Baptism and the Atonement

[mfbukowski]

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

The question seems to me to obviously be "YES" without question, and I am sticking to that.  THAT is my belief and interpretation of doctrine and I am not likely to change it unless the spirit testifies otherwise to me

It seems to me that the atonement is a requirement for the ordinance to even exist, that Christ said to the thief that he would be in paradise, obviously without baptism, and we have other instances of Christ forgiving sins without baptism.

Because John Williams made the assertion, and we often do not get along, I will avoid further comments- I have made my opinion known.

Here is a link to one of the assertions made:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67921-disciples-of-christ-or-disciples-of-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209650942

I suppose this will inevitably end up being about ssm, but I really would like to stay on the topic of whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for having sins forgiven through the atonement

THAT is the question I am interested in

Edited August 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

The question seems to me to obviously be "YES" without question, and I am sticking to that.  THAT is my belief and interpretation of doctrine and I am not likely to change it unless the spirit testifies otherwise to me

It seems to me that the atonement is a requirement for the ordinance to even exist, that Christ said to the thief that he would be in paradise, obviously without baptism, and we have other instances of Christ forgiving sins without baptism.

Because John Williams made the assertion, and we often do not get along, I will avoid further comments- I have made my opinion known.

Here is a link to one of the assertions made:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67921-disciples-of-christ-or-disciples-of-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209650942

For what it's worth, I have never said people cannot have their sins forgiven through the Atonement without being a member of the church. I said this: "As long as I can remember, the church has taught that to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, one must receive it by the laying on of hands. Likewise, sanctification through the Atonement comes only through the covenant of baptism."

So, two things that don't happen without baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost:

• The companionship of the Holy Ghost
• Sanctification through the Atonement and the baptism of fire (Holy Ghost), which comes after baptism by water

I was told these beliefs are "false" and "without basis," but to me, they are basic doctrines of the church.

It's awfully frustrating when someone starts a thread to attack an assertion I never made. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[bluebell]

I think that MB is correct about being able to be forgiven of sins but that JW is as well because that forgiveness does not produce the covenant necessary for eternal life.  The church does teach what John said.  Even though the scriptures have one or two examples of an exception to that doctrine, that's what those examples are treated as-exceptions due to extreme circumstances and not the standard.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I think that MB is correct about being able to be forgiven of sins but that JW is as well because that forgiveness does not produce the covenant necessary for eternal life.  The church does teach what John said.  Even though the scriptures have one or two examples of an exception to that doctrine, that's what those examples are treated as-exceptions due to extreme circumstances and not the standard.

Thank you. I was beginning to think I was losing my mind. I know, too late!

And in case I wasn't clear, of course the Lord can forgive sins as He sees fit, regardless of ordinances. That's not what I was talking about.

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I suppose this will inevitably end up being about ssm, but I really would like to stay on the topic of whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for having sins forgiven through the atonement

THAT is the question I am interested in

But that wasn't what we were talking about. I don't think anyone believes baptism is a prerequisite for having sins forgiven through the Atonement. I never said anything like that, and I have no idea why you think this is even an issue. I don't mind the snark and attack so much when they are about something I actually said, but if you're going to start a thread attacking my beliefs, it might help if they actually were my beliefs.

[3DOP]

Hey Mark,

Maybe we should suggest a separate folder for "Homosexuality"? It would seem like it would generate a lot more interest than "Social Hall" or "In the News". I would never look at it, but I am pretty sure I am in the minority. To tell the truth, I would also probably avoid discussions of heterosexuality. Maybe the folder should be just plain old "Sex"? Heh.

As for baptism, I would have suggested the Catholic position where one must at least have the implicit desire for baptism. But it seems to me that you could go a step further. Because we all have a chance for post-mortal baptism, would not the LDS position still require baptism to have everlasting forgiveness. It doesn't seem like it would go over very well for the non-LDS, who had enjoyed the fellowship of God in this life, to refuse baptism in the next? Would he still be forgiven in your view?

Thanks,

Rory

 

[Gray]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

 

I always believed that, but I can see other members of the church believing otherwise. 

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

***

I suppose this will inevitably end up being about ssm, but I really would like to stay on the topic of whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for having sins forgiven through the atonement

I understand that no forgiveness is possible without the Atonement, and that baptism is a prerequisite for forgiveness along with the other first principles and ordinances of the Gospel. I also believe there is the hope for forgiveness (also availed through the atonement) for those who are denied baptism knowing they need it, and this is a form of grace that strengthens them while they await the full realization of that blessing. This hope is a function of faith and repentance, and the anticipation of the remission of sins is a form of "earnest" for the full remission to come, the anticipation serving as temporal relief and the realization serving as eternal relief.

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Mark,

Maybe we should suggest a separate folder for "Homosexuality"? It would seem like it would generate a lot more interest than "Social Hall" or "In the News". I would never look at it, but I am pretty sure I am in the minority. To tell the truth, I would also probably avoid discussions of heterosexuality. Maybe the folder should be just plain old "Sex"? Heh.

As for baptism, I would have suggested the Catholic position where one must at least have the implicit desire for baptism. But it seems to me that you could go a step further. Because we all have a chance for post-mortal baptism, would not the LDS position still require baptism to have everlasting forgiveness. It doesn't seem like it would go over very well for the non-LDS, who had enjoyed the fellowship of God in this life, to refuse baptism in the next? Would he still be forgiven in your view?

Thanks,

Rory

I'm not really familiar with Catholic doctrine, so i can't really comment. The issue I was talking about was the process of sanctification through the Atonement and the purifying "fire" of the Holy Ghost. LDS doctrine is that this process cannot happen without baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. 

[waveslider]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

The question seems to me to obviously be "YES" without question, and I am sticking to that.  THAT is my belief and interpretation of doctrine and I am not likely to change it unless the spirit testifies otherwise to me

It seems to me that the atonement is a requirement for the ordinance to even exist, that Christ said to the thief that he would be in paradise, obviously without baptism, and we have other instances of Christ forgiving sins without baptism.

Because John Williams made the assertion, and we often do not get along, I will avoid further comments- I have made my opinion known.

Here is a link to one of the assertions made:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67921-disciples-of-christ-or-disciples-of-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209650942

I suppose this will inevitably end up being about ssm, but I really would like to stay on the topic of whether or not baptism is a pre-requisite for having sins forgiven through the atonement

THAT is the question I am interested in

Yes, I'm quite certain that sins can be forgiven before baptism, otherwise I don't think anyone would be worthy to get baptized in the first place. As for entrance into God's kingdom that is another thing altogether. Just as Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

When Jesus said to the thief next to Him, on the cross that today he would be with him in Paradise, it wasn't Heaven Christ was referring to, but rather the Spirit realm where spirits await the resurrection and final judgement. Peter explains where Christ went after His death, but before he ascended to Heaven, to be in the presence of God the Father:

"18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Peter 3:18-20

In this case Paradise is referred to as prison for those dead spirits that lived an evil life, when they were wiped of the Earth in the flood. Here Peter explains why Christ went there:

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
1 Peter 4:6

Christ basically set up a missionary program in the spirit world, and that is why He said those comforting words to the thief, because the thief too would be taught. If anyone thinks that Jesus went to Heaven they are mistaken as seen in Christ's words to Mary upon His resurrection:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
John 20:17

[JAHS]

On a few occasions Jesus told someone that their sins are forgiven, with no mention of them having been baptized. So yes it is possible; or at least it was back then when He said that, and I suppose He could do that now if He were to appear to someone and tell them their sins are forgiven. However, God's instructions to us now are that baptism is required, which is what makes temple work so important for our ancestors.

"thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost." (D&C 19: 31)
"Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water," (D&C 33:11)
 "preach repentance and remission of sins by way of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God." (D&C 55:2)
 "And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned." (D&C 112:29)
"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," (D&C 39: 10) 

Not sure how one can argue that baptism is not required for forgiveness of sins, given these and other scriptures.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

For what it's worth, I have never said people cannot have their sins forgiven through the Atonement without being a member of the church. I said this: "As long as I can remember, the church has taught that to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost, one must receive it by the laying on of hands. Likewise, sanctification through the Atonement comes only through the covenant of baptism."

So, two things that don't happen without baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost:

• The companionship of the Holy Ghost
• Sanctification through the Atonement and the baptism of fire (Holy Ghost), which comes after baptism by water

I was told these beliefs are "false" and "without basis," but to me, they are basic doctrines of the church.

It's awfully frustrating when someone starts a thread to attack an assertion I never made. 

This is not about you John it is about the question

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This is not about you John it is about the question

Then kindly stop telling people "John Williams made the assertion." Generally speaking, when you call out a specific person by name, you make it about that person.

Edited August 11, 2016 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Yes, I'm quite certain that sins can be forgiven before baptism, otherwise I don't think anyone would be worthy to get baptized in the first place. As for entrance into God's kingdom that is another thing altogether. Just as Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:5

When Jesus said to the thief next to Him, on the cross that today he would be with him in Paradise, it wasn't Heaven Christ was referring to, but rather the Spirit realm where spirits await the resurrection and final judgement. Peter explains where Christ went after His death, but before he ascended to Heaven, to be in the presence of God the Father:

"18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19  By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20  Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."
1 Peter 3:18-20

In this case Paradise is referred to as prison for those dead spirits that lived an evil life, when they were wiped of the Earth in the flood. Here Peter explains why Christ went there:

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
1 Peter 4:6

Christ basically set up a missionary program in the spirit world, and that is why He said those comforting words to the thief, because the thief too would be taught. If anyone thinks that Jesus went to Heaven they are mistaken as seen in Christ's words to Mary upon His resurrection:

"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
John 20:17

PLUS the idea of first Faith, then Repentance, THEN Baptism...

Repentance is a pre-requisite for Baptism.

[ksfisher]

Regarding Christ's statement that the thief would be with him in paradise; I'm asking myself who's paradise?

Is it the paradise that Christ knows to be that he was referring to?

Is it what I believe paradise to be?

Or was it the paradise as the thief understood it that Christ was referring to?

And did Christ's statement mean that the thief had received forgiveness for his sins?

Edited August 11, 2016 by ksfisher

[mapman]

It was always my understanding that the doctrine of the church is that anyone can repent and be forgiven, and that in addition to having faith, they need to repent before they can be baptized. Baptism cleanses a person because they establish a covenant relationship with God wherein they are born again or start over as a child of Christ, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost will help them to continue on the path because unlike unbaptized people, they can have his constant companionship. Anyone can have a relationship with God that includes forgiveness for sins, but to become like God, a person will at some point need to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost (whether it be in this life or the next).

[CV75]

Here's something from lds.org: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/remission-of-sins?lang=eng

"Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. Remission of sins is made possible by the atonement of Jesus Christ. A person obtains a remission of his sins if he has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeys God’s commandments (A of F 1:3–4)."

Also from http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Remission_of_Sins "Remission of sins" is the scriptural phrase that describes the primary purpose of baptism: to obtain God's forgiveness for breaking his commandments and receive a newness of life.

I think when Jesus forgave in the flesh, it was a temporal forgiveness, just as His healings of the sick were clearly temporal (all the recipients eventually died). The spiritual healing, or permanent, eternal forgiveness follows the ordinances (the efficacy of which depend on the Atonement) just as the permanent physical healing (resurrection) is both made efficacious by and follows the Atonement.

Edited August 11, 2016 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

This is how I view church teachings on baptism. Baptism is a covenant in which I agree to keep God's commandments, take upon me the name of Christ, and always remember Him and he agrees to forgive me of my sins and sanctify me with the spirit.

No unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God. Therefore I must be cleansed to enter the kingdom of God.

I am cleansed through baptism by immersion for the remission sins. I understand a remission of sins to be God's forgiveness.

I am then to be sanctified with fire, which is the spirit, or gift of the holy ghost.

Therefore, if I am not permitted to be baptized I cannot be cleansed/forgiven of my sins nor can I be sanctified by fire via the gift of the holy ghost.

 

I view the denial of a saving ordinance to innocent children akin to Zoramites at the Rameumptom refusing the poor to worship with them.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Mark,

Maybe we should suggest a separate folder for "Homosexuality"? It would seem like it would generate a lot more interest than "Social Hall" or "In the News". I would never look at it, but I am pretty sure I am in the minority. To tell the truth, I would also probably avoid discussions of heterosexuality. Maybe the folder should be just plain old "Sex"? Heh.

As for baptism, I would have suggested the Catholic position where one must at least have the implicit desire for baptism. But it seems to me that you could go a step further. Because we all have a chance for post-mortal baptism, would not the LDS position still require baptism to have everlasting forgiveness. It doesn't seem like it would go over very well for the non-LDS, who had enjoyed the fellowship of God in this life, to refuse baptism in the next? Would he still be forgiven in your view?

Thanks,

Rory

 

I agree about the separate form for homosexuality stuff!

We have the additional aspect of baptism for the dead so it kind of becomes an academic issue also with the idea of nearly universal salvation.

Imagine being on the other side and (like i said-  IMAGINE  ) that it is totally clear the LDS position is "correct".

Some missionary spirit asks you if you want to have your work done and join the obvious winner and have your sins forgiven.   Turn that around and make it a Catholic missionary spirit if you like- I can mentally do that just as well

You would have to be an idiot to choose otherwise.   "No- I am fine here in purgatory/spirit prison- thanks anyway!"

I do believe in a kind of "baptism of desire" as well though.  If someone desires baptism but cannot be baptized for whatever reason, I believe God will not delay the progression of a spirit due to lack of an ordinance which can be accomplished later.

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

PLUS the idea of first Faith, then Repentance, THEN Baptism...

Repentance is a pre-requisite for Baptism.

Yes, it is the change of heart that comes from repentance that would "qualify" an individual for baptism. They do not need to be cleansed/forgiven prior to baptism. That's what baptism is for.

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I understand that no forgiveness is possible without the Atonement, and that baptism is a prerequisite for forgiveness along with the other first principles and ordinances of the Gospel. I also believe there is the hope for forgiveness (also availed through the atonement) for those who are denied baptism knowing they need it, and this is a form of grace that strengthens them while they await the full realization of that blessing. This hope is a function of faith and repentance, and the anticipation of the remission of sins is a form of "earnest" for the full remission to come, the anticipation serving as temporal relief and the realization serving as eternal relief.

Yep I think we agree on that one.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Can non-members have their sins forgiven through the atonement without being a member of the church? (without being baptized?)

Yes.  Of course.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;
third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Of course it's possible to have faith and repent without moving on to Baptism.  Baptism is a sign of repentance, not a requirement for it.
And if repentance is possible without baptism then it stands to reason that forgiveness is too.

What is not possible without baptism is entering into the covenant to follow Christ and become part of his kingdom.  But that doesn't bar you from forgiveness, just progression.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  Of course.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance;
third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Of course it's possible to have faith and repent without moving on to Baptism.  Baptism is a sign of repentance, not a requirement for it.
And if repentance is possible without baptism then it stands to reason that forgiveness is too.

What is not possible without baptism is entering into the covenant to follow Christ and become part of his kingdom.  But that doesn't bar you from forgiveness, just progression.

This is interesting. I think you are conflating repentance with forgiveness. A person repents as they change their heart to align with God's will. God has no covenantal obligation with repentance. Man repents. God forgives. They are two separate things.

I agree that repentance is possible and even required before baptism, but why would forgiveness be given sans baptism when baptism is designed to cleans of sins. Baptism is the next step of the process to receive forgiveness.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Regarding Christ's statement that the thief would be with him in paradise; I'm asking myself who's paradise?

Is it the paradise that Christ knows to be that he was referring to?

Is it what I believe paradise to be?

Or was it the paradise as the thief understood it that Christ was referring to?

And did Christ's statement mean that the thief had received forgiveness for his sins?

Fair enough, but there were others who had their sins forgiven based on their repentance- "Go and sin no more- your sins are forgiven"

[stemelbow]

I'm curuious if this is true because in essence all are baptized.  I mean they aren't at present but they will be and in eternity what does it matter when the actual ordinance took place? 

I'll maintain that in eternity baptism in mortality is superfluous.  it doesn't matter when one is baptized and it becomes less meaningful and impactful because all will be.