True Church Or True Gospel

[Saint Sinner]

In the generations thread, Halconero made an important distinction. He stated his parents being baptized into the Gospel. Though I'm not sure the distinction was intended, I thought this subject worth discussing.

So as to head off derails of whether or not the Church itself is true, I ask that that contention be set aside.

I ask, are we baptized into the Church or the Gospel? If we are baptized into one and not the other, what does that make evident of our faith journey? Likewise, if we're baptized into both, what does that say? In both cases, what responds deepest in our hearts that are the motivating factors?

Does the truthfulness of the Gospel mandate an institutional baptism or a baptism acknowledging the blood and sacrifice and the mission of the Risen Christ?

Thoughts?

[rpn]

I think we are baptized into the Church, which is the entrance way to exaltation within the Gospel.

Edited July 23, 2015 by rpn

[Saint Sinner]

I think we are baptized into the Church, which is the entrance way to exaltation within the Gospel.

I disagree. Acceptance of the Gospel precludes joining the Church. Furthermore, I don't believe acceptance of the Gospel mandates joining a physical institution.

[carbon dioxide]

I disagree. Acceptance of the Gospel precludes joining the Church. Furthermore, I don't believe acceptance of the Gospel mandates joining a physical institution.

Accepting the gospel is just a mental exercise.  One can accept the gospel but not actually do anything the gospel may require.  Even Satan accepts the gospel.  He knows that it is true.  Joining the Church through baptism is the gate for the strait and narrow path.  So yes one accepts the gospel before joining the church but without joining, the acceptance does not do much.

Edited July 23, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Saint Sinner]

Accepting the gospel is just a mental exercise.  One can accept the gospel but not actually do anything the gospel may require.  Even Satan accepts the gospel.  He knows that it is true.  Joining the Church through baptism is the gate for the strait and narrow path.

Satan acknowledges the Gospel but according to the scriptures he rejects it.

Acceptance of and belief in the Gospel cannot be reduced to a mere mental exercise. It is a full transformation which should produce "fruits". Christ said no one comes unto the Father but by me. While the Church is a representative of Christ it is not Christ.

[Storm Rider]

I have always thought that both are vital in the path of discipleship. There needs to be a conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ; it is the light that guides us throughout this life.  On the other hand, Jesus formed an actual church into which his followers were baptized.  I don't get caught up too much on the entity itself, rather I focus on those having the authority just as the early apostles had to baptize. 

[Bobbieaware]

I disagree. Acceptance of the Gospel precludes joining the Church. Furthermore, I don't believe acceptance of the Gospel mandates joining a physical institution.

Could an ancient believer in Christ, during the Apostolic Era, reject the Apostles Peter, James John and Paul as leaders of the Church and still be considered a true follower of Christ?

[Robert F. Smith]

I disagree. Acceptance of the Gospel precludes joining the Church. Furthermore, I don't believe acceptance of the Gospel mandates joining a physical institution.

Neither, nor.  Or, as Kay Kyser used to say:  "That's right, you're wrong !"

 

LDS baptism is a two-stage process: (1) immersion in water as if being buried in death with Christ, and coming forth as if being born anew, and (2) confirmation -- baptism by fire and the Holy Spirit.  These are part of an initiation process which began in Judaism (and the original Jewish Christian church).  Conversion to Judaism required then, as it does today, immersion baptism, after which one becomes part of the Jewish community, the people of Israel.  If this is done with oversight and approval by Orthodox rabbis, then it is recognized by the State of Israel, and Israeli law requires that such a new convert be allowed citizenship in the State of Israel.  So, a number of physical institutions are naturally involved, synagogue and state.

 

In the case of the LDS Church, confirmation automatically gives one membership in the Church -- which is nothing more nor less than the Kingdom of God on Earth, run by the official priesthod of God.  The Church itself is only a temporary organization designed to effectuate the Plan of Salvation.

[Saint Sinner]

Could an ancient believer in Christ, during the Apostolic Era, reject the Apostles Peter, James John and Paul as leaders of the Church and still be considered a true follower of Christ?

Considering there was more than one Christian community, yes.

[Saint Sinner]

Neither, nor.  Or, as Kay Kyser used to say:  "That's right, you're wrong !"

 

LDS baptism is a two-stage process: (1) immersion in water as if being buried in death with Christ, and coming forth as if being born anew, and (2) confirmation -- baptism by fire and the Holy Spirit.  These are part of an initiation process which began in Judaism (and the original Jewish Christian church).  Conversion to Judaism required then, as it does today, immersion baptism, after which one becomes part of the Jewish community, the people of Israel.  If this is done with oversight and approval by Orthodox rabbis, then it is recognized by the State of Israel, and Israeli law requires that such a new convert be allowed citizenship in the State of Israel.  So, a number of physical institutions are naturally involved, synagogue and state.

 

In the case of the LDS Church, confirmation automatically gives one membership in the Church -- which is nothing more nor less than the Kingdom of God on Earth, run by the official priesthod of God.  The Church itself is only a temporary organization designed to effectuate the Plan of Salvation.

Ok. I was unaware of the Jewish practices. With the historical precedence you've provided it makes sense that the traditions would carry over into the Church. Thank you for enlightening me.

[Storm Rider]

Considering there was more than one Christian community, yes.

 

Define Christian community, please?

[Saint Sinner]

I have always thought that both are vital in the path of discipleship. There needs to be a conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ; it is the light that guides us throughout this life.  On the other hand, Jesus formed an actual church into which his followers were baptized.  I don't get caught up too much on the entity itself, rather I focus on those having the authority just as the early apostles had to baptize.

Very well reasoned, thank you.

[Saint Sinner]

Define Christian community, please?

Gnostics, Ebionites, Patripassians, Marcionites, Docetists.

[Bobbieaware]

Considering there was more than one Christian community, yes.

Absurd. Reject the leadership and authority of Peter, James, John, and Paul, whose writings constitute a majority of the New Testament, and still be considered true followers of Christ?

So let me phrase my question another way: Could a professed believer in Christ during the Apostolic Era reject the two general epistles of Peter, reject the general epistle of James, reject the Gospel of John, reject his Book of Revelation and his three general epistles, and reject all of Paul's epistles and still be considered a true followers of Christ?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Saint Sinner]

Absurd. Reject the leadership and authority of Peter, James, John, and Paul, whose writings constitute a majority of the New Testament, and still be considered true followers of Christ?

So let me phrase my question another way: Could a professed believer in Christ during the Apostolic Era reject the two general epistles of Peter, reject the general epistle of James, reject the Gospel of John, reject his Book of Revelation and his three general epistles, and reject all of Paul's epistles and still be considered a true followers of Christ?

You seem to be failing to understand the diverse Christian communities and their beliefs. In the first century, contrary to popular belief, there was not one truly authentic movement above all others. But this is derailing. Let's focus on the OP, please.

[Broker]

There are many followers of Christ who have varying degrees of understanding of Him and His Gospel. There are millions of Christ's disciples within the LDS Church and millions outside the LDS church. All (true disciples) are doing the best they can with the knowledge and understanding they possess. The Gospel and Plan of Salvation are much bigger and more encompassing than any one religion. While I believe that the LDS Church is the official Kingdom of God on earth, and provides the opportunity for the highest level of discipleship, I don't think it's the only path to Christ and His gospel.  Baptism in the LDS church is formal admittance to the church and is the first opportunity for someone to make covenants only available in the Kingdom of God. It's one step in the larger Gospel of Christ.

[Bobbieaware]

You seem to be failing to understand the diverse Christian communities and their beliefs. In the first century, contrary to popular belief, there was not one truly authentic movement above all others. But this is derailing. Let's focus on the OP, please.

The New Testament makes it clear there were many "Christian" groups during the Apostolic Era but they are identified as apostates, false teachers and false apostles & prophets. At least according to the New Testament writers, the true Church of Christ was the group of professed believers in Christ of that day who were led by the Apostles Peter, James, John, Paul, et al... So during the Apostolic Era, just because some groups called themselves Christians doesn't mean they were true Christians, not according to the writers of the New Testament.

Now the reason why I brought these things up in the context of your OP is because the New Testament plainly declares that there was a divinely-ordained and sanctioned Church of Christ that had living, breathing human beings standing at the helm of leadership. So when a proselyte was converted to the true Christ in those days they were baptized in water and confirmed (had hands laid on their heads as the appointed means of bestowing upon them the gift of the Holy Ghost) by authorized representatives of an actual organization that was established by Christ himself. So through baptism the convert not only, as Paul taught, "put on Christ," but they also became official members of a very real earthly organization -- the Church of Christ, or "the body of Christ." In those days you could not be baptised according to the teachings of the gospel without also becoming members of the Church organization that was led by living Apostles and Prophets. So there was no complete conversion without also becoming a member of the earthly Church organization.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

There are many followers of Christ who have varying degrees of understanding of Him and His Gospel. There are millions of Christ's disciples within the LDS Church and millions outside the LDS church. All (true disciples) are doing the best they can with the knowledge and understanding they possess. The Gospel and Plan of Salvation are much bigger and more encompassing than any one religion. While I believe that the LDS Church is the official Kingdom of God on earth, and provides the opportunity for the highest level of discipleship, I don't think it's the only path to Christ and His gospel. Baptism in the LDS church is formal admittance to the church and is the first opportunity for someone to make covenants only available in the Kingdom of God. It's one step in the larger Gospel of Christ.

And this is why I said, in the post that follows yours, that there is no COMPLETE conversion without joining the Church that has the true divine authority. Eventually all, except the sons of perdition, will be converted through the missionary work of those who hold the true priesthood, either in this world or in the spirit world. It is my informed opinion that there will be no salvation for anyone, in any of the degrees of glory, without first acknowledging and coming unto the God of the Restoration.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[ksfisher]

When we are baptized enter into a covenant with God (see Mosiah 18:13).

When we are confirmed we are confirmed as a member of the church.

The gospel is the "good news." I'm not really sure how one can be baptized into the good news.

[Bobbieaware]

When we are baptized enter into a covenant with God (see Mosiah 18:13).

When we are confirmed we are confirmed as a member of the church.

The gospel is the "good news." I'm not really sure how one can be baptized into the good news.

How about that through baptism the good news of the promise of the remission of sins through the atonement of Christ is fulfilled and made real?

[Saint Sinner]

But do remember there is no mentioning of a water baptism for Paul.

http://www.biblestudying.net/baptism6.html

[Avatar4321]

So he wasn't baptized by quoting verses talking about his baptism

[mfbukowski]

You seem to be failing to understand the diverse Christian communities and their beliefs. In the first century, contrary to popular belief, there was not one truly authentic movement above all others. But this is derailing. Let's focus on the OP, please.

Convenient because the statement cannot be verified.  "Truly authentic" is in the eye of the beholder and we have no "authento-meter" to help us.

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't yet made my way through it in its entirety, but, so far, I like Eugene England's essay, "Why The Church is as True as The Gospel."

 

http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the-church-is-as-true-as-the-gospel

[Saint Sinner]

So he wasn't baptized by quoting verses talking about his baptism

What kind of baptism is being talked about? Apparently, not water. So perhaps baptism by fire.

And if Paul had been baptized, who did it?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Saint Sinner