvation? As for the Thief. He clearly was saved, as Jesus said he would be with him. The very definition of salvation and/or Heaven is "present with the Lord".
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 CFR. By the way, I am still waiting for you to substantiate your absolutist claim that Isaiah didn't receive similar revelations to the ones Nephi ben Lehi recorded in what is now 2 Nephi 31. Remember, you claimed absolutely that he did not receive such revelations, not merely that we don't have any record of them, just like you are now claiming absolutely that the thief wasn't baptized, not merely that we have no record of it. We only know what was recorded. If you want I can preface each and every statement I make with the words, "based on what was written..." just for you? And as for the Thief, he died just like Jesus did on a cross, as that's what the text indicates. It is the LDS that claims baptism for the dead means anything, without any evidence to support such claims. I don't buy it.
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Considering that at least 48 mikvaot were found in Jerusalem alone, and that the thief was probably one of the listim, who were politically and nationally motivated, and that those two were inseparably connected with religion in the ancient world, it seems reasonable that the thief had been baptised.If you're saying that since the Thief was baptized at an earlier date, therefore that counts? If that's the case, then the order is mixed up. Because it has been argued that it's "believe and be baptized" not be baptized and then believe.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 If you're saying that since the Thief was baptized at an earlier date, therefore that counts? If that's the case, then the order is mixed up. Because it has been argued that it's "believe and be baptized" not be baptized and then believe.You have not establish that the thief went to Heaven and was saved. The theif was told that he would be with Jesus. Were did Jesus go after he died? Jesus did not go to Heaven. Using the theif to back up your easy believism theology really does not work.
volgadon Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 If you're saying that since the Thief was baptized at an earlier date, therefore that counts? If that's the case, then the order is mixed up. Because it has been argued that it's "believe and be baptized" not be baptized and then believe.The order is not mixed up. Apart from being a purification ritual, baptism is a rite of initiation.
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 You have not establish that the thief went to Heaven and was saved. The theif was told that he would be with Jesus. Were did Jesus go after he died? Jesus did not go to Heaven. Using the theif to back up your easy believism theology really does not work.Jesus didn't go to Hell after he died, he went to Paradise. Forgive me for copying this but instead of me telling you, this guy has said what I would say already. "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means the
Hughes Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 The order is not mixed up. Apart from being a purification ritual, baptism is a rite of initiation.And if he had been baptized (by whom again?), if he didn't believe, then he it wasn't a representative of his faith.
ElfLord Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 So you believe that a symbolic action of getting wet is a requirement for salvation? The author of Hebrews did...Hebrews 10:22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
ElfLord Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Jesus didn't go to Hell after he died, he went to Paradise. Forgive me for copying this but instead of me telling you, this guy has said what I would say already. "Paradise" must be underground then...Eph 49 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.