Does Lds Doctrine Contradict The Bible?

[Gervin]

You are mistaken.

Baptism is a requirement for salvation. It's explicitly taught throughout the NT, including baptism in behalf of the deceased.

Your interpretation of the NT may be that it is a requirement for salvation, and that this is explicitly taught. There is obviously room for debate on that question.

Does the NT (or other extant sources) clearly support your belief and show that this was a) consistently taught in all early NT churches, pre-apostasy, and b) consistently practiced in all NT churches, pre-apostasy?

[cdowis]

Christ said it, I believe it.

[Gervin]

Christ said it, I believe it.

Either you didn't understand the question or can't answer it. If the former, I'd be happy to re-phrase.

[cdowis]

Either you didn't understand the question or can't answer it. If the former, I'd be happy to re-phrase.

OK, re-phrasing may possibly help me, perhaps.

[Vance]

Your interpretation of the NT may be that it is a requirement for salvation, and that this is explicitly taught. There is obviously room for debate on that question.

Obviously the scriptures can be wrested to support or deny just about anything. But we do have,

Matt. 3: 15 Suffer it to be so now . . . to fulfil all righteousness.

Matt. 28: 19 teach all nations, baptizing them.

Mark 1: 9 Jesus came . . . and was baptized of John.

Mark 16: 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Luke 3: 21 Jesus also being baptized.

Luke 7: 30 rejected the counsel of God . . . being not baptized.

John 3: 5 Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.

Acts 10: 48 commanded them to be baptized.

Acts 22: 16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.

Titus 3: 5 saved us, by the washing of regeneration.

1 Pet. 3: 21 baptism doth also now save us.

Does the NT (or other extant sources) clearly support your belief and show that this was a) consistently taught in all early NT churches, pre-apostasy, and b) consistently practiced in all NT churches, pre-apostasy?

I have seen several quotes from "early church fathers" that recognize the requirement of baptism. Sorry, but I can't find them for you.

[Gervin]

Thanks.

The first traditions associated with the Christian faith must have been orally transmitted; the gospels and epistles come later in the development of the faith movement. If there was an apostasy of the church - a fellowship of believers distorting the message, ordinances, and doctrine of Christ - then, it is assumed, there was a time when every church touched by the Apostles/Spirit/missionaries sent out by the Apostles was in harmony with regard to the message, ordiances, and doctrines of the faith.

History, however, paints a different picture, one of rapid growth where not everyone was on the same page with respect to a whole slew of issues such as Jewish customs, Gentile indoctrination, or even the facts of Christ's life. In reality, there was a missionary movement that focused on proclaiming Christ, not the deliberate and managed establishment of churches, hierarchies, and ordinances. As it relates to the ordinance of baptism, how is it assumed that all of the NT Churches across this wide expanse of asia minor were adhering to the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation? I posit that it would be impossible. I'll post some quotes supporting this.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Gervin

[Vance]

A quick internet search found this,

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-3-latin-christianity/tertullian/on-baptism.html

Chapter XII.-Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that "without baptism, salvation is attainable by none" (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, "Unless one be born of water, he hath not life"(117) ), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, "how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom-Paul excepted-we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ's baptism,(118) either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized." I have heard-the Lord is my witness-doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to ex-cogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.

And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm "that the apostles were unbaptized." For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one;(119) (saying to Peter, who was desirous(120) of being thoroughly bathed, "He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time; "(121) which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized; ) even here we have a conspicuous(122) proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John's baptism. Can it seem credible that "the way of the Lord," that is, the baptism of John, had not then been "prepared "in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no "repentance" was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners? As for the fact, then, that "others were not baptized"-they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying," Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist."(123)

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly "that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves: that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea."(124) It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted "in the sea," that is, in the world,(125) "by the waves," that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world,(126) and restores tranquillity to His own.

Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed(127) to the end-so that even that saying of the Lord touching the "one bath"(128) does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us-still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice,(129) and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. "Thy faith," He would say, "hath saved thee; "(130) and, "Thy sins shall be remitted thee,"(131) on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that(132) was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever;(133) another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living;(134) a third, who disdained his father's obsequies,(135) fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, "He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me."(136)

[Vance]

. . . not the deliberate and managed establishment of churches, hierarchies, and ordinances. As it relates to the ordinance of baptism, how is it assumed that all of the NT Churches across this wide expanse of asia minor were adhering to the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation?

I do believe that Act 19 is instructive. If baptism was unnecessary why did Paul (who didn't tolerate unnecessary actions like circumcision) require the "re"-baptism of new converts?

It seems rather obvious to me,

1) Baptism was/is necessary,

2) Baptism must be preformed properly, (not just anyone can do it, for these converts first baptism was deemed invalid by Paul).

This, of course, begs the question, how did Paul know their previous baptism was invalid? The only way I can see is if there was a standard in place by which he could "measure" if you will and the questions he asked and the answers given were the way he measured.

So, analyzing the questions and answers should be very instructive.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Vance

[Gervin]

I do believe that Act 19 is instructive. If baptism was unnecessary why did Paul (who didn't tolerate unnecessary actions like circumcision) require the "re"-baptism of new converts?

It seems rather obvious to me,

1) Baptism was/is necessary,

2) Baptism must be preformed properly, (not just anyone can do it, for these converts first baptism was deemed invalid by Paul).

This, of course, begs the question, how did Paul know their previous baptism was invalid? The only way I can see is if there was a standard in place by which he could "measure" if you will and the questions he asked and the answers given were the way he measured.

So, analyzing the questions and answers should be very instructive.

Nothing personal, but I'm not interested in a discussion of whether or not baptism was a requirement for salvation. I'm looking for the NT church from whence apostasy took place.

I'll expand on your points re standards later today. thanks

Edited July 25, 2013 by Gervin

[Vance]

Nothing personal, but I'm not interested in a discussion of whether or not baptism was a requirement for salvation.

ok.

I'm looking for the NT church from whence apostasy took place.

I'll expand on your points re standards later today. thanks

Well, baptism IS one of the apostasy "issues". So I'm not sure how we can separate it from your desired discussion. With that being said, let's see where this goes.

[Gervin]

I do believe that Act 19 is instructive. If baptism was unnecessary why did Paul (who didn't tolerate unnecessary actions like circumcision) require the "re"-baptism of new converts?

It seems rather obvious to me,

1) Baptism was/is necessary,

In this case, baptism is necessary to draw a distinction between John's baptism, and for conveyance of the Holy Spirit. I don't get from the verses that baptism is necessary for salvation. The 12 referred to were identified as believers in Christ and none of the verses indicate that either the ritual or the laying of hands conferred salvation.

2) Baptism must be preformed properly, (not just anyone can do it, for these converts first baptism was deemed invalid by Paul).

The validity is in question because of the association with John. We have no idea who baptized them.

This, of course, begs the question, how did Paul know their previous baptism was invalid?

Well, they were quite open when he questioned them, but you could assume Aquila or Priscilla told him.

The only way I can see is if there was a standard in place by which he could "measure" if you will and the questions he asked and the answers given were the way he measured.

I don't know if there was a standard with any greater criteria than "John's baptism vs Christ's baptism." The verses don't imply one.

I think the passage can be read to support the statements about the possible growth of the faith movement outpacing the ability of apostles to go around asking questions about valid baptisms. From the remaining verses in this chapter, this appears to be the last thing Paul is interested in; he's spending months and years at a time making an intellectual case for Christ.

I read these verses as an example of the disparate beliefs within the communities of those who believed in or somehow associated themselves to, Christ. Based on the passage, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the NT Church, at least around 41 CE, was not uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals, correct?

[Vance]

In this case, baptism is necessary to draw a distinction between John's baptism, and for conveyance of the Holy Spirit.

You seem to be assuming that "John's baptism" was an invalid baptism. Yet, it was Jesus that sought John out to receive baptism by him.

Also, John specifically taught, (Matt 3:11) I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:", and (John 1:33)" And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." thus John's baptism SPECIFICALLY had the mention of the Holy Ghost as a promise that would follow.

When Paul asked if they had received the Holy Ghost, they honestly said "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost."

So, Paul knew immediately that they had NOT received John's baptism (which would have been valid).

I don't get from the verses that baptism is necessary for salvation.

Ok. I do. Paul, who didn't suffer trivialities well, goes out of his way to make sure they were baptized properly.

The 12 referred to were identified as believers in Christ and none of the verses indicate that either the ritual or the laying of hands conferred salvation.

And nowhere in scripture does is say that it is unnecessary for salvation. So, now what?

The validity is in question because of the association with John. We have no idea who baptized them.

I believe I addressed this above.

Well, they were quite open when he questioned them, but you could assume Aquila or Priscilla told him.

Why assume that? Why not assume that the answers to his questions revealed the situation to him?

I am sorry, but I am assuming that you are a "sola scriptura" kind of guy. If so, then why would you assume something not in the scriptures? Why would you not assume that Luke (the author of Acts) provided you with all the information you would need? I guess this is why I have a problem with "sola scriptura".

I don't know if there was a standard with any greater criteria than "John's baptism vs Christ's baptism." The verses don't imply one.

I just don't see a "John's baptism vs Christ's baptism". I see "John's baptism" as a prelude to and a portion of "Christ's baptism".

I think the passage can be read to support the statements about the possible growth of the faith movement outpacing the ability of apostles to go around asking questions about valid baptisms.

I think it better supports the statements about unauthorized individuals spreading false doctrine, mingled with true doctrine (to give it an air of legitimacy) and the need for apostles and prophets to provide correction.

From the remaining verses in this chapter, this appears to be the last thing Paul is interested in; he's spending months and years at a time making an intellectual case for Christ.

You are assuming that making the "case for Christ" excludes baptism.

I read these verses as an example of the disparate beliefs within the communities of those who believed in or somehow associated themselves to, Christ.

I read these verses as the apostles providing guidance and correction from false doctrine and practices.

Based on the passage, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the NT Church, at least around 41 CE, was not uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals, correct?

Nope! It shows that the apostles were the general/universal authorities on correct doctrine and practices. The apostles and prophets were the last line of defense against falsehood, heresy, and apostasy in the Church.

[Gervin]

The baptism points aside, I asked

"Based on the passage, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion that the NT Church, at least around 41 CE, was not uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals, correct?"

you replied

Nope! It shows that the apostles were the general/universal authorities on correct doctrine and practices. The apostles and prophets were the last line of defense against falsehood, heresy, and apostasy in the Church.

I don’t understand your answer. If there were, as you say, falsehoods, heresy, and apostasy in the Church, what assurances do have that the apostles were diligent and capable enough to ensure that everyone was uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals?

I don’t get a picture of Apostles chosen based on any ability to act as “general/universal authorities on correct doctrine and practices.” I think they were motivated by love of Christ and worked to simply, and/or intellectually, impart a message about Christ.

[Gervin]

For consideration:

Helmut Koester, John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School

"Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

Paul's conversion as an apostle to the gentiles may date as early as three years after Jesus' death. No later than the year 35, but probably already 32 or 33.... He was in Damascus when he was called, according to his own witness. So we have, already, within two years or three or five years, of Jesus' death probably Greek speaking communities outside of Palestine, very early in Antioch, but we have also the founding of communities in Samaria.... We have apparently more isolated Christian communities founded very early in Galilee. Paul's mission carried Christianity all the way over Asia Minor, present Turkey into Macedonia, into Greece, within 20 years. And at the end of that period, Paul already knows that there's a Christian community in Rome which he has not founded.

With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches.

One interesting problem is simply the experience of diversity. We sometimes think that it's just such a shame that we have so many Christian denominations and so many other religions all in one country. "Wouldn't it be great if we have only one belief and one religion as it was in the time of the early Christians?" No, it wasn't in the time of the early Christians. The early Christians had a hard time to discuss with each other, fight with each other to establish certain patterns and criteria for the organization of community, what was important in the churches. Was it indeed important that churches established mutual responsibility for each other and care for the poor as part of their dossier? This is what they're supposed to do. And that discussion in our church was very helpful twelve years ago, when we discussed whether we should open a shelter for homeless people in the basement of our church.

But the other aspect is the diversity of religious movements. And that in fact early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions, which enriched the early Christian movement tremendously. This probably should encourage us to say that our discourse, not only inner Christian discourse with other denominations, but also our discourse with other religions, with the Jews, with Moslems, with Buddhists, may in fact, indeed be very fruitful..."

[Vance]

But the other aspect is the diversity of religious movements. And that in fact early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions, which enriched the early Christian movement tremendously.

WOW!!!! If that isn't an admission of apostasy, I don't know what would be.

I do wonder, with such an attitude, how tolerant your authors are toward Mormonism.

[thesometimesaint]

Sounds like it to me.

[Gervin]

WOW!!!! If that isn't an admission of apostasy, I don't know what would be.

I do wonder, with such an attitude, how tolerant your authors are toward Mormonism.

Any thoughts about this question, "If there were, as you say, falsehoods, heresy, and apostasy in the Church, what assurances do have that the apostles were diligent and capable enough to ensure that everyone was uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals?"

Edited to add:

So would you say that these statements:

We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

are not true?

Edited July 26, 2013 by Gervin

[teddyaware]

Any thoughts about this question, "If there were, as you say, falsehoods, heresy, and apostasy in the Church, what assurances do have that the apostles were diligent and capable enough to ensure that everyone was uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals?"

That's what the epistles and John's letters to the seven churches in Asia are all about. The Apostles worked diligently and tried mightily (often with tear-stained eyes) to keep the Church as organized by Christ intact. But eventually, in spite of heroic efforts, the apostates had their way.

[Gervin]

I guess that's one way to look at it - Apostles, though hand-picked by Christ to spread the Gospel, were failures at keeping an organization intact.

Or perhaps Christ picked them because he was less concerned about establishing an organization than spreading the Gospels. History seems to better support this position, I believe.

[Vance]

Any thoughts about this question, "If there were, as you say, falsehoods, heresy, and apostasy in the Church, what assurances do have that the apostles were diligent and capable enough to ensure that everyone was uniformly practicing the same doctrine, ordinances, or rituals?"

Paul specifically addresses this issue in Eph. 4:11-14. I am not sure what part of those verses are vague.

Also Paul says this,

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul clearly indicates that there was a uniformity of doctrine and practice and that he (as an apostle) is an arbiter of it. If there were no uniformity of doctrine and practice or he was not an authorized dispenser of it, what business would he have to write such a rebuke?

We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time....

Yeah, so? Christ spent 40 days with them before his separation. That is a long time to not establish standards.

That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be.

This is unsubstantiated opinion.

What Christian rituals should be.

Disregarding specific statements of the apostles.

What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus.

This assumes that we have an accurate and complete record of all that was done, said, and taught. We do know better.

The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts....

I suspect they are reading that into their sources more than from their sources.

It is rather obvious that IF the apostles were the gatekeepers of correct doctrine and practice, with their disappearance the church WOULD fall into chaos. So, depending on the timing of their sources, it may not be a surprise to find chaos. Just saying.

[Vance]

I guess that's one way to look at it - Apostles, though hand-picked by Christ to spread the Gospel, were failures at keeping an organization intact.

Or, that the truth didn't find enough fertile soil to flourish and a general apostasy followed. (Which, considering the cycles of apostasy throughout Hebrew history would most likely).

Or perhaps Christ picked them because he was less concerned about establishing an organization than spreading the Gospels. History seems to better support this position, I believe.

And I disagree.

[Calm]

The Israelites were given some pretty detailed instructions for their religious organization from the Lord and yet apostasy was almost constant according to the scriptures. I don't see that one would therefore assume that the Lord was less concerned about the organization he commanded them to fulfill, though of course the principles they were to teach would be essential as well.

[teddyaware]

I guess that's one way to look at it - Apostles, though hand-picked by Christ to spread the Gospel, were failures at keeping an organization intact.

Or perhaps Christ picked them because he was less concerned about establishing an organization than spreading the Gospels. History seems to better support this position, I believe.

They were not at all failures. They did the best they could under the circumstances and stemmed the tide of apostasy for as long as they were able. But they knew the apostasy was coming:

?28 ¶Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. (Acts 20)"

And again:

"3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 3)

And again:

"3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thessalonians 4)

As for the question as to whether or not the Apostles did the best the could to restrain the onslaught of apostasy, we read the following:

"6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.

7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith:

8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (2 Timothy)

Edited July 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[Gervin]

Or, that the truth didn't find

Or, that the truth didn't find enough fertile soil to flourish

But it did flourish and rapidly. You don't agree with Koeser's statement:

With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches.

[Vance]

But it did flourish and rapidly.

Did you miss the parts that Paul wrote? The vast majority of what he (and other apostles) wrote was to combat apostasy, heresy and falsehood.

You don't agree with Koeser's statement:

With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches.

Second century? Oh, you mean sometime AFTER the disappearance of the apostles. In other words, sometime AFTER apostasy, heresy and falsehood had taken control of the church. I can agree with that.