Baptism ceasing? NT Scholars

[mfbukowski]

On 11/5/2017 at 1:21 PM, JLHPROF said:

Thank you everyone for your responses.  

My friend it seems has begun to fall into the doctrinal downward trap of losing belief in authority, ordinances, etc and is heading towards the all you need is love and Jesus paradigm.

So Jesus had no authority? 

Why need Jesus then or even to believe in love?   Isn't believing you need anything at all giving that "thing" some "authority"?

Even the statement "all you need is love" is stating a need and giving solution based on some kind of cosmic "authority".  I mean who says "all you need is love" and why should we believe it? 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So Jesus had no authority? 

Why need Jesus then or even to believe in love?   Isn't believing you need anything at all giving that "thing" some "authority"?

Even the statement "all you need is love" is stating a need and giving solution based on some kind of cosmic "authority".  I mean who says "all you need is love" and why should we believe it? 

 

Ok very funny.

My friend who claims a belief in Mormonism is starting to imply in his statements to me that an intimate personal relationship with Christ will get you everything you need without the pesky need for ordinances or priesthood held by mortal man.  That such things are a lesser level and that the Apostles like Paul moved beyond such limited understanding and ceased baptizing with water as a result.

He feels that the baptism of fire as a result of a closeness with Christ is higher and requires no lesser ordinances.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok very funny.

My friend who claims a belief in Mormonism is starting to imply in his statements to me that an intimate personal relationship with Christ will get you everything you need without the pesky need for ordinances or priesthood held by mortal man.  That such things are a lesser level and that the Apostles like Paul moved beyond such limited understanding and ceased baptizing with water as a result.

He feels that the baptism of fire as a result of a closeness with Christ is higher and requires no lesser ordinances.

Gotta admit that's a toughy. 

We preach that you have to get your own testimony on every principle, and that is either true or not. If it is true- James 1:5, Moroni 10:4-5, Alma 32-  etc there is not much you can do.

Arguably that is what he is doing.   He asked God, got his answer, planted the seed and now it's growing, and he will see if it bears fruit.

I guess the only classical Mormon answer I could give is that he will receive further knowledge on the other side, assuming he does not get it here first, but I don't think we have a way to teach such a person if those are his beliefs.

We can give evidence all day long that "baptism continued" but he can just ascribe that to "apostasy"

His argument actually is very much a Mormon argument - you either accept that Joseph was a prophet or not, all based on testimony.   In a very real way we affirm his way of thinking with our own.  He can either accept that all you need is an intimate relationship with Christ or not, and if he does, then I am willing to say that might be what he needs to get him through this life for reasons only known to God.

[theplains]

On 10/11/2017 at 5:05 PM, RBoylan said:

The use of a font supported by 12 oxen is not needed for the practice to be valid and for the ordinance to be efficacious.

How did this practice of using the font supported by 12 oxen for proxy baptisms originate?  We know it did not
come from the Old Testament because the font was not used for baptisms.

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, theplains said:

How did this practice of using the font supported by 12 oxen for proxy baptisms originate?  We know it did not
come from the Old Testament because the font was not used for baptisms.

Good question.

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1976/03/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

• I had the rare and, for me, awesome privilege and opportunity of receiving guidance and counsel in meetings with the First Presidency of the Church on specific details and requirements of the temple designs. One of the items there discussed was the design of the baptismal fonts. A review of the fonts of all previously built temples was made, and it was mentioned that these were patterned after the “sea” of the great temple built by Solomon and that the oxen represented the 12 tribes. It was emphasized that this design motif was not imperative to the validity of the ordinance. More important would be that the font be proper, clean, beautiful, and of a size adequate to accommodate baptism by immersion performed by those having authority from God through the holy priesthood. 

Personally, I consider it a symbolic choice, and the connection to the OT molten sea has no direct relationship to the baptismal font other than in representing the same thing.
 

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

How did this practice of using the font supported by 12 oxen for proxy baptisms originate?  We know it did not
come from the Old Testament because the font was not used for baptisms.

Thanks,
Jim

This clearly assumes a strict definition of Baptism.

The font was used for ritual cleansing and that us what baptism is 

Did John the Baptist invent baptism?

 

[theplains]

On 13/11/2017 at 4:30 PM, JLHPROF said:

Personally, I consider it a symbolic choice, and the connection to the OT molten sea has no direct relationship to the baptismal font other than in representing the same thing.

What exactly do you believe is the same thing being represented?

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 13/11/2017 at 5:18 PM, mfbukowski said:

This clearly assumes a strict definition of Baptism.

The font was used for ritual cleansing and that us what baptism is 

Did John the Baptist invent baptism?

The Old Testament priests were not being ritually cleansed in proxy for someone else. They were
using the font to cleanse themselves of the blood they came into contact during the sacrifices.

John was sent to baptize. No fonts were used.

Thanks,
Jim

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, theplains said:

The Old Testament priests were not being ritually cleansed in proxy for someone else. They were
using the font to cleanse themselves of the blood they came into contact during the sacrifices.

John was sent to baptize. No fonts were used.

Thanks,
Jim

You didn't answer the question.

Where did the word translated as "baptism " originate, and what did it refer to?

Of course fonts were not used by John in the wilderness, I suppose they would be a little heavy to carry.

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You didn't answer the question.

Where did the word translated as "baptism " originate, and what did it refer to?

Of course fonts were not used by John in the wilderness, I suppose they would be a little heavy to carry.

The word is essentially a Greek translation of a ceremony of "mikveh" performed as a ritual full immersion in a special "font" much like those found today in LDS chapels or in living water.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh

The ceremony was performed when one was converted to Judaism, and other ritual spiritual cleansings.

Clearly John adapted that ceremony to suit the beginnings of Christianity. The difference between the Hebrew Mikvah and Christian baptism is in outward appearance,  very slight.

To assert that Jewish spiritual cleansings had nothing to do with baptism is just plain non supportable. 

The symbolism was slightly different but the action itself was a spiritual cleansing as well as showing a commitment to a new way of life.

Also, the dead are also ritually washed so they can ascend to heaven 

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1541/jewish/The-Mikvah.htm

Quote

The primary uses of mikvah today are delineated in Jewish law and date back to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life. Mikvah is an integral part of conversion to Judaism. It is used, though less widely known, for the immersion of new pots, dishes and utensils before they are utilized by a Jew. The mikvah concept is also the focal point of the taharah, the purification rite of a Jew before the person is laid to rest and the soul ascends on high. The manual pouring of water in a highly specific manner over the entire body of the deceased serves this purpose.

So this whole concept of immersion and mikveh is clearly also connected to those for those who are dead

Baptism for the dead is just a tiny step away from very traditional and very old customs

And also in fact it appears that LDS burial rituals parallel Jewish rituals quite closel

LDS people are often dressed in their white temple robes and other white garments- which bear symbolic resemblance to the Jewish "prayer shawl"- a garment worn to remind one of his covenants.

To me this is a clear "restoration" of ancient Christian rites which reflect Judaism as well.

I cannot imagine a coherent against that view- it seems totally clear to me

Edited November 16, 2017 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

13 hours ago, theplains said:

What exactly do you believe is the same thing being represented?

Thanks,
Jim

The 12 tribes.

[Doctrine 612]

I was having a discussion with one of my students about baptism, he said baptism is a work and is not apart of the gospel and can not save you. Then pointed out 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 mostly focusing of verse 17. Saying “see if baptism was important why did Paul say he was not  sent to baptize?

My response: For Christ sent me not to baptize,.... Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, (Acts 26:16) in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission as the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as to preach(Matt28:18-20). Also if the misunderstanding of Paul’s saying he was not sent to baptize at all was true then that would make him a liar because by his own words he baptized a whole house hold (1 Corinthians 1:16).
The teaching of this chapter could be seen as Paul did not come to teach one aspect of the gospel, but the whole gospel and doctrines of Christ (Faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Spirit.) The Same could be said if the people where debating on the words of wisdom, with Paul saying “I came not to teach the words of wisdom but the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Then we would be having a different argument.
1 Corinthians 3:4-8 shows that all the church leaders work as a unified team in bringing the power of salvation to the children of God.
The same understanding can be found in Hebrews 6:1-3 where Paul teaches that the foundations of salvation are set and we need to learn the ways of Christ more in-depth or perfectly.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 3:4-8
4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

[theplains]

On 15/11/2017 at 8:46 PM, mfbukowski said:

LDS people are often dressed in their white temple robes and other white garments- which bear symbolic resemblance to the Jewish "prayer shawl"- a garment worn to remind one of his covenants.

To me this is a clear "restoration" of ancient Christian rites which reflect Judaism as well.

I cannot imagine a coherent against that view- it seems totally clear to me

Thank you for that very in depth explanation.  Do you believe the Old Testament font was used for proxy baptism for
the dead? 

As for temple robes, aprons, or the prayer shawl, I don't believe God’s New Covenant people are called upon or wear
special clothing or any other type of fringed garment as the prayer shawl.

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 16/11/2017 at 9:10 AM, JLHPROF said:

The 12 tribes.

Why would some temples use 6 oxen and a mirror to give the impression there are 12?

Jim

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

Why would some temples use 6 oxen and a mirror to give the impression there are 12?

Jim

Whether it’s a “real” ox or the reflection of an ox in a mirror it’s still the same thing.  Your eye sees 12 oxen.  

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Why would some temples use 6 oxen and a mirror to give the impression there are 12?

Jim

Artistic license.  Aren't 10 of the tribes lost? 😉

Edited November 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Thank you for that very in depth explanation.  Do you believe the Old Testament font was used for proxy baptism for
the dead? 

As for temple robes, aprons, or the prayer shawl, I don't believe God’s New Covenant people are called upon or wear
special clothing or any other type of fringed garment as the prayer shawl.

Thanks,
Jim

1. No

2. I knew that. 

ManyCatholics would disagree. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapular

Does your Pastor wear anything to designate his office? Many Protestant pastors do.

Edited November 18, 2017 by mfbukowski