Baptism and the Atonement

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

So, I take it you're not going to remove your misrepresentation from the OP. Fair enough. I forgive you.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, I take it you're not going to remove your misrepresentation from the OP. Fair enough. I forgive you.

And you didn't require baptism to grant the forgiveness. Well done

 

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

If mortal baptism is superfluous then why did Christ command it?  Why did the apostles whom he personally taught baptize?  I understand that the majority of the human race has never had the opportunity to accept, or reject, baptism.  I also understand that I'm accountable for what I know.  If I know more then I need to do more.  If I know that baptism if a necessary ordinance then I need to act on that knowledge. 

[mfbukowski]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

Interesting point

The quote is defining "Remission of sins" as - your first paragraph

Quote

"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)."

So "Remission"= forgiveness upon condition of repentance, which is "made possible" by the atonement.   Baptism is necessary for "remission"

So the question I guess I am asking- though admittedly the distinctions are getting blurry- is there a difference between "forgiveness" and "remission"?

THAT seems to be the question.  After baptism we are told that repentence = forgiveness.  (?)

Does that mean that repentance = remission for those who have been baptized?

I think we are getting a little far into the woods here, where the distinctions are too fine to be "doctrinal" or even IF allegedly "doctrinal" they are probably too fine to really stand up to close scrutiny.   Orthopraxis time as opposed to orthodoxy

 

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

I agree.  And there were other to whom Christ said "go, and sin no more" with no mention of forgiveness at that moment.  I assume that the forgiveness would come later after sincere repentance.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour 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.

OK I can go with that

But to me that is awfully convoluted if you analyze it, especially in light of baptism for the dead and the "second chance" we are given through temple work

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting point

The quote is defining "Remission of sins" as - your first paragraph

So "Remission"= forgiveness upon condition of repentance, which is "made possible" by the atonement.   Baptism is necessary for "remission"

So the question I guess I am asking- though admittedly the distinctions are getting blurry- is there a difference between "forgiveness" and "remission"?

THAT seems to be the question.  After baptism we are told that repentence = forgiveness.  (?)

Does that mean that repentance = remission for those who have been baptized?

I think we are getting a little far into the woods here, where the distinctions are too fine to be "doctrinal" or even IF allegedly "doctrinal" they are probably too fine to really stand up to close scrutiny.   Orthopraxis time as opposed to orthodoxy

 

No. Perhaps you are purposely not reading my posts but you would see I've already answered this a couple of times. And these woods really aren't that deep. It's pretty much exactly as JKWilliams stated originally.

Repentance = change of heart and qualifies for ordinance to cleanse. That ordinance would be either baptism or the sacrament, depending upon whether or not a person has previously been baptized. In both cases, if we have repented, we are washed clean through the ordinance. We receive forgiveness of our sins which is synonymous with a remission of our sins.

Edited August 11, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

OK I can go with that

But to me that is awfully convoluted if you analyze it, especially in light of baptism for the dead and the "second chance" we are given through temple work

Explain what you are meaning by "second chance."

[Eek!]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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

To the woman who had been caught in the act of adultery just a few minutes previously (which implies that a standard LDS-approved repentance process could not possibly have taken place), Jesus said:  "Neither to do I condemn you.  Go and sin no more."

God has told us that He is "no respecter of persons" which means that woman did not get special treatment.  Rather, I think she is an example of how God will treat all of us, even if we don't yet know exactly what His line of reasoning is.  The Chess Master has thought through all the moves that may be needed well in advance.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Eek!

[jkwilliams]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And you didn't require baptism to grant the forgiveness. Well done

 

Or repentance, for that matter.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Explain what you are meaning by "second chance."

Those who do not have a fair chance at accepting the gospel here will hear it on the other side.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

To the woman who had been caught in the act of adultery just a few minutes previously (which implies that a standard LDS-approved repentance process could not possibly have taken place), Jesus said:  "Neither to do I condemn you.  Go and sin no more."

God has told us that He is "no respecter of persons" which means that woman did not get special treatment.  Rather, I think she is an example of how God will treat all of us, even if we don't yet know exactly what His line of reasoning is.  The Chess Master has thought through all the moves that may be needed well in advance.

I'm glad that helped you as it helped me.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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

 

Mark, I have not been able to find any quotes that say "Go and sin no more" connected with a "your sins are forgiven. Can you enlighten me, or are you asserting that forgiveness was implied?

I am not persuaded that any of the people that were told that their sins had been forgiven had not been baptized. Baptisms were performed prior to Christ's ministry under the Mosaic law. The Book of Mormon speaks of baptisms before Christ ministry many times.

John the Baptist was a Levite and was baptizing, evidently by his priesthood authority prior to Christ beginning his own ministry. The Pharisees did not question the baptisms themselves.

So, when Christ told the man who was let down before him from the roof and the woman who anointed his feet with oil in the home of Simon the Pharisee that their sins were forgiven, there is a very good possibility that they had been baptized under the Mosaic law, although the actual significance probably had been lost by that time.

Glenn

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Perhaps you are purposely not reading my posts but you would see I've already answered this a couple of times. And these woods really aren't that deep. It's pretty much exactly as JKWilliams stated originally.

Repentance = change of heart and qualifies for ordinance to cleanse. That ordinance would be either baptism or the sacrament, depending upon whether or not a person has previously been baptized. In both cases, if we have repented, we are washed clean through the ordinance. We receive forgiveness of our sins which is synonymous with a remission of our sins.

I an reading them but we disagree.

I don't wish to argue with you or John.

[mfbukowski]

I am not buying that one must be a member of the church to have your sins forgiven. That seems totally wrong. God can forgive whomever he likes, he knows their hearts. Ordinances are not magic spells, they are tokens of obedience, if they are understood at all

 

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ordinances are not magic spells, they are tokens of obedience, if they are understood at all

Both agree and disagree.
There is power in the ordinances that cannot be obtained any other way.  That doesn't make them "magic spells" but it does go beyond mere symbolism.  There is real actual power in an authoritative ordinance.  That's what separates it from other denominations.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Interesting point

The quote is defining "Remission of sins" as - your first paragraph

So "Remission"= forgiveness upon condition of repentance, which is "made possible" by the atonement.   Baptism is necessary for "remission"

So the question I guess I am asking- though admittedly the distinctions are getting blurry- is there a difference between "forgiveness" and "remission"?

THAT seems to be the question.  After baptism we are told that repentence = forgiveness.  (?)

Does that mean that repentance = remission for those who have been baptized?

I think we are getting a little far into the woods here, where the distinctions are too fine to be "doctrinal" or even IF allegedly "doctrinal" they are probably too fine to really stand up to close scrutiny.   Orthopraxis time as opposed to orthodoxy

 

I just got done reading a book about physics that described space, time and gravity as the same thing and is comprised of discrete packets, which are comprised of smaller units as well... I think it is wonderful, and by design, that things are blurry!

Great question! The difference between forgiveness and remission of sins (they are synonyms in English).

Trying to find differences, I think forgiveness is what God does (and what we are asked to do) toward others: “to pardon or excuse someone from blame for an offense or misdeed.” https://www.lds.org/topics/forgiveness?lang=eng We love them rather than blame or accuse them. They are free of the burden of the Father’s or our righteous rejection or debt, but they retain the negative effects of breaking eternal law upon their person, their character and in their loss of agency.

I think remittance is what happens when in addition to the pardon, the personal penalty for the offense is avoided, reduced, reversed or lifted and the person becomes like Christ and expands his agency. Only God can do that.

So, I think the difference is that while only God can remit sins, He also forgives and asks us to forgive. All three (His forgiveness, His remittance, and our forgiveness) hinge on the Atonement. Forgiveness might be the temporal form (since we can practice it as imperfect beings, and Jesus displayed it in His healing of temporal ailments and on the cross unto the thief’s relief in paradise but not exaltation), and remission might be the eternal form of the same thing.

I'd say that baptism and the other ordinances are directed toward exaltation or remission, but remission cannot be had without forgiveness. Forgiveness may be an enticement to enter into baptism and the covenants, because without the progress afforded by them and the gift of the Holy Ghost, we return to our vomit and it is quickly lost. The Lord may strengthen people through grace until they can be baptised.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It doesn't matter when one is born or dies or resurrects... but each must still occur in order for the spirit and element to connect, for agency to expand, etc. Baptism and the other ordinances (and all the things we choose to do) are just as impactful as these things that we do not choose while mortal, such as when we are born, die (the exceptions run contrary to the plan of happiness) or resurrect.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Does that mean that repentance = remission for those who have been baptized?

I think the internal and spiritual process of taking the sacrament shows how the effect of repentance after baptism is to leap-frog over forgiveness and into the greater remission of sins. Again, we want more than freedom from blame, we want a reversal of fortune. I also think a spirit of willingness is more advanced than a spirit repentance (repentance is to forgiveness of sins as willingness is to the remission of sins).

Edited August 12, 2016 by CV75

[CV75]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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!"

This is a great thread, I am enjoying it immensely.

I can imagine that some can and do choose misery over happiness. If one rejects the light of Christ by walking by the light of his own fire, and in the sparks he has kindled (per Isaiah 50:11, and we all have them and do this since we are, after all, intelligence), or refuse to believe that Christ would actually condescend (Satan seems to have taken this view for himself), the consequences of sin are perfectly acceptable. I think we can relate to being in a place where we've felt that Christ is too good for our kind, or that "they" and "we" have our own things to do, or that our conscience is too inconvenient. I think that attitude can persist, in some, into the next life and they refuse the proxy work. I think it is a function of pride rather than of idiocy.

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I just got done reading a book about physics that described space, time and gravity as the same thing and is comprised of discrete packets, which are comprised of smaller units as well... I think it is wonderful, and by design, that things are blurry!

 

Great question! The difference between forgiveness and remission of sins (they are synonyms in English).

 

Trying to find differences, I think forgiveness is what God does (and what we are asked to do) toward others: “to pardon or excuse someone from blame for an offense or misdeed.” https://www.lds.org/topics/forgiveness?lang=eng We love them rather than blame or accuse them. They are free of the burden of the Father’s or our righteous rejection or debt, but they retain the negative effects of breaking eternal law upon their person, their character and in their loss of agency.

 

I think remittance is what happens when in addition to the pardon, the personal penalty for the offense is avoided, reduced, reversed or lifted and the person becomes like Christ and expands his agency. Only God can do that.

 

So, I think the difference is that while only God can remit sins, He also forgives and asks us to forgive. All three (His forgiveness, His remittance, and our forgiveness) hinge on the Atonement. Forgiveness might be the temporal form (since we can practice it as imperfect beings, and Jesus displayed it in His healing of temporal ailments and on the cross unto the thief’s relief in paradise but not exaltation), and remission might be the eternal form of the same thing.

 

I'd say that baptism and the other ordinances are directed toward exaltation or remission, but remission cannot be had without forgiveness. Forgiveness may be an enticement to enter into baptism and the covenants, because without the progress afforded by them and the gift of the Holy Ghost, we return to our vomit and it is quickly lost. The Lord may strengthen people through grace until they can be baptised.

Well I think you are on to something.  Let me re-state the problem a bit more clearly then using the logic of language and grammar, and then show that again the problem is the ambiguity of language, as usual.

If "forgiveness" = "remission" and if remission comes only through baptism, then forgiveness of sin comes only through baptism, and therefore non-members cannot be forgiven of sin through the atonement

THAT to me sounds very harsh and unreasonable.  Possibly God is really like that, but I find it hard to believe.  God can forgive whom he forgives and this belief could theoretically limit God's ability to forgive to, say, the whim of a bishop who does not want to baptize someone for whatever reason, or limits the ability for someone in Tibet who has not heard the gospel to live their lives in guilt truly knowing by personal revelation through the spirit that their sins are NOT forgiven.   These examples are concocted obviously to illustrate the principle.  I find it difficult to imagine that God limits himself to the dictates of the church- it should be the other way around.

But as you point out, I think this is a good example of linguistic logic standing in the way of what we know is reasonable, good and just.

Perhaps full remission is dependent on full repentance, where we have a kind of conditional forgiveness through the process of repentanceWe all have the experience of trying to repent and feeling a sense of peace when we have avoided a troublesome sin for a length of time, then, almost inevitably, it seems we can easily fall back into old patterns.  Romans 7

Quote

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

 

So I think provisional forgiveness must be a requirement.  When we teach children, we reward them for good behavior- that may correspond to a level of "forgiveness" given provisionally and confirmed by the spirit which is the first part of the doctrine feeling "sweet" 

Quote

 

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

 14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

 15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty......

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow......

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck thefruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

 

And I know personally that this process works for people who are not baptized- I joined the church at age 31 after receiving the most powerful religious experience I have ever had before or since, without having "received the Holy Ghost"

So to  with repentance.  I repent and feel closer to the spirit and that is highly rewarding.  Then temptation and weakness "makes a home in me" and I fall, and feel loss of the spirit.

I take the sacrament and feel incrementally better, but have I received total "remission" of my sins to the point where I would be catapulted to the celestial kingdom if I died?  Am I immediately back where I was after a longer period of repentance?

It sure doesn't feel that way.

So yes, under those terms, I can certainly understand provisional forgiveness and even provisional repentance.

But would that mean that had I been barred from ordinances as a condition of repentance after being, say, disfellowshipped God would forgive my sins less because I was barred by the church from the ordinance of the sacrament?

I don't believe that it would.   I think God would love me the same and God would give me the reward of feeling the spirit just as strongly as I would had I been able to take the sacrament BECAUSE I needed that little "doggy treat" - that little spiritual reinforcement to lead me down the path.  You need to feel that Alma 32 "sweetness" to repent in the first place, to lead you on to greater repentance

At least I do, weakling that I am.

So for me the logic doesn't hold.  God leads and guides us regardless of our formal relationship with the church - why?  BECAUSE WE NEED IT to be motivated to go farther anyway.

Yes, ultimately the doctrine is true- yes ordinances and obedience to their "ordinances"- in the sense of laws - are necessary for exaltation.   You cannot be perfect until you are perfect, and that means perfect in every ordinance in the sense of laws and in the sense of covenants as well

But are we damaged by not being perfect from the beginning?  Does delaying an ordinance damage our ability to become perfect in the long run especially when it would cause more confusion and conflict in out lives in the short run?

No way.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Both agree and disagree.
 

Yeah, that's the problem.

Getting the words right.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, waveslider said:

..................................................................................

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:
.....................................................

Your explanation makes sense and is a touchstone of LDS exegesis.  Problem is that we don't know what Jesus actually said since we get only a Greek version, which is then translated into our English.  The term used in Luke 23:43 is a late Persian term taken over into LXX Greek paradeisos and into late Hebrew as pardes.  The LXX OT uses it to translate the Hebrew for "Garden of Eden" in Genesis and elsewhere.  So what did Jesus likely say in Hebrew or Aramaic to that thief?  He may have said gan-'eden, but he may have said something entirely different that what we expect.  For example, In Ecclesiasticus 40:17 (Ben Sirah) in the Apocrypha, the Hebrew phrase meaning "piety will never be shaken" is translated into LXX Greek as "charity is a very paradise of blessing."  However, I like the note to Lk 23:43 in the 1991 New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV),

Quote

Paradise (like "Abraham's bosom" in 16:22) was a contemporary Jewish term for the lodging place of the righteous dead prior to resurrection.

So Jewish tradition seems to justify your LDS standard explanation.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

...............................................................

Jews believe that they are saved by grace, but immersion baptism is only required of non-Jews who are converting to Judaism.  This is because one is born into the covenant of Judaism -- making one automatically a member of the Congregation of Israel, even though all males must be circumcized.  The basic principles of repentance and atonement are a distinct part of Judaism, the holiest day of their year being the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

Hi John,

Mark used to be Catholic and while he never understood much,  he is aware that Catholics believe that one can be forgiven without formally joining the Catholic Church or even receiving valid baptism. Only God would know what souls were saved/sanctified by "baptism of desire," since it means that through no fault of the person, there was not adequate opportunity for water baptism. Only God could know the interior soul to that extent. Therefore, we still urgently need the missions. I was thinking that this way of looking at it might be compatible with an LDS understanding in this life, for temporary forgiveness. But it would not seem to me that "baptism of desire" could work in the LDS post-mortal life. In LDS thought, it seems to me like the one who refuses post-mortal baptism, would be a candidate for some of the less desirable positions/places in the LDS eschatology, reserved for those who actually refuse to be forgiven.

Rory