LeSellers

Howdy! One thing we tend to forget, at least we don't emphasize it enough, is the third requirement of "Moroni's Promise" (Moro 10:4~5).
'… with real intent …".
The answer to your probable question, "what does that mean?" is the answer to the question, "If God reveals that the Book of Mormon is His word, what will you do?"
If that answer is, "Well, that's interesting," please know that you will never get an answer. For a prayer "with real intent", see Alma, chapter 22, verses 11 through 18. The most important is verse 18, Lamoni's father's prayer:
O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day.
Faith in Christ is critical to receiving an answer. Sincerity and truly wanting to know are also important. But God loves you enough to withhold the answer if you won't act on it. The knowledge would condemn you. No one wants that.
Lehi

I found this years ago. Cottrell effectively eviscerates the claim that baptism is not salvific, or that it is only a public display of commitment.
Let's discuss the ordinance and principle of baptism, its efficacy and place as the first ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Lehi
P.S.: See the copyright notice in the introduction. I see this as being "educational".
===============================================================================
 

The History of Baptism by Jack Cotrell

Jack Cottrell is professor of theological studies at Cincinnati (Ohio) Bible College and Seminary.


(These articles first appeared in CHRISTIAN STANDARD® on June 20, 27, 2004. CHRISTIAN STANDARD® grants permission to reproduce, for free distribution, up to 1,000 copies of its articles for ministry or educational purposes.)

THE MODERN EVANGELICAL VIEW OF BAPTISM IS ACTUALLY THE NEW VIEW.
"Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong."
Some may use this adage seriously, but to others it is a sarcastic way of saying that truth cannot be decided by majority vote—a point driven home by Paul in Romans 3:4, “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (New American Standard Bible).
Historically, those associated with the conservative branches of the Restoration Movement have enthusiastically accepted Paul’s admonition, being content to hold on to certain theological convictions, even if they perceived themselves to be in the minority. This is no doubt still true for many. However, many among us recently seem to have adopted a very different attitude with respect to baptism: “Fifty million evangelicals can’t be wrong.”
The thinking is that, if practically the entire evangelical world thinks God bestows saving grace as soon as the sinner believes and repents, then there must be some truth there. If evangelicals agree that baptism is simply the new Christian’s obedient expression of or witness to his new status as a member of the body of Christ, then there must be something wrong with the “minority” view that baptism is the point of time when God gives salvation. Surely, 50 million evangelicals can’t be wrong!
Yes, they can; and I believe they are.
Long ago I decided to accept the Bible alone as my only norm for faith and practice. And long ago I became convinced that everything the New Testament says about the meaning of baptism can be summed up thus: water baptism is the God-appointed time when he first gives saving grace to the believing, repentant sinner. Should we then just ignore the standard evangelical approach to baptism?
Not at all. We need to understand what evangelicals are saying, and why they are saying it. All our doctrinal convictions, while grounded ultimately upon the Bible alone, should be developed in full view of past and present Christian thinking. A knowledge of the historical development of any doctrine is extremely valuable; it can enrich our understanding as well as help us avoid serious doctrinal errors.
This is especially true of baptism. Too often, our historical perspective on this doctrine is much too limited. We tend to see ourselves within the context of the last 200 years. We know that the early Restorationists rejected the prevailing denominational (e.g., Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist) views of baptism, and came to see baptism as having a key role in the reception of salvation. Now, two centuries later, some are wondering if they went too far. After all, was it not a bit presumptuous of the Campbells, Walter Scott, John Smith, et al., to reject the traditional consensus view of baptism and come up with a new and opposite view? Why should we stick with these innovators, rather than just blend in with the “50 million evangelicals” who are continuing the traditional view?
What I will say now may surprise some, but the truth is this: the modern evangelical view of baptism is actually the new view, an interpretation of baptism that was invented only in the early 1520s. It was created by the Swiss reformer Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531), developed further by John Calvin, and accepted throughout most of the Protestant world. Until Zwingli, the entire Christian world for the first 1,500 years of its history was in agreement: water baptism is the God-appointed time when he first gives saving grace to sinners. Exceptions to this belief were extremely rare, limited mostly to medieval dualist sects that rejected all physical forms of worship.
My plea here is that in developing our own convictions concerning baptism today, we will not limit our historical perspective to contemporary evangelicalism, or even to the last 200 years. Rather, let us be aware of the entire scope of Christian history. Let us understand what the original and true consensus view was, and who the real innovators are. In the rest of this article I will survey the history of the meaning of baptism up to and including Martin Luther—a 1,500-year biblical consensus. In the next article I will explain how Zwingli changed everything.
EARLY WRITERS
The pre-Augustinian writers were practically unanimous in their teaching that baptism is the point of time when salvation is given. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) said that new converts “are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated. . . . For . . . they then receive the washing with water,” as in John 3:5. “We have learned from the apostles this reason” for baptism: “in order that we . . . may obtain in the water the remission of sins” (“First Apology,” 61).1 Tertullian (A.D. 145- 220) said, “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life” (“On Baptism,” iii). Also, “The act of baptism . . . is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins” (ibid., vii). Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) said, “When going down . . . into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost” (“Catechetical Lectures,” III:4). Many more examples could be cited.
AUGUSTINE AND THOMAS AQUINAS
Augustine (354-430) introduced a lot of new ideas into Christian thinking, but the saving significance of baptism was not one of them. Here he was simply continuing to teach what those before him had taught. Baptism, he said, is nothing else than salvation itself (“A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” I:34); it “brings salvation” (Letter 98, “To Boniface,” 1). We are “saved by baptism”; “the salvation of man is effected in baptism” (“Against Two Letters of the Pelagians,” III:5). We are “joined to Christ by baptism”; indeed, a person “is baptized for the express purpose of being with Christ” (“A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” I:55). The “apostolic tradition” teaches the “inherent principle, that without baptism . . . it is impossible for any man to attain to salvation and everlasting life” (ibid., I:34).
Thomas Aquinas represents medieval Catholic thinking. He declared that “no one can obtain salvation but through Christ. . . . But for this end is baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ. . . . Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men” (Summa Theologica, 68:1).
MARTIN LUTHER
Many have assumed that because Martin Luther opposed the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments and championed the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, he must have been the one who rejected baptism as a salvation event. Nothing could be further from the truth. Luther’s view of the meaning of baptism stands in direct continuity with the New Testament, the early church fathers, and the Catholic scholars who preceded him. He regarded baptism as a mighty work of God in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pour out the full blessings of salvation upon penitent believers. Specifically, Luther asserted that forgiveness of sins is initially bestowed in baptism. In his “Small Catechism” (IV:6), in answer to the question “What gifts or benefits does baptism bestow?”, he says first of all, “It effects forgiveness of sins.” This is part of the work of baptism; in it “the forgiveness takes place through God’s covenant” (“The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism,” 15). Forgiveness takes place in baptism because that is where the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner: “Through Baptism he is bathed in the blood of Christ and is cleansed from sins” (E. Plass, editor, What Luther Says, I:46).
According to Luther baptism brings not only forgiveness of sins but also a new birth, a change in the inner man that actually eradicates sin. For “it is one thing to forgive sins, and another thing to put them away or drive them out. . . . But both the forgiveness and the driving out of sins are the work of baptism” (“The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism,” 15). Thus it is appropriate to speak of baptism as the time when “a person is born again and made new” (ibid., 3).
In short, Luther clearly proclaimed that baptism is for salvation: “Through baptism man is saved” (ibid., 6). In answer to the question of the purpose of baptism, i.e., “what benefits, gifts and effects it brings,” he gave this answer: “To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save” (“The Large Catechism,” IV:23, 24). One is baptized so that he “may receive in the water the promised salvation” (ibid., IV:36).
I refer to the view of baptism described here as the “biblical consensus.” It is the view that baptism is principally the time when God himself is bestowing upon the penitent, believing sinner the benefits of the redeeming work of Christ. This is the New Testament’s own doctrine of baptism, and it was affirmed to be such by 15th centuries of Christian writers.
If this view sounds strange to the majority of modern Protestants, it is because this biblical consensus has been replaced in most denominations with the alien interpretation of baptism that originated in the 1520s in the mind of Huldreich Zwingli. How this happened will be described in the next article.
For Christendom’s first 1,500 years there was a virtual consensus that baptism is the point of time when God bestows the “double cure” of saving grace (forgiveness and regeneration) upon sinners. (See last week’s article.) Why, then, do most Protestants hold a different view, one that passionately separates salvation from baptism? The answer lies in the revolutionary theology of one man, Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531).
Zwingli was Martin Luther’s Swiss counterpart in the European Reformation. Both began their reforming activity around 1520. Though they had the same general goals for changing the existing church, they parted company over the “sacraments” in general and over baptism in particular. While Luther continued to teach the historic view that baptism is a saving work of God, Zwingli rejected this altogether and made it entirely a work of man.
Zwingli was quite aware of the innovative nature of his view, declaring that “in this matter of baptism, all the [teachers] have been in error from the time of the apostles”.
THE REJECTION OF THE ORIGINAL VIEW
Zwingli developed his new doctrine of baptism in two stages. First, beginning as early as 1523, he deliberately and decisively rejected any connection between baptism and salvation. “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism,” he said. “The two are not to be connected and used together.” “Water-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away of sin”. He denied that the water itself has any power to remove the effects of sin from the soul [a view which few had ever held in the first place]; he also denied that God cleanses the soul during baptism, an idea he calls a “vain invention.” The general rule is that salvation precedes the baptism that symbolizes it.
What were Zwingli’s reasons for separating salvation from the act of baptism? The main reason was his conviction that the baptism-for-salvation view contradicts salvation by grace alone through the blood of Christ. Washing away the filth of sin “is the function of the blood of Christ alone”. Another reason baptism cannot be for salvation, he said, is that such a view would violate God’s sovereignty, i.e., his sovereign freedom to act when and where he chooses .
Closely connected with this is his idea that the real cause of any individual’s salvation is God’s sovereign, eternal, unconditional election (predestination) of that person. It is election that saves, not baptism, and not even faith. In my judgment one of Zwingli’s strongest reasons for rejecting the historic view of baptism was his incipient philosophical dualism, i.e., his sense of a strong antithesis between matter and spirit, between body and soul. He saw spirit and matter as openly hostile to each other. “Divinity, spirit, the superior nature” stands in direct opposition to dull, dark, inactive, rebellious earth. This carries over into the dual nature of man. While the soul can be regarded as “flowing forth from the Godhead itself ” and as possessing a nearly divine essence, the body is just a “dull mass,” a “lump of muddy earth”.
How, then, can water baptism have anything to do with the salvation of the soul? A physical substance (water) simply cannot have any connection with a spiritual effect: “Material water cannot contribute in any way to the cleansing of the soul”. The conclusion is that baptism is not necessary for salvation, neither as its cause nor as its occasion. Zwingli clearly affirms that faith alone is necessary for salvation: “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism: it is always by faith alone.” “The one necessary thing which saves those of us who hear the Gospel is faith.” “Faith is the only thing through which we are blessed.”
“We are saved by faith only.” If we say baptism takes away sins, that is just a figure of speech; for it is not baptism that takes them away, but faith.
What does Zwingli do with all the New Testament texts that seem to clearly connect baptism with salvation? He dismisses them entirely by two devices.
One, many are mere figures of speech, such as metonymy, in which the name of the sign is transferred to the thing signified. He applies this to texts such as Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:3, 4; Galatians 3:27; and Titus 3:5. Two, some texts may refer to water baptism, but others refer to Holy Spirit baptism, which is sovereignly administered by God whenever he chooses. Only the latter is necessary for salvation (46, 47).
The second stage of the development of Zwingli’s new doctrine of baptism was his careful construction of a completely new purpose or meaning for the act. This was accomplished mainly between 1523 and 1525. In this period his most pressing need was to provide a rationale for infant baptism. Since the third century, infants had been baptized for the removal of original sin.
But if baptism has no connection with the taking away of sin, there is no longer any reason to baptize infants. But for certain reasons Zwingli decided that infant baptism must be maintained; thus he had to come up with a new purpose for it.
CREATING COVENANT THEOLOGY
The results of Zwingli’s quest were truly revolutionary. In order to justify anew infant baptism, he laid the foundation for a whole new hermeneutical approach to the Bible, usually known as covenant theology. In summary, he rejected the traditional distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and introduced the idea that ever since (at least) Abraham there has been just one covenant of grace. What we call the “new” covenant is actually the same covenant God made with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was merely a secondary, temporary expedient; when it was set aside the Abrahamic covenant continued on and still continues on today. The church today is under the covenant God made with Abraham. This is the concept of covenant unity.
If there has been just one covenant since the days of Abraham, then there has also been just one covenant people since that time. The Israelites of old and the Christians of today are all part of the same body, the same church.
Most significantly, if there is just one covenant and one covenant people, then there is also just one covenant sign. Based on this reasoning, Zwingli totally equated the meaning of baptism in the New Testament with the meaning of Old Testament circumcision; each is simply a sign of membership in the one covenant people.
Here, then, is Zwingli’s trilogy: one covenant, one covenant people, and one covenant sign. This new set of ideas is the basis for the usual Protestant doctrine of baptism. It is the reason many Protestant churches “baptize” infants, and it is the foundation of the commonly accepted Protestant faith-only approach to the baptism of adults.
BAPTISM REEXAMINED
According to this Zwinglian view, exactly what is the function of baptism in the experience of a Christian convert? Exactly what is happening during the moment of baptism? Two things. First, baptism is the baptized person’s pledge of allegiance to the Christian community, an outward sign of his inward commitment to live the Christian life. Zwingli actually drew this aspect of baptism’s meaning not from Old Testament circumcision but from the meaning of the Latin word sacramentum, meaning “a pledge, an oath.” Herein arose the whole idea of baptism as a public testimony or witness. Everything baptism signifies has already happened; baptism is the means by which one makes it known to other Christians. It is thus done not for the sake of the one baptized, but for those in the audience.
Second, baptism is the baptized person’s sign of belonging to the covenant people. Thus it performs the exact same function as circumcision in the Old Testament era. This assumed Old Testament connection is the reason baptism is called a “covenant sign” or “the sign of the covenant.” (These terms make sense only on Zwinglian presuppositions.) Just as circumcision signified that one was already a member of the covenant people (by birth), so does baptism signify that one has already been saved and is already a member of the church. This view was taken over by John Calvin, and most Protestants have adopted it in one form or another.
THE BIG PICTURE
In conclusion, regarding the meaning of baptism, the contrast between the first 1,500 years of Christian history and the history of Protestantism since Zwingli could not be more severe. In its original form baptism was clearly seen as a work of God, as the time when God himself was bestowing salvation. But since Zwingli, baptism has been seen almost exclusively as a work of man: in baptism one gives testimony, bears witness to his faith, expresses his faith, commits or pledges himself to live as a Christian, lets the world know he is a Christian. These are all acts of men, not acts of God.
What is most significant is that Zwingli formulated his new doctrine of baptism by ignoring the New Testament’s own teaching and by drawing his new view from two non-New Testament sources: the meaning of a Latin word (sacramentum) and the meaning of Old Testament circumcision. I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the New Testament itself any justification whatsoever for this new Zwinglian view. I cannot understand why so many of our preachers and people want to abandon the original view of baptism and align themselves with the innovator Zwingli and his modern followers. “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (Romans 3:4, New American Standard Bible).

Yes--I have respect for your replies--they are very good and courteous.
 
I remain adamant about NT theology not agreeing with faith alone theology---running transverse to that theology, in obvious ways.
 
Again--what is found in the Biblical NT--is also found in the LDS church, concerning core salvational doctrines. That there are doctrines found in the LDS church which is not revealed in the Biblical NT, could be evidence of continuing revelation--which is a cornerstone of the Biblical text itself.
 
AS to whether the NT addresses the good works issue--I marvel that one does not consider the testimony of the Savior--who testifies all men will be judged according to their own works--after death--and that for life or damnation:
 
John 5:28-29---King James Version (KJV)28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I tend to observe that the corporate world is not really capitalistic.  In general, pseudo economic conservatives (I consider Milton Friedman a true economic conservative) tout capitalism but practice more of what you call crony capitalism themselves - BTW I am both a student and major fan of Milton Friedman - if you can give me a better economist that represents the capitalism you champion -- i would be most interested.  But I cannot align my self with the
Donald Trump capitalism that seem to currently be popular - which is the leave the economy to those that know how to be successful.  The problem is that no one actually practices capitalism.  The reality is that control is more important than profit.   But most are stuck thinking that the bottom lines rules business - but that is simply not true.
 
I am also a student and fan of the political conservative Frédéric Bastiat.  In essence I do not believe that anything should be free but that all citizens should be vested and at a minimum, pay taxes - including the poorest of the poor citizens.
 
If you can give me any actual idea what you believe - I would be interested.  For example are you the kind of capitalist that believes that we should buy black market crud oil from Mexican sources - because it is the cheapest crude oil in the world market place?

I agree with Windseeker---your claim is patently false.
 
Regarding "thick skulls" there is no skull thicker than one which tries to equate conservatism with crony capitalism. They are NOT synonymous!
And as far as "corporations controlling everything", they can't control anything absent the heavy hand of government. It's government which gives them whatever coercive power they possess. 

Hi Lehi--
 
I don't believe the faith alone(sola fide) reject water baptism--they, for the main part, just do not connect it to any salvational grace.
 
Works and salvational grace are not connected in the faith alone theology--but it is in the Biblical NT.

The scriptural references to Satan/Lucifer/the Devil are myriad.
Everything has its opposite: good and evil are one of these pairs. It may be claimed that Lucifer chose to be evil, but he did not invent it, not any more than he invented darkness in opposition to light.
He seeks to make all men miserable like unto himself. That is his only happiness, false and unfulfilling as it is.
One of the chiefest of contributions Joseph's work made to the understanding of Heaven is the placing of the personal being, Satan, in the garden of Eden, in the Sacred Grove, on the high mountain with Moses.
Oh, yes, Satan is real. His twin dreams, that he does not exist, and that people will spend too much time wondering about him, come into play in this topic. Or so I believe.
Lehi

I found this years ago. Cottrell effectively eviscerates the claim that baptism is not salvific, or that it is only a public display of commitment.
Let's discuss the ordinance and principle of baptism, its efficacy and place as the first ordinance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Lehi
P.S.: See the copyright notice in the introduction. I see this as being "educational".
===============================================================================
 

The History of Baptism by Jack Cotrell

Jack Cottrell is professor of theological studies at Cincinnati (Ohio) Bible College and Seminary.


(These articles first appeared in CHRISTIAN STANDARD® on June 20, 27, 2004. CHRISTIAN STANDARD® grants permission to reproduce, for free distribution, up to 1,000 copies of its articles for ministry or educational purposes.)

THE MODERN EVANGELICAL VIEW OF BAPTISM IS ACTUALLY THE NEW VIEW.
"Fifty million Frenchmen can’t be wrong."
Some may use this adage seriously, but to others it is a sarcastic way of saying that truth cannot be decided by majority vote—a point driven home by Paul in Romans 3:4, “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (New American Standard Bible).
Historically, those associated with the conservative branches of the Restoration Movement have enthusiastically accepted Paul’s admonition, being content to hold on to certain theological convictions, even if they perceived themselves to be in the minority. This is no doubt still true for many. However, many among us recently seem to have adopted a very different attitude with respect to baptism: “Fifty million evangelicals can’t be wrong.”
The thinking is that, if practically the entire evangelical world thinks God bestows saving grace as soon as the sinner believes and repents, then there must be some truth there. If evangelicals agree that baptism is simply the new Christian’s obedient expression of or witness to his new status as a member of the body of Christ, then there must be something wrong with the “minority” view that baptism is the point of time when God gives salvation. Surely, 50 million evangelicals can’t be wrong!
Yes, they can; and I believe they are.
Long ago I decided to accept the Bible alone as my only norm for faith and practice. And long ago I became convinced that everything the New Testament says about the meaning of baptism can be summed up thus: water baptism is the God-appointed time when he first gives saving grace to the believing, repentant sinner. Should we then just ignore the standard evangelical approach to baptism?
Not at all. We need to understand what evangelicals are saying, and why they are saying it. All our doctrinal convictions, while grounded ultimately upon the Bible alone, should be developed in full view of past and present Christian thinking. A knowledge of the historical development of any doctrine is extremely valuable; it can enrich our understanding as well as help us avoid serious doctrinal errors.
This is especially true of baptism. Too often, our historical perspective on this doctrine is much too limited. We tend to see ourselves within the context of the last 200 years. We know that the early Restorationists rejected the prevailing denominational (e.g., Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist) views of baptism, and came to see baptism as having a key role in the reception of salvation. Now, two centuries later, some are wondering if they went too far. After all, was it not a bit presumptuous of the Campbells, Walter Scott, John Smith, et al., to reject the traditional consensus view of baptism and come up with a new and opposite view? Why should we stick with these innovators, rather than just blend in with the “50 million evangelicals” who are continuing the traditional view?
What I will say now may surprise some, but the truth is this: the modern evangelical view of baptism is actually the new view, an interpretation of baptism that was invented only in the early 1520s. It was created by the Swiss reformer Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531), developed further by John Calvin, and accepted throughout most of the Protestant world. Until Zwingli, the entire Christian world for the first 1,500 years of its history was in agreement: water baptism is the God-appointed time when he first gives saving grace to sinners. Exceptions to this belief were extremely rare, limited mostly to medieval dualist sects that rejected all physical forms of worship.
My plea here is that in developing our own convictions concerning baptism today, we will not limit our historical perspective to contemporary evangelicalism, or even to the last 200 years. Rather, let us be aware of the entire scope of Christian history. Let us understand what the original and true consensus view was, and who the real innovators are. In the rest of this article I will survey the history of the meaning of baptism up to and including Martin Luther—a 1,500-year biblical consensus. In the next article I will explain how Zwingli changed everything.
EARLY WRITERS
The pre-Augustinian writers were practically unanimous in their teaching that baptism is the point of time when salvation is given. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) said that new converts “are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated. . . . For . . . they then receive the washing with water,” as in John 3:5. “We have learned from the apostles this reason” for baptism: “in order that we . . . may obtain in the water the remission of sins” (“First Apology,” 61).1 Tertullian (A.D. 145- 220) said, “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life” (“On Baptism,” iii). Also, “The act of baptism . . . is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins” (ibid., vii). Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) said, “When going down . . . into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost” (“Catechetical Lectures,” III:4). Many more examples could be cited.
AUGUSTINE AND THOMAS AQUINAS
Augustine (354-430) introduced a lot of new ideas into Christian thinking, but the saving significance of baptism was not one of them. Here he was simply continuing to teach what those before him had taught. Baptism, he said, is nothing else than salvation itself (“A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” I:34); it “brings salvation” (Letter 98, “To Boniface,” 1). We are “saved by baptism”; “the salvation of man is effected in baptism” (“Against Two Letters of the Pelagians,” III:5). We are “joined to Christ by baptism”; indeed, a person “is baptized for the express purpose of being with Christ” (“A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” I:55). The “apostolic tradition” teaches the “inherent principle, that without baptism . . . it is impossible for any man to attain to salvation and everlasting life” (ibid., I:34).
Thomas Aquinas represents medieval Catholic thinking. He declared that “no one can obtain salvation but through Christ. . . . But for this end is baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ. . . . Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men” (Summa Theologica, 68:1).
MARTIN LUTHER
Many have assumed that because Martin Luther opposed the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments and championed the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith, he must have been the one who rejected baptism as a salvation event. Nothing could be further from the truth. Luther’s view of the meaning of baptism stands in direct continuity with the New Testament, the early church fathers, and the Catholic scholars who preceded him. He regarded baptism as a mighty work of God in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pour out the full blessings of salvation upon penitent believers. Specifically, Luther asserted that forgiveness of sins is initially bestowed in baptism. In his “Small Catechism” (IV:6), in answer to the question “What gifts or benefits does baptism bestow?”, he says first of all, “It effects forgiveness of sins.” This is part of the work of baptism; in it “the forgiveness takes place through God’s covenant” (“The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism,” 15). Forgiveness takes place in baptism because that is where the blood of Christ is applied to the sinner: “Through Baptism he is bathed in the blood of Christ and is cleansed from sins” (E. Plass, editor, What Luther Says, I:46).
According to Luther baptism brings not only forgiveness of sins but also a new birth, a change in the inner man that actually eradicates sin. For “it is one thing to forgive sins, and another thing to put them away or drive them out. . . . But both the forgiveness and the driving out of sins are the work of baptism” (“The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism,” 15). Thus it is appropriate to speak of baptism as the time when “a person is born again and made new” (ibid., 3).
In short, Luther clearly proclaimed that baptism is for salvation: “Through baptism man is saved” (ibid., 6). In answer to the question of the purpose of baptism, i.e., “what benefits, gifts and effects it brings,” he gave this answer: “To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save” (“The Large Catechism,” IV:23, 24). One is baptized so that he “may receive in the water the promised salvation” (ibid., IV:36).
I refer to the view of baptism described here as the “biblical consensus.” It is the view that baptism is principally the time when God himself is bestowing upon the penitent, believing sinner the benefits of the redeeming work of Christ. This is the New Testament’s own doctrine of baptism, and it was affirmed to be such by 15th centuries of Christian writers.
If this view sounds strange to the majority of modern Protestants, it is because this biblical consensus has been replaced in most denominations with the alien interpretation of baptism that originated in the 1520s in the mind of Huldreich Zwingli. How this happened will be described in the next article.
For Christendom’s first 1,500 years there was a virtual consensus that baptism is the point of time when God bestows the “double cure” of saving grace (forgiveness and regeneration) upon sinners. (See last week’s article.) Why, then, do most Protestants hold a different view, one that passionately separates salvation from baptism? The answer lies in the revolutionary theology of one man, Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531).
Zwingli was Martin Luther’s Swiss counterpart in the European Reformation. Both began their reforming activity around 1520. Though they had the same general goals for changing the existing church, they parted company over the “sacraments” in general and over baptism in particular. While Luther continued to teach the historic view that baptism is a saving work of God, Zwingli rejected this altogether and made it entirely a work of man.
Zwingli was quite aware of the innovative nature of his view, declaring that “in this matter of baptism, all the [teachers] have been in error from the time of the apostles”.
THE REJECTION OF THE ORIGINAL VIEW
Zwingli developed his new doctrine of baptism in two stages. First, beginning as early as 1523, he deliberately and decisively rejected any connection between baptism and salvation. “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism,” he said. “The two are not to be connected and used together.” “Water-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away of sin”. He denied that the water itself has any power to remove the effects of sin from the soul [a view which few had ever held in the first place]; he also denied that God cleanses the soul during baptism, an idea he calls a “vain invention.” The general rule is that salvation precedes the baptism that symbolizes it.
What were Zwingli’s reasons for separating salvation from the act of baptism? The main reason was his conviction that the baptism-for-salvation view contradicts salvation by grace alone through the blood of Christ. Washing away the filth of sin “is the function of the blood of Christ alone”. Another reason baptism cannot be for salvation, he said, is that such a view would violate God’s sovereignty, i.e., his sovereign freedom to act when and where he chooses .
Closely connected with this is his idea that the real cause of any individual’s salvation is God’s sovereign, eternal, unconditional election (predestination) of that person. It is election that saves, not baptism, and not even faith. In my judgment one of Zwingli’s strongest reasons for rejecting the historic view of baptism was his incipient philosophical dualism, i.e., his sense of a strong antithesis between matter and spirit, between body and soul. He saw spirit and matter as openly hostile to each other. “Divinity, spirit, the superior nature” stands in direct opposition to dull, dark, inactive, rebellious earth. This carries over into the dual nature of man. While the soul can be regarded as “flowing forth from the Godhead itself ” and as possessing a nearly divine essence, the body is just a “dull mass,” a “lump of muddy earth”.
How, then, can water baptism have anything to do with the salvation of the soul? A physical substance (water) simply cannot have any connection with a spiritual effect: “Material water cannot contribute in any way to the cleansing of the soul”. The conclusion is that baptism is not necessary for salvation, neither as its cause nor as its occasion. Zwingli clearly affirms that faith alone is necessary for salvation: “Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism: it is always by faith alone.” “The one necessary thing which saves those of us who hear the Gospel is faith.” “Faith is the only thing through which we are blessed.”
“We are saved by faith only.” If we say baptism takes away sins, that is just a figure of speech; for it is not baptism that takes them away, but faith.
What does Zwingli do with all the New Testament texts that seem to clearly connect baptism with salvation? He dismisses them entirely by two devices.
One, many are mere figures of speech, such as metonymy, in which the name of the sign is transferred to the thing signified. He applies this to texts such as Ephesians 5:26; Romans 6:3, 4; Galatians 3:27; and Titus 3:5. Two, some texts may refer to water baptism, but others refer to Holy Spirit baptism, which is sovereignly administered by God whenever he chooses. Only the latter is necessary for salvation (46, 47).
The second stage of the development of Zwingli’s new doctrine of baptism was his careful construction of a completely new purpose or meaning for the act. This was accomplished mainly between 1523 and 1525. In this period his most pressing need was to provide a rationale for infant baptism. Since the third century, infants had been baptized for the removal of original sin.
But if baptism has no connection with the taking away of sin, there is no longer any reason to baptize infants. But for certain reasons Zwingli decided that infant baptism must be maintained; thus he had to come up with a new purpose for it.
CREATING COVENANT THEOLOGY
The results of Zwingli’s quest were truly revolutionary. In order to justify anew infant baptism, he laid the foundation for a whole new hermeneutical approach to the Bible, usually known as covenant theology. In summary, he rejected the traditional distinction between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and introduced the idea that ever since (at least) Abraham there has been just one covenant of grace. What we call the “new” covenant is actually the same covenant God made with Abraham. The Mosaic covenant was merely a secondary, temporary expedient; when it was set aside the Abrahamic covenant continued on and still continues on today. The church today is under the covenant God made with Abraham. This is the concept of covenant unity.
If there has been just one covenant since the days of Abraham, then there has also been just one covenant people since that time. The Israelites of old and the Christians of today are all part of the same body, the same church.
Most significantly, if there is just one covenant and one covenant people, then there is also just one covenant sign. Based on this reasoning, Zwingli totally equated the meaning of baptism in the New Testament with the meaning of Old Testament circumcision; each is simply a sign of membership in the one covenant people.
Here, then, is Zwingli’s trilogy: one covenant, one covenant people, and one covenant sign. This new set of ideas is the basis for the usual Protestant doctrine of baptism. It is the reason many Protestant churches “baptize” infants, and it is the foundation of the commonly accepted Protestant faith-only approach to the baptism of adults.
BAPTISM REEXAMINED
According to this Zwinglian view, exactly what is the function of baptism in the experience of a Christian convert? Exactly what is happening during the moment of baptism? Two things. First, baptism is the baptized person’s pledge of allegiance to the Christian community, an outward sign of his inward commitment to live the Christian life. Zwingli actually drew this aspect of baptism’s meaning not from Old Testament circumcision but from the meaning of the Latin word sacramentum, meaning “a pledge, an oath.” Herein arose the whole idea of baptism as a public testimony or witness. Everything baptism signifies has already happened; baptism is the means by which one makes it known to other Christians. It is thus done not for the sake of the one baptized, but for those in the audience.
Second, baptism is the baptized person’s sign of belonging to the covenant people. Thus it performs the exact same function as circumcision in the Old Testament era. This assumed Old Testament connection is the reason baptism is called a “covenant sign” or “the sign of the covenant.” (These terms make sense only on Zwinglian presuppositions.) Just as circumcision signified that one was already a member of the covenant people (by birth), so does baptism signify that one has already been saved and is already a member of the church. This view was taken over by John Calvin, and most Protestants have adopted it in one form or another.
THE BIG PICTURE
In conclusion, regarding the meaning of baptism, the contrast between the first 1,500 years of Christian history and the history of Protestantism since Zwingli could not be more severe. In its original form baptism was clearly seen as a work of God, as the time when God himself was bestowing salvation. But since Zwingli, baptism has been seen almost exclusively as a work of man: in baptism one gives testimony, bears witness to his faith, expresses his faith, commits or pledges himself to live as a Christian, lets the world know he is a Christian. These are all acts of men, not acts of God.
What is most significant is that Zwingli formulated his new doctrine of baptism by ignoring the New Testament’s own teaching and by drawing his new view from two non-New Testament sources: the meaning of a Latin word (sacramentum) and the meaning of Old Testament circumcision. I challenge anyone to find anywhere in the New Testament itself any justification whatsoever for this new Zwinglian view. I cannot understand why so many of our preachers and people want to abandon the original view of baptism and align themselves with the innovator Zwingli and his modern followers. “Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar” (Romans 3:4, New American Standard Bible).

My thoughts also.  

I admit to taking a bit of interpretive license about the priesthood. It's an extrapolation of what I've read about Zwingli elsewhere applied to this article. The point I've taken from the Reformation in general is that the Reformers were disgusted (and well earned) with the Catholic Church and the immorality (sexual and otherwise) of the priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope. They rejected the notion of a priesthood of God and substituted an apostate form of the "priesthood of all believers" the Bible speaks about. This was out of ignorance, not malice, to be sure, but it was apostasy nonetheless.
With baptism out of the picture (as a salvific ordinance and covenant), there was no need for priesthood. Zwingli and all the Reformers had to jettison priesthood because they knew they didn't have it.
 

Cottrell doesn't have our insights on the subject, so he was handicapped by that lack. Lehi

Hi Prisonchaplin:
 
A very good --and fair --post.
 
For me--the problem with that is the NT writers never included God the Son into the "one God" of the Biblical NT, IE--
 
1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
 
1 Timothy 2:5---King James Version (KJV)5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
 
Ephesians 4:4-6---King James Version (KJV)4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
 
That kind of language would probably have been considered blasphemy to those of the Deutero-Isaiah era.
 
Considering the definition of "polytheism" is the belief of more than one god--was Paul polytheistic?
 
2 Corinthians 4:4--King James Version (KJV)4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Honest question: What things are appropriate for shaming? Chauvinism, perhaps? Racism? Child molestation?
 
If the answer is "Nothing", then why the specific suggestion in this case? Are those who are not loyal to the Church or its leaders (or to their own covenants) somehow even less worthy of condemnation than those others? I don't recall anyone saying, for example, that we should be especially careful not to shame pedophiles.

Those who openly and publicly denounce the Church and its leaders are, by definition, disloyal.

There is a fine line between being charitable to those who are struggling with this and supporting/enabling their doubt.  Somewhere in the conversations there has to be empathy for the pain, but also a strong conviction of truth expressed and a reminder of how to approach problems we don't understand. As I did this as a loving, caring aunt and cousin to a couple 30-somethings, I was patently dismissed by one and shouted at to stop patronizing her by the other.   
 
My reaction in these situations with close friends or family is to always to back off and get the you-know-what out of their way. If they aren't going to listen without coming back at me offensively, then I'm not so likely to sit around patting their heads or stroking their egos.  They are on the wrong side of this and so many other church issues right now. They aren't likely to feel the spirit when they are so put out with the leaders, criticizing them shamelessly.  I care about these relatives but they are wrecking their own lives and I think they know it. 
 
I just find so many within this 20-40 generation to be spoiled, entitled, critical and incredible cynical about nearly everything. Without fail when church issues  come up they hop up on their "it's not fair" bandwagon, complaining at the tops of their lungs. There is very little demonstration of humilty among this crowd, and at the same time they have this faux horror at the injustice inflicted by the most humble and loving of the older generations. They are know-it-alls and think the rest of us can never understand quite as deeply as they can. They are quite full of themselves in their "fairness and equality for all" crusades.  It's tiresome.  

Almost certainly.

For me, it never comes off except a very few reasons - shower, swimming, sauna or intimacy, nothing else.
 
"Finding" excuses to remove it perhaps reflects more on other internal issues rather than the physical garment itself. 
Having things right internally/spiritually, leads you to find every reason to keep it on. 

Lehi, if you have time, and trust this website to have accurately rendered the various recordings of the discourse, you don't need to wait until you get back home...  King Follett Discourse Recordings in Parallel

More like father of the mourning.

I think it is better described as concentric circles of authority. The most authorative statmetns are in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Outside this inner circle is another, and then another consisting of statements of presidents of the Holy Priesthood, and Apostles and then others. These are given as the Holy Ghost inspires them, and so, in their own right, are "scriptural". The further one gets from the central core the less we are expected to accept them as doctrine.
Yes, we do have an affinity for the Scriptures. But what most forget, even too many of us, is that "we believe that [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God." The trick we face, and which confronts those outside our Church membership is accepting those revelation as from God.
The biggest problem we Saints have when seeing you all who stick solely to the Bible is that when it clearly promises new revelation will be coming, you seem to be averse to accepting it when it appears.
 
Which does not affect whether it is scripture or not.
The Jews generally do not accept the New Testament as scripture, but it is, without regard to their beliefs.
 
When Paul told Timothy that all cripture was good for intruction, etc., he was speaking solely of the Hebrew scriptures, not the New Testament. And that was a really bad translation into Greek of the Hebrew originals. But he surely would have included Matthew and so on had they been written at the time.
And, just the same, he would have included the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, too.
Yes, it may very well be that the "savvy" among us will focus on the Bible as source material to buttress our arguments, but that does not mean we should ignore the greater light thrown upon the subject of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by God's more recent revelatons. As I have said, and surely I am not alone, I am grateful for the modern revelations because they are God's mind and will for us with new (and restored) knowledge..
 
Anyone who believes that a discussion on the internet will result in any conversion, quick or otherwise, is delusional. At best, it can cause others to study on his own, and perhaps ask God for the knowlege He has promised in John and James and Alma and Moroni.
The Holy Ghost converts. We hope to open the door to the spirits of people, but conversion is an other-worldy process.
 
Lehi

Of course, but they rejected one heresy by simply adopting another.  The prophet Joseph Smith was able to resolved the issue by accepting the doctrine that Christ taught in John 17:19-23.  We know this as the Plan of Salvation which was beyond the ken of human wisdom.
 
Again, the historic Christian church replaced the apostles and prophets with theologians and scholars, and thi s is the poster boy of that change.  Without revelation, they were unable to understand the meaning of "one God", and created the "one substance entity" which is fully incompatible with the scriptures.  (e.g. Not my will, but thy will be done; not my doctrine but the doctrine of the one who sent me, etc)
 
The Emperor Constantine helped craft the Nicene Creed as a political solution to the division among Christians.  He didn't really care what it said as long as they stopped squabbling among themselves.  
 
And those bishops who voted against it, he simply banished them.

Not so many years ago the LDS church experimented with missionaries in the USA with the costs of bicycles.  Understand we are talking about young men and women dedicating 1 and a half to 2 years of their lives to G-d.  Many paying for their missions themselves - and all at some level paying for their mission with personal funds, family funds or ward friend funds.  The Church decided to concentrate and centralize the costs of bicycle maintenance.  The idea was that by lumping all the missionary bicycle maintenance together - better service could be negotiated for a lower cost.  Sound reasonable?
 
Within 3 months of the initiating of the program the costs of bicycle maintenance had increased over 1,000%.  The church had to abandon the program because of the rapidly increasing costs and turn all bicycle maintenance back to the individual missionaries.  
 
The truth is that no company or organization can offer any service unchecked for free without the costs getting completely out of control.  Our government cannot even have an army without the costs getting out of control and end up paying like $3,000 for a hammer.   If there is no shortage of cash in any program - regardless of the need for the service - the costs will bankrupt the program.  It is the trend and the way to know if a government program is failing - is when a politician says we need to increase our spending for the program - especially if there is no competing program so if someone wants - we could opt out for.

Every time someone uses the term "liberal", lots of people poke their heads up, Whack-A-Mole style, to cry indignantly, "What do you mean by 'liberal'? Why, it's a noble and beautiful term! The scriptures use it! It's a compliment!" Let us quit being disingenuous. Most on this list are Americans, that is, citizens of the USA. And in America, the term "liberal" has been hijacked for two generations. Its current meaning is clear: "Liberal" means politically and socially leftist.
 
Many (not all, and I'm not speaking directly of anyone on this list) of those who complain about the denigration of the noble term "liberal" are clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they want to preserve the definition of "liberal" as meaning "open-minded" and "generous". On the other hand, they want to name themselves and their Democrat- and socialist-leaning compatriots as "liberal" and condemn the knuckle-dragging troglodytes who disagree with them as "conservatives".
 
Note that, since pretty much everyone knows that an American "liberal" is not in fact liberal, in the last decade or so the left has co-opted the term "progressive". Hey, who is not in favor of PROGRESS? Ergo, "progressives" are always, always good. And, of course, "progressives" are Democrats and their ilk. This sort of word gaming has probably been going on as long as humans have spoken in a language. Witness the term "gay", which even three generations ago was commonly understood to mean "happy". As a child, even I sang Primary songs extolling "gay"ness. But now the word refers almost entirely to sexual perversion. I am sure we could think of hundreds of other examples, if we cared to.
 
When President Lee and other Church leaders said (decades ago) that a "liberal Mormon" was one without a testimony, they clearly were not using the meaning of classic liberalism. That is even more true today. I personally try to avoid using the term "liberal" at all, exactly because of all this dishonesty attached to the term. But when someone says that the "liberal" agenda does not coincide well with the gospel, the meaning is obvious to all American Saints who have ears to hear. The "liberal" agenda is well-known: Unfettered access to abortion on demand, higher taxes to fund social entitlement programs and redistribute wealth from the producers to the non-producers, legislation to force "inclusion" of various sexual and other perversions coupled with social and even legislative pressure to disallow dissent, marginalization of norms that mere decades ago were considered common decency, destruction of defensible borders, normalization of previously criminal activity and lifestyles that pervert and destroy people (think drugs), and so forth.
 
The Church has taken a neutral stand* on all political parties and issues. I am glad for it. The Church should do just that. But I do not take a neutral stand. The Republican Party is a bunch of hypocrites and money graspers, and I think they're pretty despicable. But honestly, they look downright virtuous compared to the loathsome Democrats. I last voted for a Democrat candidate more than 20 years ago in Pennsylvania. I do not see any realistic possibility I will ever do so again. Moreover, I do not believe that any honest, informed, rational Latter-day Saint can honestly accept the precepts of the gospel and still support the Democratic Party or a Democrat (at least one running at a national level). So those honest Saints that do so are either uninformed or irrational. The third possibility, that I am misunderstanding the virtues of the Democrats and casting them as vices, may well be true, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate that fact in any convincing way.
 
The point of my rant is not to win any converts. I am quite sure I won't. My point is to quit complaining when some American poster to this list talks disparagingly about "liberals" or "liberalism" -- or, if you insist on complaining, then make darn sure you complain equally loudly whenever someone misuses the term "gay" to mean "homosexual".
 
*And by the way, the Church, as the vehicle of the gospel, is neutral. But I will bet you anything -- ANYTHING -- that God is not neutral. I will bet you anything you want that God has an opinion regarding the morality of abortion on demand, the legalization of street drugs, the normalization of homosexuality in our communities and in our legal system, the use and abuse of our natural environment vs. the worship of it, and every other topic we have under consideration in our society today. And I feel quite sure that, however far God's opinions on those matters are from the stinking Republicans, they are in general a very great deal further from what the loathsome Democrats proclaim.

Actually, in our region, there is a long-stnading group of LDSs and other Christians who meet with the Jewish Rabbis in the area to discuss these same kinds of things. We have had conferences with Muslims, too. It's not just Christians who must work together for these ends.But, for now, we're willing to work with anyone who will work with us. That's most likely other Christians.
Lehi

When anyone is sad, it doesn't matter why, the only reliable, long-term answer is service to others who are in a worse position than you are.But it has to be meaningful service, and I believe it's service that not only meets the needs of the served, but of the server, too.
The optons are myriad, so pointing out one or two, or forty-two won't begin to cover the possibilites. I'd suggest, though, that your daughter choose someone or some group (children, old people, homeless, whomever) that she would like to see happier. (It might be helpful to define these before suggesting the goal of serving them -- teenagers often cower at an "assignment" and become even more porcupinish than usual.) Then help her figure out her own plan to make it happen. If she needs or wants your help --even if she doesn't know it, be there; but it must be her plan, her process, her effort. One thing: she need not know, at least at first nor for a long while, that the goal you have in making this suggestion is to make her better off.
Pain and sadness go away when you're helping others. It's a universal truth, and we should be grateful for its being universal: it's always there to help us out of our self-centered misery.
After all, that's what Jesus did.
Lehi

(2 of 2)
  
Yet no one has said anything even remotely approaching this. This is an absolute mischaracterization of what has been said, which is, "Women, you should be modest." 
 
Hold it. Aren't you the one talking about porn actresses? I would not say that's "nothing". 
 
I don't understand. Did anyone suggest it was not their choice? No one except, perhaps, you. And it is an evil choice. That is the point. Shame on them for choosing immodesty.  
Ah. So, if I choose to run around stark naked, that is simply a choice between God and me, and you have no right to say anything about it, or even to tell your children that Brother Vort really should put on some pants (or at least underwear) before going on a walk.
 
Right?
  
This is simply nonsense, Becca. If a woman freely chooses to dress provocatively with the intent of tittilating men, you say that it is not at all her fault that men are tittilated; it's all on the men. Therefore, we need not teach our daughters modesty, because they can run around stark naked and the men simply shouldn't get excited.
 
This is a fantasy land, and a truly ugly one. Real people (at least healthy people) would never act in such a manner.
  
Just as there will always be murderers. That doesn't mean we should quit teaching against murder.
  
So, BeccaKirstyn: Do we teach our daughters about modesty, or do we not?
 
If so, what are you complaining about?
 
If not, why not?

The basic issue with the Bible is.... that it has a front and back cover.  The contents are inspired by God, but man put that cover on it.