Dallas Jenkins Walking a Tightrope

[pogi]

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

 No, I do not believe in baptism for redemption of sins. You are exactly correct. 

How do you interpret the following passages if not?

Quote

 

Acts 2:38 - And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16  - And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Mark 1:4 - John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I believe baptism was and is an important part of one's early spiritual life.

Important, but not a commandment of necessity, if I understand you correctly.  This all goes back to the longstanding faith and works debate, I am sure.  You follow a certain interpretation of Paul's words, and we follow Peter and interpret Paul's word's via Peter's authority.    We hold to the following words of Christ:

Quote

John 3:5 
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Not just one "verily", but two for strong emphasis. 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I don't understand your Muslim-oriented question. Why would I pay anyone to perform a Christian baptism when I have the authority from my church to do it myself? 

The point was to show that even from an Evangelical perspective, I am guessing that more is probably required than mere intention of the receiver for a baptism to be viewed as valid in the eyes of God.  You yourself mention the necessity of authority below.  I am a bit confused as to your understanding of authority though, you seem to be distinguishing the authority to baptize as distinct from the authority of the priesthood.  You say that the authority to baptize is only granted by elders, but priesthood authority is not granted by elders, but is a priesthood of all believers.  So, to me, it sounds like priesthood is not enough authority to baptize, but one must receive authority from congregational leaders as well.  I am confused as to that distinction of authority.  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Authority is an administrative function granted by an individual church or church group within Christianity. In some cases it would cross denominations, but it is mostly limited by authority granted by elders of a particular group. I have zero authority to baptize in an LDS ward. You have zero authority to baptize in a Baptist church. That is because the leaders of those two groups grant the administrative authority to baptize. Authority is different (in my mind) from efficacy. It is the efficacy of the act that rests on the receiver, not on the one performing the baptism. Remember that in my world the one receiving the act is the one making testimony, covenants, etc. related to baptism. The receiver is directly asked questions by the one performing. If the receiver falsifies an answer, that is not the fault of the one performing the act. I hope that makes sense. Authority is administrative. Efficacy is spiritual for the one receiving the act. I hope that clarifies how Evangelicals tend to look at baptism. Remember, being an Evangelical gives no one any authority to do anything. It is not an administrative title. There are Evangelicals (by identity) within most all non-LDS Christian groups. It is a descriptor of like-minded fellowship; not a denomination. It does not imply Protestant in any way. So no, I would never pay a Muslim to perform a Christian baptism. Nor do I think a Muslim mullah would perform a Christian baptism. I have never heard of that, even living in Muslim Africa for a time. If I thought someone wanted to be baptized, i would do it myself if I had confidence in their intent and testimony. Authority, efficacy, and validity are all three different aspects of baptism. Validity has lots of meanings. I would only worry about the validity of the ordinance for the person being baptized or for the group authorizing the baptism.

I know that you would never pay a Muslim to baptism you or anyone else.  It was a hypothetical question to discern your understanding of baptism and what is required for it to be valid in the eyes of God.  Would baptism be viewed as valid by Evangelicals if it is performed by a Muslim?  If not, why not?  Why would it matter if intention of the receiver is all that matters?  Why can't a Latter-day Saint, or Muslim, or Hindu, or JW baptize in a Baptist church if intention is all that matters?  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

We do have very different concepts of what heaven, the New Jerusalem, or the Celestial Kingdom will be like. I have absolutely no certainty about any of that because it is hidden from us. You have scriptures that give you more insight into that time period. I do not. I also would never debate about it. I don't know enough about it to debate with anyone. I have personal beliefs, sure. For example I believe the Father is Spirit; that makes Him omnipresent in some wonderfully mysterious way. I believe that there will be no human denominations or denominationalism in heaven. I believe that denominations are in many ways evidence of our human imperfection. That has no place in God's kingdom. I also believe in a wide mercy at judgment day. I can't say much more than that because I simply don't know. I look to Hosea in some ways. His writings are amazing and reveal how God balanced his perfect judgment and mercy when dealing with Israel and Judah. I think Christ will do the same. I don't believe anyone's priesthood, ordination, church standing, etc. will even be on Christ's mind as he judges us. All titles will be swept away. Will I debate that? Nope, cause it is simply my belief, as capable of being wrong as anyone else including all my friends across Christendom. I will share my belief, but nothing beyond that.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.  It is helpful to understand my Evangelical brothers/sisters.  You are right that our understanding of heaven/heavens is very different.  I am trying to explain our version of the heavens for you as you seemed forlorn at the hellish prospect of the Terrestrial kingdom.  I was trying to reassure you of the glory and spiritual (and physical) presence of Christ in that heaven.  I was also helping you understand that if you do end up in that kingdom, it is because you choose it.  The way you presented our doctrines of the degrees of glory made it seem unmerciful in some way.  That is not at all how we view it.  It is by far the most merciful and inclusive of all Christian doctrines of the after-life that I am aware of (barring absolute universalism).       

Edited June 6, 2022 by pogi

[Anakin7]

From my LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian Archives = https://www.bebaptized.org 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Anakin7

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

 

How do you interpret the following passages if not?

Important, but not a commandment of necessity, if I understand you correctly.  This all goes back to the longstanding faith and works debate, I am sure.  You follow a certain interpretation of Paul's words, and we follow Peter and interpret Paul's word's via Peter's authority.    We hold to the following words of Christ:

Not just one "verily", but two for strong emphasis. 

The point was to show that even from an Evangelical perspective, I am guessing that more is probably required than mere intention of the receiver for a baptism to be viewed as valid in the eyes of God.  You yourself mention the necessity of authority below.  I am a bit confused as to your understanding of authority though, you seem to be distinguishing the authority to baptize as distinct from the authority of the priesthood.  You say that the authority to baptize is only granted by elders, but priesthood authority is not granted by elders, but is a priesthood of all believers.  So, to me, it sounds like priesthood is not enough authority to baptize, but one must receive authority from congregational leaders as well.  I am confused as to that distinction of authority.  

I know that you would never pay a Muslim to baptism you or anyone else.  It was a hypothetical question to discern your understanding of baptism and what is required for it to be valid in the eyes of God.  Would baptism be viewed as valid by Evangelicals if it is performed by a Muslim?  If not, why not?  Why would it matter if intention of the receiver is all that matters?  Why can't a Latter-day Saint, or Muslim, or Hindu, or JW baptize in a Baptist church if intention is all that matters?  

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.  It is helpful to understand my Evangelical brothers/sisters.  You are right that our understanding of heaven/heavens is very different.  I am trying to explain our version of the heavens for you as you seemed forlorn at the hellish prospect of the Terrestrial kingdom.  I was trying to reassure you of the glory and spiritual (and physical) presence of Christ in that heaven.  I was also helping you understand that if you do end up in that kingdom, it is because you choose it.  The way you presented our doctrines of the degrees of glory made it seem unmerciful in some way.  That is not at all how we view it.  It is by far the most merciful and inclusive of all Christian doctrines of the after-life that I am aware of (barring absolute universalism).       

Hi my friend: Thanks for your thoughtful questions. I don't have the opportunity right now to provide the thoughtful responses that they deserve, especially an interpretation of the three verses. I will suggest that I have no idea what the concept of a baptism being "valid" in God's eyes means. It seems very important to you. I am not criticizing it in any way. I just don't understand the concept. I don't think God thinks about baptism as being valid, invalid, or sort of valid. It is an ordinance like many others. Some ordinances are specific to certain groups or faiths, others span Christianity. I can't fathom God saying to someone in a future heavenly encounter that He is upset because that person engaged in an invalid ordinance, the intent of which was either to testify of Him or to seek forgiveness of sins. The authority I mentioned was strictly that which is granted by an individual denomination or group. I grant no authority to "the priesthood" of believers at all; that is the only form of NT priest I understand. Authority to baptize comes from a group that recognizes a baptism in a certain way. It is neither generic nor universal. Again, you even with your concept of the priesthood have no authority to exercise that priesthood anywhere but in an LDS setting. Am I wrong? Your priesthood may still exist if you walk into a Methodist Church, but you have no means therein to exercise. Am I wrong? That is the distinction in my mind.

I very much appreciate your helping me better understand the Godhead and the six kingdoms (including three levels alone in the Celestial Kingdom. You are very kind and patient. You have no idea how much I appreciate that. Gotta run. More on those verses later.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The authority I mentioned was strictly that which is granted by an individual denomination or group.

Are ordinances man made/created by men in your view?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I will suggest that I have no idea what the concept of a baptism being "valid" in God's eyes means. It seems very important to you. I am not criticizing it in any way. I just don't understand the concept. I don't think God thinks about baptism as being valid, invalid, or sort of valid. It is an ordinance like many others. Some ordinances are specific to certain groups or faiths, others span Christianity. I can't fathom God saying to someone in a future heavenly encounter that He is upset because that person engaged in an invalid ordinance, the intent of which was either to testify of Him or to seek forgiveness of sins. 

I don't think that valid authority to perform ordinances in the name of the Father, Son, and Holly Ghost is that obscure an idea.  Without proper authority to act in the name of God, how could the ordinance be valid?  God grants that authority to those whom he calls to represent him.   We don't teach or believe that God will "be upset" if a person received an unauthorized (and thus invalid) ordinance unknowingly and with good intent.  No, he will not be mad, he will simply direct that good intent to be baptized by one whom he has authorized to act in His name.  It's a simple fix via temple ordinances.  It is a labor of love by Latter-day Saints to perform baptisms for the dead for those whose intent truly is pure and good.  In the end, I think you are right that belief and intent are the core and most critical issues because with them, one will not refuse authorized baptism via proxy. 

On the mission we would often use the simple analogy of secular authority granted to teachers, doctors, etc.   For example, a school cannot grant you a valid degree, license, or certificate without receiving proper authority from the state.  The school has to meet certain standards to be authorized.   Without proper authority, it is just a piece of paper and not seen as valid in the eyes of the state.  So it is with baptism and with God.  One who is not called of God cannot represent God in performing an ordinance in the name of God.  Again, that idea of validity in Godly representation via proper authority does not seem like an obscure, radical, or onerous idea.  A non-Christian, for example, has not been called of God and given authority to represent Him by literally acting in his name by performing ordinances.  It doesn't seem that ridiculous therefore to suggest that a baptism wouldn't be viewed without an authorized representative performing the ordinance - and therefore requires more than intent for validity (like a valid degree or license).    I would be shocked if Evangelicals view Christian baptisms being performed by one without proper priesthood authority (Muslim) as valid.

[MiserereNobis]

20 minutes ago, pogi said:

I would be shocked if Evangelicals view Christian baptisms being performed by one without proper priesthood authority (Muslim) as valid.

If the Muslim used water, said the correct words, and had the correct intent (to do what the Catholic Church would do) then the Catholic Church would view that baptism as valid. Priesthood isn’t required for the minister of baptism, but it is highly highly preferred (other instances are pretty much on an emergency basis). 

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Are ordinances man made/created by men in your view?

I think that some ordinances are created by man and some by God. All are administered or administrated by humans, usually by a church or church group.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think that valid authority to perform ordinances in the name of the Father, Son, and Holly Ghost is that obscure an idea.  Without proper authority to act in the name of God, how could the ordinance be valid?  God grants that authority to those whom he calls to represent him.   We don't teach or believe that God will "be upset" if a person received an unauthorized (and thus invalid) ordinance unknowingly and with good intent.  No, he will not be mad, he will simply direct that good intent to be baptized by one whom he has authorized to act in His name.  It's a simple fix via temple ordinances.  It is a labor of love by Latter-day Saints to perform baptisms for the dead for those whose intent truly is pure and good.  In the end, I think you are right that belief and intent are the core and most critical issues because with them, one will not refuse authorized baptism via proxy. 

On the mission we would often use the simple analogy of secular authority granted to teachers, doctors, etc.   For example, a school cannot grant you a valid degree, license, or certificate without receiving proper authority from the state.  The school has to meet certain standards to be authorized.   Without proper authority, it is just a piece of paper and not seen as valid in the eyes of the state.  So it is with baptism and with God.  One who is not called of God cannot represent God in performing an ordinance in the name of God.  Again, that idea of validity in Godly representation via proper authority does not seem like an obscure, radical, or onerous idea.  A non-Christian, for example, has not been called of God and given authority to represent Him by literally acting in his name by performing ordinances.  It doesn't seem that ridiculous therefore to suggest that a baptism wouldn't be viewed without an authorized representative performing the ordinance - and therefore requires more than intent for validity (like a valid degree or license).    I would be shocked if Evangelicals view Christian baptisms being performed by one without proper priesthood authority (Muslim) as valid.

I agree with you that churches and their approved humans with administrative authority often administer the ordinance in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Nothing obscure about that. It is performed by the approved person (by the group) in the name of God. There is no doubt about that. "Proper authority" in your verbiage is proof of that. Someone must have "proper authority from a group" to administer an ordinance. In many groups, like Catholics and others, it depends on the ordinance. It is therefore humans who make the determination what is or is not valid, not God. Mode, manner, method are all human concepts and limitation/restrictions.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I would be shocked if Evangelicals view Christian baptisms being performed by one without proper priesthood authority (Muslim) as valid.

The only priesthood authority that most Evangelicals recognize is the priesthood of the believer mentioned by Peter. It is hard to speak more broadly than that since there most likely are Evangelicals in virtually every Christian group. I think there are most likely are more Evangelicals in the LDS church than even the LDS would believe! Certainly there are in the Community of Christ.

[MiserereNobis]

51 minutes ago, Navidad said:

In many groups, like Catholics and others, it depends on the ordinance. It is therefore humans who make the determination what is or is not valid, not God. Mode, manner, method are all human concepts and limitation/restrictions.

Since you used Catholicism as evidence for your claim that humans determine what is valid (saying “therefore” after mentioning Catholicism), I have to object. Catholicism firmly asserts that it is God who has set forth the criteria for baptism and the other sacraments, not man. God is not bound by the sacraments, but we are. Obviously you can believe what you want. I just wanted to make sure the Catholic position was clear. Sacraments, their “mode, manner, method,” are not man made, but divine. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by MiserereNobis

[manol]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think there are most likely are more Evangelicals in the LDS church than even the LDS would believe!

"Evangelical" and "LDS" are not words I would have thought to put together.  What would distinguish an Evangelical Latter-day Saint from a mainstream Latter-day Saint? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think that some ordinances are created by man and some by God. All are administered or administrated by humans, usually by a church or church group.

Is baptism an ordinance created by God or man?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Navidad said:

I can't fathom God saying to someone in a future heavenly encounter that He is upset because that person engaged in an invalid ordinance, the intent of which was either to testify of Him or to seek forgiveness of sins.

Do you believe ordinances could be intended for any other reasons?

Can you conceive that God, while not upset, might say “I gave you these ordinances to prepare your soul to receive these blessings.  You will not be capable of receiving these blessings until you accept the ordinance that is performed for you because participating in the ordinance will change you in a way you will not be able to understand until later. Will you accept them so I may give you everything?”

Edited June 8, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Can you conceive that God, while not upset, might say “I gave you these ordinances to prepare your soul to receive these blessings.  You will not be capable of receiving these blessings until you accept the ordinance that is performed for you.  Will you accept them so I may give you everything?”

Not if God is a Protestant.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think that some ordinances are created by man and some by God. All are administered or administrated by humans, usually by a church or church group.

And what could that possibly mean if God IS Man?

You miss the whole point of being LDS, the strength, the logic, the grace and nobility.

We ARE His Image and literal spiritual children, and He IS our Father.  It is a FAMILY of Gods and men as their childen

It is a Noble and beautiful concept that demolishes original sin and promotes goodness and sets at naught the idea of "fallen man".

And it is The Christ, our brother, who makes it all possible through His atonement, so we can learn for ourselves the pain of evil and the joy of righteousness!

Who could conceive of such an incredible plan, but a Godly Intelligence as our Father has!

It's a gift beyond measure, the Plan of Salvation, that we may become as our Father is!

For me it is the greatest possible paradigm ever constructed for the nobility of God and Man as one family.

So what happens if this separation between God and Man is a myth?

Poof! Gone!

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Since you used Catholicism as evidence for your claim that humans determine what is valid (saying “therefore” after mentioning Catholicism), I have to object. Catholicism firmly asserts that it is God who has set forth the criteria for baptism and the other sacraments, not man. God is not bound by the sacraments, but we are. Obviously you can believe what you want. I just wanted to make sure the Catholic position was clear. Sacraments, their “mode, manner, method,” are not man made, but divine. 

I am going to be gone all day, so I cannot reply until tomorrow (Thursday). I would love to chat further (farther) on the differences in certain ordinances in Catholicism and who interprets their mode, manner, and method. That will also give me a chance to discuss it with our parish priest. Thanks!

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, manol said:

"Evangelical" and "LDS" are not words I would have thought to put together.  What would distinguish an Evangelical Latter-day Saint from a mainstream Latter-day Saint? 

I won't be here today. Will have to reply tomorrow. Thanks

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Is baptism an ordinance created by God or man?

The idea of Baptism as an initiation rite? Probably by man in some far off pre-Judaistic rite. I think it is safe today that the idea of baptism preceded Judaism. Then one has to decide how active God was in all of that. Great question. Gotta run.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe ordinances could be intended for any other reasons?

Can you conceive that God, while not upset, might say “I gave you these ordinances to prepare your soul to receive these blessings.  You will not be capable of receiving these blessings until you accept the ordinance that is performed for you because participating in the ordinance will change you in a way you will not be able to understand until later. Will you accept them so I may give you everything?”

I am simply saying that I think many religious ordinances preceded Judaism. So we have to consider that. More later. So I guess my initial answer is no. But don't consider that my final answer to a much more complex question.

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And what could that possibly mean if God IS Man?

You miss the whole point of being LDS, the strength, the logic, the grace and nobility.

We ARE His Image and literal spiritual children, and He IS our Father.  It is a FAMILY of Gods and men as their childen

It is a Noble and beautiful concept that demolishes original sin and promotes goodness and sets at naught the idea of "fallen man".

And it is The Christ, our brother, who makes it all possible through His atonement, so we can learn for ourselves the pain of evil and the joy of righteousness!

Who could conceive of such an incredible plan, but a Godly Intelligence as our Father has!

It's a gift beyond measure, the Plan of Salvation, that we may become as our Father is!

For me it is the greatest possible paradigm ever constructed for the nobility of God and Man as one family.

So what happens if this separation between God and Man is a myth?

Poof! Gone!

Ok. Never thought of it that way. You are bringing up something certainly different than what I am thinking. Good for you. I guess it comes back to how involved was God, the man in pre-Judaic religious rituals that were adopted into both Judaism and Christianity. In your view did Judaism or Christianity initiate the idea or concept of religious ordinances,or were there pre-existing ordinances adopted by those two? If the latter, then how active was God the man in those?

[pogi]

14 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

If the Muslim used water, said the correct words, and had the correct intent (to do what the Catholic Church would do) then the Catholic Church would view that baptism as valid. Priesthood isn’t required for the minister of baptism, but it is highly highly preferred (other instances are pretty much on an emergency basis). 

That is interesting to me.  It sounds like for Catholics, intent of the person baptizing is what validifies the ordinance; while for Evangelicals, intent of the receiver of the baptism is more validifying.  I have to wonder why the Catholic church places a blanket disapproval of Latter-day Saint baptisms if they theoretically could be acceptable if done with proper intent.  If a Muslim performing a baptism could be acceptable, surely a Mormon performing a baptism could be acceptable too.  I guess, the mystery for me is the word "intent (to do what the Catholic Church would do)".   I don't know what that means.  It makes sense that priesthood is not required for valid baptisms as Catholics don't reject protestant baptisms even though they are not believed to hold the proper priesthood.   Was it always this way in the Catholic church (that priesthood is not required), or was this a change as a result of the reformation?

[pogi]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you believe ordinances could be intended for any other reasons?

Can you conceive that God, while not upset, might say “I gave you these ordinances to prepare your soul to receive these blessings.  You will not be capable of receiving these blessings until you accept the ordinance that is performed for you because participating in the ordinance will change you in a way you will not be able to understand until later. Will you accept them so I may give you everything?”

Amen, that is exactly it.  Ordinances are not arbitrary requirements to test faith, but they are necessary tools of spiritual growth to realize exaltation and become one with God. Covenants with God via authorized servants are essential to eternal spiritual progression.  One cannot act in the name of God without being called and given authority from God.  

[pogi]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I agree with you that churches and their approved humans with administrative authority often administer the ordinance in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Nothing obscure about that. It is performed by the approved person (by the group) in the name of God. There is no doubt about that. "Proper authority" in your verbiage is proof of that. Someone must have "proper authority from a group" to administer an ordinance. In many groups, like Catholics and others, it depends on the ordinance. It is therefore humans who make the determination what is or is not valid, not God. Mode, manner, method are all human concepts and limitation/restrictions.

We don't view it as authority "from a group" that is essential, but one must be called of God and given authority by Him to act in His name.   Ultimately, it is God who makes the determination as to what is or is not valid - he is the ultimate judge of these things, not churches, groups, or men.  We believe that mode, manner, and method (and authority) are inspired by God himself.  He is the originator of the covenant - he sets the terms, not us.   

5th article of faith:

Quote

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands, by those who are in authority to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to wonder why the Catholic church places a blanket disapproval of Latter-day Saint baptisms if they theoretically could be acceptable if done with proper intent. 

Our understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with man is different enough that though the words in our ordinance are similar, we mean something sufficiently different enough to render our baptism invalid.  If a Latter-day Saint were to baptize someone while envisioning God and Man as Catholics do with the Catholic ordinance that would be valid, as I understand it. But if I have got it wrong, hopefully I will be corrected.

Edited June 8, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Our understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with man is different enough that though the words in our ordinance are similar, we mean something sufficiently different enough to render our baptism invalid.  If a Latter-day Saint were to baptize someone while envisioning God and Man as Catholics do with the Catholic ordinance that would be valid, as I understand it. But if I have got it wrong, hopefully I will be corrected.

That is my understanding as well.   That is why I was a bit surprised by the suggestion that a Muslim performing a baptism could be considered valid as they also view God differently than Catholics.  I am guessing that Misererenobis was commenting on a mere theoretical possibility even though such a scenario is completely unlikely and unrealistic to think that a Muslim or a Mormon would or could believe in God as a Catholic does while performing a baptism.  That is why I think my scenario of paying a Muslim to perform a Christian baptism would likely be viewed as invalid by the Catholic church.   That is where I am unclear on what "intent" actually means though, from their perspective.  Does one merely have to visualize God as a Catholic does, or do they have to actually believe in God as a Catholic does, or are there other elements to "intent" that I am missing?

Edited June 8, 2022 by pogi