pendragon

I notice that you did not refute my explanation of the first part of John 3 even though at that point in the narrative it is not talking about baptism at all as you said but about the new birth. The chapter does talk of baptisms taking place later but Jesus' encounter with Nicodemus is not about that but Jesus is getting to the heart of Nicodemus' problem which is shaped by his reliance on position and a strict adherence to the Law. Jesus gets to the core of the problem bringing up the subject of Nicodemus's need for heart change. How once can get a proof text for baptism out of that is puzzling to me no matter the legitimate place of baptism in the Christian life. Mankind is not saved by adherence to the Law be it the Law of Moses or any new branding of it.

What body of Christian theology are you referring to? The Bible is the body of Christian theology.....a Bible which does make it quite clear that Jesus fulfilled "the law and the prophets". The underlying purpose of prophets and by extension the entire narrative of the Bible leads to one conclusion....the coming of Christ. In Christ we have the completeness of of all that God has for mankind....Emmanuel...God with us...the fullness and the living embodiment of God's grace. When you have Jesus what more can there be!

PS. I suppose we all have biases....but I base my belief on the interpretations of scholars who have taught this for more than 2,000 years...teachings which have stood the test of time.

Thank you. If you have been following the thread my request for clarification was based on a need to clarify terms because so often when Mormons and orthodox Christians discuss they often use the same terms but mean quite different terms. The initial response I got was somewhat pat and I understand this. I teach an adult Bible study class and often people will respond to a question with the neat, pat answer, correct as far as it goes, but which does no require the person to really think through what they are saying. Orthodox Christianity teaches that all mankind will be resurrected but in and of itself there is no salvation in that. Orthodoxy teaches that salvation is inheritance of ALL that the Father has for those who are saved by his grace through Jesus Christ. The correct definition of grace is simply put "the favor of God that we do no deserve". Not one living person, save Jesus, deserves salvation...it cannot be earned...not by works and not by church ritual...it is purely a free gift from God to all who trust in Jesus for salvation. Works are the demonstration of the saving grace that has taken place in the heart of the trusting believer. We have no righteousness to claim as our own...as Paul said "..our righteousness is as filthy rags..." If we could earn grace it wouldn't be grace it would be earnings and God would owe us. Orthodoxy rest entirely on the shed blood of Christ at Calvary where he became sin for fallen man....where all my sin was nailed to the cross and stamped "payed in full"....so that when I stand before God I will be clothed in Christ's righteousness...righteousness borrowed from him and imputed to me through my faith and trust in him alone. It is interesting to compare beliefs but an important part of the comparisons is to be sure we are talking about the same thing behind the words...in this case I think we are not.

My reading of the passage (John 3) tells me that the important context is rebirth and not baptism. I believe that baptsim is an important part of the Christian life...a physical demonstration of the saving grace that has already taken place in the believer through the new birth but Jesus isn't talking about baptism. He is clearly answering Nicodemus' stumbling response about re-entering his mother's womb which causes Jesus to say: "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." Note the capital S and the small s.... No where in the passage does Jesus mention the physical process of water baptism. I like the modern translation of the passage by J. B. Phillips (I suspect this will be a problem to you since for some reason I know that Mormons only use the KJV which has real problems of modern versus Elizabethan language) Jesus speaking: "Believe me, a man cannot even see the Kingdom of God Without being born over again." "And how can a man who's getting old possibly be born?" Nicodemus replied. "How can he go back into his mother's womb a second time and be born?" "I assure you," said Jesus, "that unless a man is born from water and from spirit he cannot get into the Kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit." Clearly Jesus is talking of physical birth and the spiritual (renewing of the heart) that every believer must undergo. This is clearly shown by the thief on the cross to whom Jesus promised a place in his kingdom that very day...without baptims but a clear demonstration of faith in Jesus. Faith and trust in Jesus only.

What is physical salvation....who gets it and on what basis? What is spiritual salvation...who gets it and on what basis, and what does it actually mean? Are physical and spiritual salvation the same thing...can a person get one without the other? What are the actual rewards of Mormon salvation? Where does a person go in their saved state...physical and spiritual? Within Mormonism what is God's grace and what role does it play in Mormon salvation?

beefche, you are correct in your interpretation. I would, however, disagree that ordinances have any "saving" merit. The Bible teaches that salvation is in Jesus only not through ordinances.

That's a very neat and tidy quotation but what does it really mean in every day terms?

Would you care to define what you mean by salvation as Mormons understand the term? I find that while Mormons use similar terms as orthodox Christians they often mean something quite different.

I have indeed seen those who "perform" outside LDS General Conference and can agree that their tactics are not performing any useful purpose...I reject their approach fully. However, IMV there is nothing compromising about the Gospel. As Jesus firmly demonstrated in his Sermon of Woes strong language is sometimes necessary especially when the devil comes tempting as an "angel of light". I disagree wholeheartedly with Mormon theology...but I can disagree agreeably and not compromise my beliefs and Biblical accuracy in the process.

I am familiar with the Millet and Johnson connection and was in the Mormon Tabernacle during a joint meeting when Ravi Zacharia spoke. I am not a fan of this particular effort...IMV too much apologizing from the evangelicals and too much coat tailing from the Mormons. I have Mormon neighbors and agree that I have a responsibility to be friendly, compassionate and loving, treating them with the respect I would ask for myself. That said, my first responsibility as a believer is to fulfill The Great Commission....most positively through my actions...adding words as necessary.

Thanks for the information. It's highly unlikely that a tiny, minority religion like Mormonism would place its leader in a world-wide poll.

As a Christian who believes in the Biblical Gospel I cannot see any way that orthodox Christians and Mormons can come together in fellowship. If I am away from my home church I can find Christian fellowship in virtually every other Christian church...if my home church were to close its doors it would be a simple matter of finding another church in which to worship with fellow believers because simply put Christians are found across all denominations and the focus of Christian worship is Jesus and the church is only the gathering place for those engaged in that worship. Because of the vast differences in doctrine, not least of which is the nature of God and Jesus as a created being, I cannot find that fellowship in a Mormon chapel. Does that mean that I cannot be civil and fulfill the Golden Rule with regard to Mormons? Certainly not...but until those doctrinal issues are resolved (and IMV there are signs of that coming from the LDS Church) there cannot be true fellowship of like belief.

I suspect that most of the world has never heard of Monson. The likely reason for his inclusion in the list is probably Mormons overloading the voting system which is also likely USA based.

Simply put, Christians of various denominations can enjoy fellowship with each other because the essentials of the Christian doctrine (doctrines pertaining to the nature of God and salvation) are commonly held. Christians are not saved by a church and are found in all Christian denominations. Christians come to Jesus for salvation and not to joining a church.