Claiming Christ (The Book): A Mormon-Evangelical Debate

[Islander]

I just finished reading the book "Claiming Christ...". You should ALL read the reviews at Amazon.com. I ordered 5 more copies so I can give them to my non-member friends. Hopefully the voices of reason and wisdom will prevail.

The thoughts in inside our heads provide infinite possibilities as well as endless comfort in the information we hold to be true and and the certainty that we are safe in our assumptions. Our desire for the safety of previously defined ideas and creeds completely close the door to new ideas, reasoning, interpretation and truth. Breaking away from the status quo requires, action, acceptance of alternative possibilities previously ignored. there is also the anxiety that comes from realizing that our past line of reasoning and accepted body of knowledge, although well intended was far from the truth. Acting upon the newly discovered truth leaves us open to criticism, rejection and abandonment from all we hold dear. Thus some prefer to ignore or even deny the truth in order to remain safe.

No doubt the most strident voices will continue to ignore what now becomes self evident.

[UintahJack]

Thanks Islander! I'm always looking for a good new book to read. I'll check it out.

[MrNirom]

Thanks.

[evangelical]

I am not sure if this is the best place to post this. Anywho, as an evangelical Christian I am in complete agreement, more or less, with all of the many other evangelical denominations. We all agree on the essentials (as defined by us). The Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, etc. There are some relatively minor disagreements on non-essential issues, however. But, between evangelicalism and Mormonism there seems to be very vast differences of doctrine. Polytheism, baptismal regeneration, plain and precious truths removed from the Bible, etc. What am I to make of these differences? The traditional response, within evangelical circles, has been to regect Mormon doctrine as unbiblical. However, Mormon people that I have talked to have vigorously maintained that their beliefs are biblical (perhaps even more biblical than evangelicals' beliefs). So then, whence arises the vast dissimilarity between Mormons and all other Christian groups?

[MrNirom]

However, Mormon people that I have talked to have vigorously maintained that their beliefs are biblical (perhaps even more biblical than evangelicals' beliefs). So then, whence arises the vast dissimilarity between Mormons and all other Christian groups?

Wow... that is a big question.. lets start basic.. and move on from there.

1st We believe in on going revelation from a prophet today.

2nd Because we believe in on going revelation.. we will add scripture to our canon. Our holy scriptures are the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and what we call the Pearl of Great Price.

3rd We believe in Apostles.. and have 12 that are part of the General Authorities of the Church.

4th We believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith in 1830.

Edited July 11, 2008 by MrNirom

[Islander]

I am not sure if this is the best place to post this. Anywho, as an evangelical Christian I am in complete agreement, more or less, with all of the many other evangelical denominations. We all agree on the essentials (as defined by us). The Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, etc. There are some relatively minor disagreements on non-essential issues, however. But, between evangelicalism and Mormonism there seems to be very vast differences of doctrine. Polytheism, baptismal regeneration, plain and precious truths removed from the Bible, etc. What am I to make of these differences? The traditional response, within evangelical circles, has been to regect Mormon doctrine as unbiblical. However, Mormon people that I have talked to have vigorously maintained that their beliefs are biblical (perhaps even more biblical than evangelicals' beliefs). So then, whence arises the vast dissimilarity between Mormons and all other Christian groups?

Welcome to the forum Evangelical.

I think that one of the greatest differences relates to interpretation of the Biblical canon in the one hand, and to modern revelation in the other hand.

You use terminology to describe LDS theology, in your opinion, that comes straight out of anti-Mormon literature. It will serve you well to do some reading before stating categorically that we are a "vastly different religion" from other Christian Evangelicals. Precisely, the name of the Thread points to fact that many serious Evangelical theologians are studying LDS doctrine closely and with true intent to learn rather than antagonize and are being surprised by what they learn.

Here is a link to a review at Amazon.com you may find interesting:

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate

Yo may want to explore Mormonwiki for amny more articles and inforamtion about the Church, doctrine and theology.

I hope it helps

[hakawati]

Yo may want to explore Mormonwiki for amny more articles and inforamtion about the Church, doctrine and theology.

I just want to clarify, Islander's recommendation was probably for Main Page - Mormonism, The Mormon Church, Beliefs, & Religion - MormonWiki, which is an environment for members of the Church to explain our beliefs rather than mormonwiki.org, which is maintained by others who reject the ideas of extra-biblical scripture, non-credal views of the Trinity, etc.

[happyday]

We all agree on the essentials (as defined by us). The Trinity, salvation by grace alone, infallibility of the Bible, etc.

Hey there! I see that others have replied to your post already!... LDS people do not believe in a trinity. We believe in three separate beings. One of the Twelve apostles actually gave a talk on this belief in a recent general conference. Here's the link:

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

Additionally, he spoke of God-given revelation in our world today. This was in a separate, and slightly more recent talk... Here's the link for that...

?My Words . . . Never Cease?

If it doesn't work by clicking on it, you can copy and paste.

I'm just trying to help clarify something of what you suggested. Hope this helps.

[evangelical]

MrNirom, in regards to post #5 above, you give a fourfold answer to my question. I would like you to flesh these out a bit more if you don't mind. Please let me explain more precisely. The first three points say, "we have more than just the Bible." However, it seems to me, while that may be alright, it is impossible that revelation beyond the Bible would contradict the Bible. I see various doctrines in the Bible that are denied by the LDS church. It is one thing, I think you can agree, to say that the Book of Mormon, for example, clarifies the Bible or further develops it. It is another matter entirely to say, the Bible says 'X' and the Book of Mormon says 'not X'. But it is your final point that particularly bothers me. I clicked on the link you gave which says the gospel "has been restored". Apparently the Christianity of the 1800s was vastly different from today. Back then there was, in other words, a lot of differences on major doctrines. Then Joseph Smith prayed about which denomination to join and so on. What is wrong with this, to my way of thinking? Well, the churches of those days, like the churches of today, had the Bible. In the Bible we read of the gospel. And that gospel really is different from the LDS gospel. For example, I believe it is article 4 (from the Articles of Faith) which says that baptism is necessary for salvation. This idea is foreign to the Bible. "For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works [including baptism] lest any man should boast." The gospel did not need to be restored, did it, since it was there in the Bible all along?

[Islander]

MrNirom, in regards to post #5 above, you give a fourfold answer to my question. I would like you to flesh these out a bit more if you don't mind. Please let me explain more precisely. The first three points say, "we have more than just the Bible." However, it seems to me, while that may be alright, it is impossible that revelation beyond the Bible would contradict the Bible. I see various doctrines in the Bible that are denied by the LDS church. It is one thing, I think you can agree, to say that the Book of Mormon, for example, clarifies the Bible or further develops it. It is another matter entirely to say, the Bible says 'X' and the Book of Mormon says 'not X'. But it is your final point that particularly bothers me. I clicked on the link you gave which says the gospel "has been restored". Apparently the Christianity of the 1800s was vastly different from today. Back then there was, in other words, a lot of differences on major doctrines. Then Joseph Smith prayed about which denomination to join and so on. What is wrong with this, to my way of thinking? Well, the churches of those days, like the churches of today, had the Bible. In the Bible we read of the gospel. And that gospel really is different from the LDS gospel. For example, I believe it is article 4 (from the Articles of Faith) which says that baptism is necessary for salvation. This idea is foreign to the Bible. "For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works [including baptism] lest any man should boast." The gospel did not need to be restored, did it, since it was there in the Bible all along?

I think, again, that it may be quite beneficial for you to spend some time really reading, if your desire is to understand, and attempt top explore the LDS position. If your intent is just to argue and discuss the differences between your belief system and the LDS doctrine I think I would have to pass. That is a very exhausted and old road.

The Savior said: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". John 3:5

Further in Matt 20:23

Romans 6:4

Eph 4:5

Col 2:12

Just to name some. For you to state that baptism is not necessary denotes that you have adopted a theological position that, I suggest, is not in fact not biblical. It also evidenced that you already decided on this issue.

I reiterate my invitation for you to explore the LDS doctrine and theological positions and examine the foundation for such. Arguing your view points in this forum is contrary to the spirit we are committed to foster here. Truly, it serves no purpose.

[evangelical]

Dear Islander,

Thanks for answering my post! I am talking about modern revelation with MrNirom so we may leave that topic aside for now. However, there were two points you made that I'd like to hear more about from you. The first point is about interpretation of the Bible. I find this a fascinating topic. How would you, then, interpret the Bible that would differ from the way a Protestant may interpret it?

I am a bit puzzled by your second point. Apparently you don't like my choice of words. I did not intend them to be offensive. "Polytheism" is the belief in many Gods. According to the Conference Talk on the Trinity I just read, Mormons apparently believe in at least three. But the speaker did not like the term either. What is a more neutral word for "belief in many Gods"? "Baptismal regeneration" is a term meaning that baptism is necessary for salvation. Articles of Faith 3 and 4 teaches that. What would you prefer I called it? And I heard that "plain and precious promises were removed from the gospel" from LDS missionaries. Plus it is to be found in 2 Nephi if I am correct. Perhaps you just meant the first two. At any rate, let me know the more neutral terminology if you would be so kind. Please and thank you. Bye for now.

[evangelical]

O Happyday, I just read the Conference Talk on the Trinity as you recomended. Elder Holland (incidentally, I used to know a much younger Elder Holland-I wonder if they are relatives) does not seem to understand the Protestant/Catholic view. At the beginning he seems to understand the doctrine of the Trinity alright, but then apparently goes on to disprove it from the Bible. But all of his biblical references spoke to a plurality of Persons, which is part of the doctrine of the Trinity itself. So either I misunderstood him or he misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity. Any thoughts of you own to add?

[Islander]

O Happyday, I just read the Conference Talk on the Trinity as you recomended. Elder Holland (incidentally, I used to know a much younger Elder Holland-I wonder if they are relatives) does not seem to understand the Protestant/Catholic view. At the beginning he seems to understand the doctrine of the Trinity alright, but then apparently goes on to disprove it from the Bible. But all of his biblical references spoke to a plurality of Persons, which is part of the doctrine of the Trinity itself. So either I misunderstood him or he misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinity. Any thoughts of you own to add?

Perfect!!! That is what is all about. Keep reading and hopefully you would come to understand the LDS view. You don't have to agree with it but at least you will know where it comes from. Please do not go outside the LDS site to try to read on LDS doctrine. You watching Elder Holland was ideal.

It will take a bit more reading, including other sources to grasp the concept. But you are in the right track.

[Islander]

Dear Islander,

Thanks for answering my post! I am talking about modern revelation with MrNirom so we may leave that topic aside for now. However, there were two points you made that I'd like to hear more about from you. The first point is about interpretation of the Bible. I find this a fascinating topic. How would you, then, interpret the Bible that would differ from the way a Protestant may interpret it?

I am a bit puzzled by your second point. Apparently you don't like my choice of words. I did not intend them to be offensive. "Polytheism" is the belief in many Gods. According to the Conference Talk on the Trinity I just read, Mormons apparently believe in at least three. But the speaker did not like the term either. What is a more neutral word for "belief in many Gods"? "Baptismal regeneration" is a term meaning that baptism is necessary for salvation. Articles of Faith 3 and 4 teaches that. What would you prefer I called it? And I heard that "plain and precious promises were removed from the gospel" from LDS missionaries. Plus it is to be found in 2 Nephi if I am correct. Perhaps you just meant the first two. At any rate, let me know the more neutral terminology if you would be so kind. Please and thank you. Bye for now.

In some places there is obviously a difference in interpretation. But that in itself is not unique. Different denominations have different interpretations of the same biblical passage. If you be so kind; what is your interpretation of Isaiah 44, for example. Just read it by yourself, meditate and ponder in your heart and describe what you think the prophet said.

I pointed to the scriptures that clearly specify in the bible that baptism is critical for salvation. We call it baptism. The word "regeneration" in the bible can also be translated renewal or rebirth. We tend to see it as a covenant and part of what we have to do to show faith and willingness to follow the Savior.

[MrNirom]

I see various doctrines in the Bible that are denied by the LDS church.

I have to admit it is hard for me to see what you see. You are so far away.. hehehe

article 4 (from the Articles of Faith) which says that baptism is necessary for salvation. This idea is foreign to the Bible.

I would have to politely disagree with you on that one. Let's first look at the Bible and what it says about baptism..

Why it is Essential:

Suffer it to be so now to fulfill all righteousness, Matt. 3: 15.

13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus came and was baptized of John, Mark 1: 9.

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: abut he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized, Luke 7: 30.

26 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.

27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John 3: 5.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Repent, and be baptized every one of you, Acts 2: 38.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 ¶ Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Now.. if Christ has already risen.. and his Apostles are still baptizing people by water.. at what point in time did Christ tell them to stop baptizing people?

Matt 28:

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 ¶ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 ¶ After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 ¶ Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I think that all the scripture I have given you.. has shown that baptism is essential and all of it came from the Bible so it can't really be that foreign.

In the next quote you provided:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works [including baptism] lest any man should boast." The gospel did not need to be restored, did it, since it was there in the Bible all along?

Lets first of all quote the entire scripture.

Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Now when I read this.. I see Paul telling the Ephesians that by taking on the name of Christ.. and following him.. and doing what he as asked of you.. (This is what Faith is) ye are saved by his grace.

It is not the boastful good works that will save you. So even if you are a good person your whole life.. and you did nothing wrong.. you can't say.. Lord.. look at me.. I did all these wonderful things. I did nothing wrong...you still could not be saved until you have faith in Christ and become Christ like.

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.. this meaning that when you take upon you Christ.. your heart is changed.. and desire to do only good.

And you want to walk in his shoes by doing what he asks us to do and doing what he showed us to do. Christ taught by example.

And to do what Christ asks is what? 1. Have faith in him.. 2. Repent of your sins.. (feel remorse for what you have done.. and stop sinning.. go and sin no more.) 3. Be baptized of water. (Christ showed us it was important. He did it himself and he was sinless and had no need for baptism) 4. Receive the Holy Ghost and obey all his commandments.

If I were you.. I would take Islander up on his suggestion.... "Keep reading and hopefully you would come to understand the LDS view... Just read it by yourself, meditate and ponder it in your heart."

But feel free to ask questions.

[evangelical]

Dear Islander,

I stumbled accross this off the link Happyday gave me. It is a sub-page of lds.org/ldsnewsroom "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nded. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499." I am not arguing or fighting. This is a forum about Mormon beliefs (actually a forum about debating Mormon beliefs with an Evangelical). Can't I ask and learn about LDS beliefs here? Of course I can, with all due respect. Perhaps we have both made up our minds about the Bible's teaching on baptism but that does not mean, of course, that we cannot change our minds. As for now, I have not changed my mind about baptism, however. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Please let me explain why. The general spirit of the New Testament as a whole is that salvation is by grace alone. That means you cannot add anything to it like, for example, baptism. While there are verses that appear to teach the necessity of baptism there are better ways of interpreting such passages so they remain in line with the general thrust of the New Testament as a whole. Now for the examples you gave.

The context of John 3 is contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. It is therefore more hermeneutically appropriate to understand the 'water' as pre-natal fluid or a synonym of natural birth. One obviously has to be born (i.e. of water) before one can be born again (i.e. of the Spirit)

Matthew 20:23 is clearly speaking of martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphamism. In other words, literal water baptism is not in view here.

In Romans 6:4 we are told the literal meaning of the nonliteral baptism. Namely, walking in newness of life. The whole context of that verse tells us it is not to be taken overly literally.

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. It does not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you were quoting it to tie in with Romans 6:4 it does no good. Romans 6:4 is talking about the one baptism only in a nonliteral way.

And the last passage says nothing about baptism at all so far as I can see.

Letting the text of the Bible speak for itself, we must not ignore the context, we see that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is thus not a biblical teaching.

I sincerely hope that we may continue this discussion. Please don't tune me out just because I bring up hard questions (if that is what you were getting at).

[Islander]

Dear Islander,

I stumbled accross this off the link Happyday gave me. It is a sub-page of lds.org/ldsnewsroom "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” Joseph Smith, quoted in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2nded. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1949), 5:499." I am not arguing or fighting. This is a forum about Mormon beliefs (actually a forum about debating Mormon beliefs with an Evangelical). Can't I ask and learn about LDS beliefs here? Of course I can, with all due respect. Perhaps we have both made up our minds about the Bible's teaching on baptism but that does not mean, of course, that we cannot change our minds. As for now, I have not changed my mind about baptism, however. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Please let me explain why. The general spirit of the New Testament as a whole is that salvation is by grace alone. That means you cannot add anything to it like, for example, baptism. While there are verses that appear to teach the necessity of baptism there are better ways of interpreting such passages so they remain in line with the general thrust of the New Testament as a whole. Now for the examples you gave.

The context of John 3 is contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. It is therefore more hermeneutically appropriate to understand the 'water' as pre-natal fluid or a synonym of natural birth. One obviously has to be born (i.e. of water) before one can be born again (i.e. of the Spirit)

Matthew 20:23 is clearly speaking of martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphamism. In other words, literal water baptism is not in view here.

In Romans 6:4 we are told the literal meaning of the nonliteral baptism. Namely, walking in newness of life. The whole context of that verse tells us it is not to be taken overly literally.

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. It does not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you were quoting it to tie in with Romans 6:4 it does no good. Romans 6:4 is talking about the one baptism only in a nonliteral way. You speak of "hermeneutically appropriate" and

And the last passage says nothing about baptism at all so far as I can see.

Letting the text of the Bible speak for itself, we must not ignore the context, we see that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is thus not a biblical teaching.

I sincerely hope that we may continue this discussion. Please don't tune me out just because I bring up hard questions (if that is what you were getting at).

My friend, can you hear yourself? Can you please listen to your own words and realize that you have taken/accepted a theological position rather than read the scriptures. The NT was not designed for imagery and dogmatic visualizations like the one you propose other than the allegories and parables used mostly by the Savior to illustrate a point.

You speak of "martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphemism" and "hermeneutically appropriate." That is theological argumentation and reasoning. If a PhD in theology would be required to understand the NT we would all be Muslims by now.

I think we must agree to disagree on this one. There is limited value in arguing when we find ourselves diametrically in opposite sides of the issue. Christ came to his cousing John to be baptized at the Jordan river and the Father in His own voice testified that He was His Son. The Savior Himself spoke of baptism as being born of water and a requirement to enter into the kingdom of God. The Sadducee in attendance wondered about it in received clarification. According to Acts 9, even the apostle Paul was baptized. But of course, you will read something else and no doubt will provide some theological interpretation of the word and use of "baptism in that passage as well.

I cited several portions of the scriptures in regards to baptism but you already made up your mind about it so why argue any further. You seemed fixed on your position and obviously have closed yourself to new information. I must say this, you claim to have come here to attempt to understand the LDS position but ALL you have done so far is advocating your position rather than asking why do we see it the scriptures in a different way.

I have said this before more than once; for the uninitiated but desirous to know and understand the word of God, when the NT speaks of baptism it is such that the reader visualizes. Your theological interpretation requires an academic leap that is not at all part of the normal line of reasoning of most readers.

[PapilioMemnon]

...

Perhaps we have both made up our minds about the Bible's teaching on baptism but that does not mean, of course, that we cannot change our minds. As for now, I have not changed my mind about baptism, however. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Please let me explain why. The general spirit of the New Testament as a whole is that salvation is by grace alone. That means you cannot add anything to it like, for example, baptism. ... Now for the examples you gave.

The context of John 3 is contrasting natural birth with spiritual birth. It is therefore more hermeneutically appropriate to understand the 'water' as pre-natal fluid or a synonym of natural birth. One obviously has to be born (i.e. of water) before one can be born again (i.e. of the Spirit)

Matthew 20:23 is clearly speaking of martyrdom using baptismal imagery as a euphamism. In other words, literal water baptism is not in view here.

In Romans 6:4 we are told the literal meaning of the nonliteral baptism. Namely, walking in newness of life. The whole context of that verse tells us it is not to be taken overly literally.

Ephesians 4:5 says there is only one baptism. It does not say that it is necessary for salvation. If you were quoting it to tie in with Romans 6:4 it does no good. Romans 6:4 is talking about the one baptism only in a nonliteral way.

And the last passage says nothing about baptism at all so far as I can see.

Letting the text of the Bible speak for itself, we must not ignore the context, we see that baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is thus not a biblical teaching.

I sincerely hope that we may continue this discussion. Please don't tune me out just because I bring up hard questions (if that is what you were getting at).

Of all this, I thought it was very interesting what you did not comment on as on the example he (MN I believe) gave you of the Savior's Baptism by John & Luke 7:30, but I'll repost it just in case you missed it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

"Suffer it to be so now to fulfill all righteousness, Matt. 3: 15.

13 ¶ Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus came and was baptized of John, Mark 1: 9.

8 I indeed have baptized you with water: abut he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God, being not baptized, Luke 7: 30.

26 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.

27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. "

--------------------------------------------------------------

Was that for "euphemism or imagery" purposes what was written about the Savior's literal baptism?

The fact that Jesus went to John to be baptized, because Baptism is an essential ordinance, shows us that we should follow Him doing the same things we saw Him do as He taught us.

I affirm that your view on baptism is clearly nonbiblical as the Bible shows it so clearly. Either that or the Bible is contradicting itself by the way you explained your interpretation of some verses.

''While there are verses that appear to teach the necessity of baptism there are better ways of interpreting such passages so they remain in line with the general thrust of the New Testament as a whole. ''

Better ways of interpreting? By whom? By what authority would this person be qualified to interpret the words of God?

What men qualify to interpret "such passages in better ways so they remain in line with the New Testament"?

The only "better way" of interpreting the scriptures always has been through Prophets that God Himself has called to do that work, of interpreting and teaching them to people.

"so far as I can see."

I suggest you to re-read the New Testament... with "eyes to see.'

In the parable Jesus taught, He used parables so those who didn't understand "simple" things wouldn't understand the depth of His teaching (Out of His mercy); only those who could "see," and had understanding of simple things, could grasp the meanings of the parables, and sometimes they, Apostles, struggled with it.

"That means you cannot add anything to it like"

The scriptures are simple and clear... to those who understand them in its simpleness. No scientific explanations or terms are needed.

To add an "euphemism" view to passages that are clear... is to add something to what is simply stated there by Jesus Himself or the Apostles.

"Gospel truths are spiritually discerned,"

"To understand spiritual things, a man must have spiritual discernment, i.e., guidance by the Holy Ghost." (Pres. J.F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:296-97)

Please don't be discourage because we can point out clearly based on the scriptures our view as taught and interpreted to us by a Prophet of God who is guided by the Holy Ghost.

I would like to point out something: What is your motivation, primary, Evangelical, to come to a LDS forum or to research "Mormonism" at all?

You don't need to answer it, but it would be very profitable for you, I feel, if you would think about it and understand your motivations for such; if anything at all, you'll definitely learn more about yourself.

Islander gave you a wise counsel "listen to yourself"

We can simply agree to disagree; asking questions is one thing... getting quotes out of context to twist it is something else; coming to a LDS forum to have a scripture interpretation debate is also not asking about our views on something. Questions are:

What do you think or how do you LDS view baptism? Can you explain why you view this way? My faith such.... views this way; I'm curious and can't understand another way to view it; can you explain some more how you view and interpret the way you do?...

And along those lines.... those are types of questions.

With all respect,

Be well!

Edited August 30, 2008 by PapilioMemnon
Notification

[evangelical]

Dear Papilio, I cannot overstress the fact that I am trying to have a friendly discussion here. I have not had the time to respond to MN, or whoever it was, as of yet. When I do get around to it I will point out the fact that I never said anything about not getting baptized or baptism not being essential or having been superceeded or anything of the sort. It is baptismal regeneration that, instead, I denied. But apparently that phrase is offensive to some of the people here so I was trying to avoid it. I think that is where the misunderstanding-that I was antibaptism-came in. The Bible does very clearly say, as you rightly point out, that there is a literal water baptism and that it is very important. It is even necessary. That is, necessary to fulfill all righteousness but not necessary for salvation as I understand it.

Now, I would have to say, that everybody ought to use normal rules of interpretation when they interpret any normal book like the Bible (yes, the Bible is more than just another book but it is most certainly a book). This is, by my lights, common sense. You mention parables? Why don't you interepret them according to the plain meaning, that is, the literal meaning? The plain meaning is that Jesus was giving an historical account of an actual great pearl, for example. The plain meaning of the psalmist is that the palm trees literally clap their literal hands in literal praise of God. And he is further plain that God has literal wings with literal feathers. Is all this nonsense? Of course it is. Why? Because of the common laws of hermeneutical theory. An uneducated Christian may never have heard such phrases but s/he must use them, more or less, or he shall come to the false conclusion that God is literally a giant bird (He shelters us under the shadow of His wings, after all, and, that is the plainest meaning imaginable). You have a different interpretation of baptism with respect to salvation? Fine. We may agree to disagree. I base my interpretation on the context of the Bible and the usual canons of interpretive theory. You base yours, I think you have said, on what the prophets say, which to all appearences to LDS outsiders (at least to this LDS outsider, I ought to say), taking passages out of context in order to force them to fit in with other LDS doctrine. This is very dangerous, it seems to me. That is my impression. Is it false? I do not see how I am supposed to arrive at any other conclusion. You do not buy my interpretation of baptism and I do not buy yours. I understand that. We do not need to further debate that point. I agree to disagree. But my question is, is my impression accurate? I am not making an accusation. I am asking a sincere question. Thank you.

[evangelical]

Dear Papilio and Islander, I must ask your apologies. I just noticed that much of what I said in post #19 above was directed to you Islander. I was not paying attention when I misaddressed those concerns to you, Papilio. That was my mistake. Sorry for the conflation.

[evangelical]

Dear MrNirom, it must have taken a fairly long time and effort to compile all those verses. For that I am truly thankful to you. I guess I was not as clear as I should have been before. I have no problem with baptism. Baptism is a very important thing in a Christians walk. Even necessary. But it comes not for salvation, only after salvation. I mean to say, after much study of the Bible, this is the only conclusion I was able to draw. I am aware of many people, not just Mormons, who can site chapter and verse which explicitly teaches, I would say only apparently, "you must be baptized to be saved." But after thinking long and hard about the question, it has become plain to me that baptism is after salvation, not necessary to produce it. Apparently, on your view, this is a misinterpretation. But it is based on the Bible itself and a result of much consideration. Again, Christians need to get baptised. But it, baptism, is for the already Christian, not for the about-to-become Christian. That is, that is how I understand the issue.

[Islander]

Dear Papilio and Islander, I must ask your apologies. I just noticed that much of what I said in post #19 above was directed to you Islander. I was not paying attention when I misaddressed those concerns to you, Papilio. That was my mistake. Sorry for the conflation.

Apology accepted although I see no need to apologize.

I do think that the exchange seem rather unprofitable to me at this point. I must sound like a broken record by now but I have very few options. Unless and until you resist the temptation to bring your own understanding and theological position into the discussion, you can not approach and explore the LDS position. Arguing from different sides of the street is truly meaningless/

Please read the cites on baptism and explore the meaning. If you have any questions then we welcome those. Until then al we are doing is arguing which I do not find appealing.

[MrNirom]

Dear MrNirom, it must have taken a fairly long time and effort to compile all those verses. For that I am truly thankful to you. I guess I was not as clear as I should have been before. I have no problem with baptism. Baptism is a very important thing in a Christians walk. Even necessary. But it comes not for salvation, only after salvation. I mean to say, after much study of the Bible, this is the only conclusion I was able to draw. I am aware of many people, not just Mormons, who can site chapter and verse which explicitly teaches, I would say only apparently, "you must be baptized to be saved." But after thinking long and hard about the question, it has become plain to me that baptism is after salvation, not necessary to produce it. Apparently, on your view, this is a misinterpretation. But it is based on the Bible itself and a result of much consideration. Again, Christians need to get baptised. But it, baptism, is for the already Christian, not for the about-to-become Christian. That is, that is how I understand the issue.

When you said "This idea is foreign to the Bible. For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works [including baptism] lest any man should boast."

I made the inference that you did not believe baptism is necessary.

From what I understand.. most Christians believe they are "saved" just by accepting Christ.

We believe that the acceptance is just the first step in the Salvation process... not the only thing required. In other words.. one can not get baptized without accepting Christ first.

Ok.. if you accept Christ as your Savior.. and that is all you do.. then your are not "saved".

[PapilioMemnon]

I agree much with Islander that these exchanges are unprofitable; if you want to leard the way we see, please read and listen carefully, and keep on reading. An intelectual/scientific approach is not helpful in trying to understand something spiritual.

I'll just post this in other words to see if it helps at all:

I'd just like to say that we believe that baptism by immersion by one who has authority is the gate that a person enters to make a covenant with God after having faith, and repenting, and then, qualifying to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hand by one who has authority.

By fulfilling the required ordinances, then the same is reconciled to God by the Atonement of Jesus Christ that cleans us from our sins, and makes it possible to receive eternal life. "In order for us to be saved, one must rescue us," and that person was Jesus Christ. He satisfied the demands of justice in our places, and then, in His mercy, we receive forgiveness if we repent and continue in Him until the end.

In order for the Atonement to have power over the person, the same must have faith, repent, and be baptized by immersion for the remission of sins and receive the Holy Ghost by one who has authority to perform the ordinances of God.

We believe baptism is an ordinance that is required for salvation as the Lord taught us by giving us His own example, by going to the proper authority at the time who held the priesthood, John the Baptist, and being baptized of Him, then receiving the Holy Ghost.

Another reason we believe that baptism is required is because that was preached: "Repent and be baptized..."

Mark 1: 4

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Acts 2: 38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the gHoly Ghost.

But, baptism is an ordinance that by itself cannot save us; the Atonement of Christ is the means that cleans us from sin, and through obedience to the commandments He gave us, we can achieve salvation.

Link (Click on Additional Info as well after opening the link): LDS.org - Topic Definition - Atonement of Jesus Christ

"Jesus Christ redeems all people from the effects of the Fall. All people who have ever lived on the earth and who ever will live on the earth will be resurrected and brought back into the presence of God to be judged (see 2 Nephi 2:5–10; Helaman 14:15–17). Through the Savior's gift of mercy and redeeming grace, we will all receive the gift of immortality and live forever in glorified, resurrected bodies.

Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins. But we can be forgiven and cleansed from the stain of sin if we "apply the atoning blood of Christ" (Mosiah 4:2). We must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. "

--------------------------

* Elder Bruce R. McConkie - What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace? - Link:Audio Formats

--------------------------

I finish this, and make Paul's words mine (Emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 2

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the atestimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, asave Jesus Christ, and him bcrucified.

3 And I was with you in aweakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my aspeech and my preaching was not with benticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the cSpirit and of dpower:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the apower of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are aperfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the awisdom of God in a bmystery, even the hidden cwisdom, which God dordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have acrucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, aEye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath bprepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath arevealed them unto us by his bSpirit: for the cSpirit dsearcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man aknoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God bknoweth no man, cbut the dSpirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the aspirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s awisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost bteacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the anatural man breceiveth not the things of the cSpirit of God: for they are dfoolishness unto him: neither can he eknow them, because they are fspiritually gdiscerned.

15 But he that is spiritual ajudgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may ainstruct him? But we have the bmind of Christ.

I hope this helps!

[PapilioMemnon]

Apology accepted, no problem.

I agree much with Islander that these exchanges are unprofitable; if you want to leard the way we see, please read and listen carefully, and keep on reading. An intelectual/scientific approach is not helpful in trying to understand something spiritual.

I'll just post this in other words to see if it helps at all:

I'd just like to say that we believe that baptism by immersion by one who has authority is the gate that a person enters to make a covenant with God after having faith, and repenting, and then, qualifying to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hand by one who has authority.

By fulfilling the required ordinances, then the same is reconciled to God by the Atonement of Jesus Christ that cleans us from our sins, and makes it possible to receive eternal life. "In order for us to be saved, one must rescue us," and that person was Jesus Christ. He satisfied the demands of justice in our places, and then, in His mercy, we receive forgiveness if we repent and continue in Him until the end.

In order for the Atonement to have power over the person, the same must have faith, repent, and be baptized by immersion for the remission of sins and receive the Holy Ghost by one who has authority to perform the ordinances of God.

We believe baptism is an ordinance that is required for salvation as the Lord taught us by giving us His own example, by going to the proper authority at the time who held the priesthood, John the Baptist, and being baptized of Him, then receiving the Holy Ghost.

Another reason we believe that baptism is required is because that was preached: "Repent and be baptized..."

Mark 1: 4

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Acts 2: 38

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the gHoly Ghost.

But, baptism is an ordinance that by itself cannot save us; the Atonement of Christ is the means that cleans us from sin, and through obedience to the commandments He gave us, we can achieve salvation.

Link (Click on Additional Info as well after opening the link): LDS.org - Topic Definition - Atonement of Jesus Christ

"Jesus Christ redeems all people from the effects of the Fall. All people who have ever lived on the earth and who ever will live on the earth will be resurrected and brought back into the presence of God to be judged (see 2 Nephi 2:5–10; Helaman 14:15–17). Through the Savior's gift of mercy and redeeming grace, we will all receive the gift of immortality and live forever in glorified, resurrected bodies.

Although we are redeemed unconditionally from the universal effects of the Fall, we are accountable for our own sins. But we can be forgiven and cleansed from the stain of sin if we "apply the atoning blood of Christ" (Mosiah 4:2). We must exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent, be baptized for the remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. "

--------------------------

* Elder Bruce R. McConkie - What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace? - Link:Audio Formats

--------------------------

I finish this, and make Paul's words mine (Emphasis added):

1 Corinthians 2

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the atestimony of God.

2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, asave Jesus Christ, and him bcrucified.

3 And I was with you in aweakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

4 And my aspeech and my preaching was not with benticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the cSpirit and of dpower:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the apower of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are aperfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

7 But we speak the awisdom of God in a bmystery, even the hidden cwisdom, which God dordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have acrucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, aEye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath bprepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath arevealed them unto us by his bSpirit: for the cSpirit dsearcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man aknoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God bknoweth no man, cbut the dSpirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the aspirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s awisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost bteacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the anatural man breceiveth not the things of the cSpirit of God: for they are dfoolishness unto him: neither can he eknow them, because they are fspiritually gdiscerned.

15 But he that is spiritual ajudgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may ainstruct him? But we have the bmind of Christ.

I hope this helps!