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

[evangelical]

I would like to ask something about this " Grace alone " i know to most it is a simplistic type of question, but i am a simple human being.

Right if man is saved by Grace alone, then what is the day of judgment for.

And then would Jesus again be answerable for our sins. (Just a thought that popped into my head.)

Only Christians have the grace of God. The day of judgment is to separate the sheep, who have grace, from the goats, who don't. Our sins were on Jesus at the cross. If you speak of this as Him being answerable for them, that was already covered at the Crucifixion. So then, no, Jesus is not answerable for our sins again at the day of judgment.

[drjme]

Hey evangelical, Apologise in advance about my crazy text sizing etc. it seems to come out like that when it is submitted.

I thought you had gone? I'll PM you about your PM now that your back :)

This Grace alone argument If find interesting, especially if you encouraging people that baptism is not necessary (there are a lot of evangelicals that say it is not necessay at all) to me that is like gambling, especially with all the scripture we have saying it is neccessary.

I would like to start with the verse that is I believe very clear on the issue and others take that it means physical birth:

John 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

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.

Notice here he says 'Born AGAIN'' not just 'born'.

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.

Here saying 'marvel not that I say be born again, I am not talking about 'being born of the womb'

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

(the wind always blows, And you hear the sound of it(you know it is there) but cannot tell it’s origin, direction, destination, it cannot be defined: so is everyone that is born of the spirit) Refer to above text in red:

Nicodemus had received a witness of the holy ghost (v2) but Jesus said he needs to be born again to complete his ‘renewal’: Gal 3:27“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. “

Being born only in the spirit (accepting Christ 'spiritually' or his'Grace') is not complete. Yes, you know it is definite and real but cannot confirm it. Being born of water as well confirms your belief and allows you to enter the kingdom of God. Where Nicodemus’s ‘way’ has not been confirmed, Jesus goes on to tell him HE DOES KNOW THE WAY’ and it IS what HE says:

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

This passage clearly demonstrates the neccessity for baptism by water and baptism by fire.

Here is another interesting verse keep in mind the 4th article of faith (1st principle: faith)

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent (2nd: principle), and be baptized (3rd: ordinance) every one of you for

in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost . (4th: laying on of hands for...)

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.

Those that Gladly recieved the word, were baptized. and the day they were baptized(my interpretation) were added unto them 3000 souls.

Now I know the verse that is used to justify grace only that saves, but that interpretation cannot be reconciled with allthe other scriptures. The belief that baptism is required is reconciled with the 'grace saves' scripture, because His grace does save, baptism is where we 'enter in at the gate'.

What is this belief at the expense of ALL the other scriptures that say your agreement (through baptism) is required to assure your salvation. While we cannot save ourselves we CAN choose to accept or reject it, we have the agency. those that choose to believe that our 'acceptance of salvation' is in someway saving ourselves without the Grace of God, need to do a bit more reading up on the gift of agency. In light of this, those that encourage others that baptism is not neccessary, play a dangerous game, I believe, in teaching those new to the Gospel, to 'unknowingly' reject what is required of them, before indoctrinating them to disregard all other scriptures on the matter, and then perpetuate the myth themselves.

Edited August 30, 2008 by drjme

[evangelical]

This Grace alone argument If find interesting, especially if you encouraging people that baptism is not necessary (there are a lot of evangelicals that say it is not necessay at all) to me that is like gambling, especially with all the scripture we have saying it is neccessary.

The New Testament as a whole (the only Scripture we both agree on to deal significantly with baptism) makes it clear that baptism is important though not essential for salvation. There are versed which link baptism and salvation are a matter of correlation, not causation.

I would like to start with the verse that is I believe very clear on the issue and others take that it means physical birth:

Notice here he says 'Born AGAIN'' not just 'born'.

Here saying 'marvel not that I say be born again, I am not talking about 'being born of the womb'

So far so good, more or less.

(the wind always blows, And you hear the sound of it(you know it is there) but cannot tell it’s origin, direction, destination, it cannot be defined: so is everyone that is born of the spirit) Refer to above text in red:

Nicodemus had received a witness of the holy ghost (v2) but Jesus said he needs to be born again to complete his ‘renewal’:

Nicodemus does not receive a personal testimony in the Mormon sense in verse 2. He recognises Jesus as Messiah there, on the basis of objective evidence. Namely, the miracles Jesus performed which all present could have observed. Nicodemus does not say, "I prayed to God then recieved a feeling that you are the Messiah."

Gal 3:27“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. “

Notice what the baptism is into. Namely, the baptism here is into Christ, as opposed to, into water.

Being born only in the spirit (accepting Christ 'spiritually' or his'Grace') is not complete. Yes, you know it is definite and real but cannot confirm it. Being born of water as well confirms your belief and allows you to enter the kingdom of God. Where Nicodemus’s ‘way’ has not been confirmed, Jesus goes on to tell him HE DOES KNOW THE WAY’ and it IS what HE says:

"For by grace are ye saved," says the Bible. To know that something is definite and real is to confirm it. Being baptized into water confirms one's belief to the outside world. Only you can see inside you and know it is true in that way. In the very same chapter of John, either John or Jesus says, "he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed." Not "...because he does believe but has not been baptised yet. Finally, Nicodemus believed that Jesus is the Messiah. The demons believed that and trembled. They were certainly not saved.

This passage clearly demonstrates the neccessity for baptism by water and baptism by fire.

The ones who are baptised by fire are not the saved, it seems, or the baptised, but the people in Hell. Going to Hell is a baptism into fire. At least this is what the passage seems to be saying. Nicodemus is surprised by the idea of a second birth. But he has no problem with a first birth. Jesus explains that physical birth alone is not enough. Spiritual birth is also necessary. There is a stark contrast between the man who is only born physically, and the man who is also born spiritually. If one is born spiritually they will be baptised by the Spirit and go to Heaven. If one is only born physically, then they are not baptised by the Spirit and not go to Heaven. Instead they will be immersed in the flames of Hell. They are, in other words, baptised by fire.

Here is another interesting verse keep in mind the 4th article of faith (1st principle: faith)

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent (2nd: principle), and be baptized (3rd: ordinance) every one of you for in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost . (4th: laying on of hands for...)

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.

Those that Gladly recieved the word, were baptized. and the day they were baptized(my interpretation) were added unto them 3000 souls.

An acceptable meaning of 'for' is 'because of'. For example: Did you go to the doctor-yes-why-for my sickness. It is not that I am in search of a thing called 'my sickness' but rather that because of the sickness I already have, that I go to the doctor. The doctor visit is not the door through which I enter into sickness.

Now, you are tying in what you believe to the Bible. That is very comendable. But that is also what the people where doing in the days of the early creeds. It is necessary to base our faith on what we recognise as Scripture, but we must also be interpreting that Scripture properly. There is reason, within the New Testament, to take 'for' in the sense of 'because of'. I see no reason, in the context of the New Testament itself, to take 'for' in the causal sense which you want to give it. Which interpretation, mine or yours, should be considered more sound?

Now I know the verse that is used to justify grace only that saves, but that interpretation cannot be reconciled with allthe other scriptures. The belief that baptism is required is reconciled with the 'grace saves' scripture, because His grace does save, baptism is where we 'enter in at the gate'.

It is not that there is only one verse which appears to teach grace alone. Rather, the New Testament as a whole. There may or may not be verses in the other standard works, of course, but I do not personally accept those so to convince me, you must restrict attention to the Bible. Many passages explicitly teach that grace saves or grace alone. And 'grace saves' means 'grace saves'. It doesn't mean 'grace saves but we have to earn our salvation too." That violates the law of identity in logic (x is x). Is baptism the gate wherein we enter grace? If that is true then no baptism means no salvation. But the Bible says that if we have faith (faith is not faith and baptism) then we have grace. So the view that water baptism is necessary, as a pre-requisite, for salvation by grace is contrary to the Bible. If that doctrine is taught in the other standard works, then we see here where they do contradict the Bible. We are not saved by grace only after all we can do, according to the Bible. That is not salvation by grace alone.

What is this belief at the expense of ALL the other scriptures that say your agreement (through baptism) is required to assure your salvation. While we cannot save ourselves we CAN choose to accept or reject it, we have the agency. those that choose to believe that our 'acceptance of salvation' is in someway saving ourselves without the Grace of God, need to do a bit more reading up on the gift of agency. In light of this, those that encourage others that baptism is not neccessary, play a dangerous game, I believe, in teaching those new to the Gospel, to 'unknowingly' reject what is required of them, before indoctrinating them to disregard all other scriptures on the matter, and then perpetuate the myth themselves.

There are verses in the Bible that speak to the necessity of good works (including baptism) for the Christian but no verses that speak to the necessity of good works for salvation. That is anathema in the eyes of biblical authors. You are quite right that we may choose for or against Jesus. I have never denied the doctrine of agency. However, our choosing of Jesus is not what saves us. It is the grace of God which He bestows upon us that saves us. I suppose one could call our choice a kind of gate, but there is a radical difference between Mormon and biblical soteriology, as I understand. We have a great debt to God, says Joseph Smith, which Jesus paid off for us, as a loan. We have to pay back what He loaned us. Or in the Articles of Faith, we read that we have to be baptised to be saved and have the laying on of hands to be saved. On my view, we do absolutely nothing to be saved. God saves us with His grace, period. Pretty much everybody agrees that grace plus saves. The problem is that grace plus is not grace at all. Believing in grace plus, then, makes the gospel impotent to do anything.

[drjme]

The New Testament as a whole (the only Scripture we both agree on to deal significantly with baptism) makes it clear that baptism is important though not essential for salvation. There are versed which link baptism and salvation are a matter of correlation, not causation.

Nicodemus does not receive a personal testimony in the Mormon sense in verse 2. He recognises Jesus as Messiah there, on the basis of objective evidence.

Namely, the miracles Jesus performed which all present could have observed. Nicodemus does not say, "I prayed to God then recieved a feeling that you are the Messiah."

Who knows if he did or not? Does he even know he was THE Messiah? we know that It is the Father in Heaven that witnesses Christ (flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.) We will call him an investigator. And no the 'Objective evidence' is not neccessarily what causes his belief, otherwise all the other Pharisees would have recognised him by his miracles, but they did not. Also Jesus told his disciples to 'tell no man who I am':

Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Matt 16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets(notice they don't say Jesus)......20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

He may not even have known that He was THE Christ. more so He may have been 'pricked in his heart' to move towards the truth(acts2 :37...), the witness of the spirit provides the evidence, not the 'acts' in themselves.

you really have to look at John 3 using the other scriptures as reference., the whole passage is about Nicodemus not being able to understand the basics of the Gospel and jesus clarifying the two baptisms (water and fire/spirit), Jesus tells him 'We know the way, but ye recieve not our witness.' Nicodemus first comes to Jesus under cover of darkness, head Pharisee can't be caught communing with Jesus alone, now can he. He knows he is of God, but calls him Rabbi, man, and teacher from God. but nonetheless because only Through God can the miracles be achieved. Jesus does not rebuke him, but ministers unto him. Now you can assume from the passage it appears that nicodemus wants to learn of 'higher things' as the last quoted verse says:

12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

Why say this? because he is needs to understand the basics of the doctrine of Christ first, as defined:

HEB 6:1 Therefore leaving (moving on from) the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Basics are: 1: faith in God, 2: repentance from dead works (=sin), 3: baptism (water), 4:laying on of hands for Holy Ghost (second baptism by fire refer matt 3:11), 5: resurrection, 6: eternal life.

Notice what the baptism is into. Namely, the baptism here is into Christ, as opposed to, into water.

Really? are you sure :) and how are you baptized into Christ? by Immersion:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried (immersed into water) with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The sybolism here is directly refering to water Baptism by immersion ie Baptism unto Christ in a simultude of his death and ressurection. Basics. This is what the term 'born again' means, born into a 'newness of life', baptism symbolises the death of the 'old man' and being reborn into a new life in Christ.

"For by grace are ye saved," says the Bible.

To know that something is definite and real is to confirm it. Being baptized into water confirms one's belief to the outside world. Only you can see inside you and know it is true in that way. In the very same chapter of John, either John or Jesus says, "he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believed." Not "...because he does believe but has not been baptised yet. Finally, Nicodemus believed that Jesus is the Messiah.

The ones who are baptised by fire are not the saved, it seems, or the baptised, but the people in Hell. Going to Hell is a baptism into fire. At least this is what the passage seems to be saying.

uuuummm...no,

Matt. 3: 11

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Nicodemus is surprised by the idea of a second birth. But he has no problem with a first birth. Jesus explains that physical birth alone is not enough. Spiritual birth is also necessary. There is a stark contrast between the man who is only born physically, and the man who is also born spiritually. If one is born spiritually they will be baptised by the Spirit and go to Heaven. If one is only born physically, then they are not baptised by the Spirit and not go to Heaven. Instead they will be immersed in the flames of Hell. They are, in other words, baptised by fire.

Refer above

It is necessary to base our faith on what we recognise as Scripture, but we must also be interpreting that Scripture properly. There is reason, within the New Testament, to take 'for' in the sense of 'because of'. I see no reason, in the context of the New Testament itself, to take 'for' in the causal sense which you want to give it. Which interpretation, mine or yours, should be considered more sound?

*raised hand* oh! oh! ....mine?

There are verses in the Bible that speak to the necessity of good works (including baptism) for the Christian but no verses that speak to the necessity of good works for salvation. That is anathema in the eyes of biblical authors. You are quite right that we may choose for or against Jesus. I have never denied the doctrine of agency. However, our choosing of Jesus is not what saves us. It is the grace of God which He bestows upon us that saves us. I suppose one could call our choice a kind of gate, but there is a radical difference between Mormon and biblical soteriology, as I understand. We have a great debt to God, says Joseph Smith, which Jesus paid off for us, as a loan. We have to pay back what He loaned us. Or in the Articles of Faith, we read that we have to be baptised to be saved and have the laying on of hands to be saved. On my view, we do absolutely nothing to be saved. God saves us with His grace, period.

Yes Grace does save, As I said I am in complete agreement, Realise that Eternal life and salvation is a Free Gift Offered to all. Bit did you make a decision to accept Christ, Did you make a decision to accept his free gift? If yes, then you have done something, NOT absolutely nothing. Yes you have done nothing to redeem you from your sins and from the fall, Only Christ has done This. But you choose to accept this, So you Do do yourself, because you make a choice and accept a free gift, already offered, already paid for by Christ.

But, while you choose to believe that the acceptance of that free gift is simply making a choice, and that is it, I believe it is simply making a choice (accept the Gift) and then because I believe I would follow the path, doctrine and plan laid out BY Christ. The Baptism is a neccessary part of the 'Acceptance process'. Making the choice is only the first step on the straight and narrow path.

Mark16:15 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.

Now why does it not just say 'he that believeth shall be saved'? BECAUSE those that truly believe WILL be baptized. those that don't truly believe and understand the doctrine of Christ (HEB 6:1) will not be baptized.

Now, Lets get clear. Grace saves. there is nothing we can do for ourselves ie no amount of good works, deeds, etc. will redeem MYSELF from the fall, or my sins. Grace takes care of this, When I accept and believe in Christ. His Doctrine as defined above is the process you undertake to come unto Christ. Please Understand that I make it clear That Nothing we can do can redeem ourselves from our sins or death. We are in no way capable of saving ourselves without Christ. He IS the way, HE shows us the way. That by HIM and following HIS way is how we gain salvation. It cannot be earned because it is given to all freely. It is not us saving ourselves, it is us following HIS path that HE made that leads us to eternal life. We are not doing anything for ourselves because HE has already paid the price whether we choose to follow him or not. If we accept HIS grace by following HIM, the price is already paid. in this sense we do nothing for ourselves, BUT we Choose to Follow HIM, We Choose to accept HIS Gospel, We Choose to abide by HIS principles, We choose to live in Obedience to HIS conditions and we choose to recieve HIS ordinances.

It is all HIS, the part we play is in accepting HIS plan, And HIS plan is defined in the Sciptures, Baptism is a neccessay part of HIS plan for us. Now after all this you still want to think that we believe baptism is us saving ourselves, then I won't bother to reply anymore. The Grace is God's, The Doctrine of Christ and baptism is HIS plan laid out for us to follow. HE says it it neccesary, HIM I will follow.

just a couple of the many scriptures noting baptism:

• Luke 7: 29-30

  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.

• Acts 10: 47-48

  47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

  48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

• Matt. 28: 19

  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:

Edited August 31, 2008 by drjme

[Islander]

Evangelical:

I suspect that at this point there is little anyone could do by way of pointing to the NT to encourage you to examine it from a different philosophical frame of reference. Since you have already decided on the issue based on the teachings you have received, my last appeal to you in order to continue the exchange with some promise is the use of plain and common sense.

Would the Savior and the Apostles mention baptism if it was not important?

Would Christ engage in a practice which had no value or significance?

When it comes to theology and religion, just like any other academic or existential matter, resistance to change is a well documented fact. It is part of our nature to doubt, even ridicule, resist and at times actively oppose anything and everything that apparently threatens to dislodge foundational premises of our belief system. History is littered with such examples.

In summary, I suggest that the notion that baptism is not required is a man-derived conceptual position brought forth by the need to accommodate the reality that to perform such you must be duly and previously authorized by one that holds such authority or it is meaningless.

I read the Gospels 20 years before I was baptized, I had no pastors, or clergy of any kind to "teach" me for there was none trustworthy in the obscure corner of the world where I grew up. I found it, on my own in the scriptures. You should try reading the NT again as if you were there and never heard of this Jesus before. And see what happens.

[HiJolly]

Before we can accept truth, we must lay aside error. It is a scary and sometimes painful process.

3 Ne. 11: 37-38

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Repent means to change. Not only our actions, but our way of thinking, also. Do we wish to inherit the Kingdom of God?

• Matt. 18: 4

  4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

• Mark 10: 15

  15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

• Luke 18: 17

  17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

HiJolly

[evangelical]

Evangelical:

I suspect that at this point there is little anyone could do by way of pointing to the NT to encourage you to examine it from a different philosophical frame of reference. Since you have already decided on the issue based on the teachings you have received, my last appeal to you in order to continue the exchange with some promise is the use of plain and common sense.

Would the Savior and the Apostles mention baptism if it was not important?

Would Christ engage in a practice which had no value or significance?

When it comes to theology and religion, just like any other academic or existential matter, resistance to change is a well documented fact. It is part of our nature to doubt, even ridicule, resist and at times actively oppose anything and everything that apparently threatens to dislodge foundational premises of our belief system. History is littered with such examples.

In summary, I suggest that the notion that baptism is not required is a man-derived conceptual position brought forth by the need to accommodate the reality that to perform such you must be duly and previously authorized by one that holds such authority or it is meaningless.

I read the Gospels 20 years before I was baptized, I had no pastors, or clergy of any kind to "teach" me for there was none trustworthy in the obscure corner of the world where I grew up. I found it, on my own in the scriptures. You should try reading the NT again as if you were there and never heard of this Jesus before. And see what happens.

My teachings are based on the New Testament itself. If you can show me why I should interepret it as you do, then you could get me to change my mind. Your interpretation must be shown to be sound. The teachings that I have recieved, are the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ which I find in the NT itself. You seem to be under the false impression that I just blindly accept whatever my pastor has told me. Not so. Everything that I have been saying to you in this thread is, I think, based on plain and common sense.

The answer to the two questions you next ask is obvious. I agree that baptism is important and of vast significance. These rhetorical questions are an example of you soundly giving me common sense. Please, keep such sound reason comming.

Your next paragraph is very true. Change is hard to find in religion and theology at times. I must clarify something, however. I am not ridiculing you or your beliefs. Rather, I am saying that your views are simply mistaken if my interpretation of the Bible is correct. I think my interpretation is sound and have been willing to explain why. You do not accept my interpretation. Why? If the answer is because you have prayed and recieved a feeling that your views are correct, then that is subjective. You are the subject in this case, not me, and so I see no reason to accept your interpretation. If you'd like to give me an objective argument, I would be happy to reconsider my position in light of that. Now, you have given objective arguments in the past. I accept the NT and in there you have pointed to statements of Jesus and others, which may be objectively examined by everyone, to see the importance of baptism. You have made your case on that point. But that was not what was at issue. What was, and is, at issue is that Mormon belief as a whole is in conflict with Bible teaching, as I interpret it, as a whole. For example, if a person dies without being baptised and nobody every recieves proxy baptism in their place, that person may still be saved. They may even be amongst the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. According to the articles of faith, however, if there is no baptism then there is no salvation.

You conclude with a statement about authority. I realise that the doctrine of authority plays a major role to your way of thinking. But I do not see any reason to accept that doctrine. Can you give me one (other than praying and feeling)? Jesus instructed His apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The authority is in this name. If I robed a bank and heard, as I was fleeing the scene, "stop in the name of the law," what would I naturally suppose? That a police officer was behind me. A police officer has the authority to enforce the law. So 'the name of' means 'the authority of.' Baptism is to be done in the authority of God. Where does the Bible say that a person can only do this if they are visited by Peter, James, and John and recieve, in some sense, keys from them? Nowhere. And so, we see no restriction on who can baptise in the authority of God.

Of course, there is one verse in which we read about binding and loosing and keys. In Matthew 16:16 Peter says, "Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God." It is plausible that by "keys," mentioned right after this, are meant the knowledge/proclamation that Jesus is a. the Christ and b. the Son of the living God. In the absence of other scripture to clarify, it is dangerous to say that it definitely does not mean that and, instead, it definitely means that Peter has to visit Joseph Smith, and give him the keys, which are thereafter conferred by laying on of hands.

You see, I am giving arguments for my interpretations. On the other hand, I believe I am correct in saying, that you merely appeal to a modern day prophet. A modern day prophet, that is, whom you ultimately accept as such, only on the subjective basis of prayer and feeling. So 1. my beliefs are based on the Bible (not the teachings of men) and 2. I have objective reason to interpret the Bible in the way that I do (which makes my interpretation seem more likely true than yours).

And what I have been trying to get you to understand since the very first post of this thread is that in most cases (and I would say also in the case of being a Mormon as well) we do not merely pray and then after we get a certain feeling, automatically accept what somebody else, say a 19th century religious leader, is claiming to be the truth. To behave in such a way, pray-feel-believe, seems incredibly dangerous to me. I strongly encourage you to reconsider your faith.

[evangelical]

HEB 6:1 Therefore leaving (moving on from) the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Basics are: 1: faith in God, 2: repentance from dead works (=sin), 3: baptism (water), 4:laying on of hands for Holy Ghost (second baptism by fire refer matt 3:11), 5: resurrection, 6: eternal life.

These are the basics of the faith. And since you don't properly understand them, I must explain them to you. Before we go on to solid meat, we must stick with the milk.

... and how are you baptized into Christ? by Immersion:

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried (immersed into water) with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

The sybolism here is directly refering to water Baptism by immersion ie Baptism unto Christ in a simultude of his death and ressurection. Basics. This is what the term 'born again' means, born into a 'newness of life', baptism symbolises the death of the 'old man' and being reborn into a new life in Christ.

Yes, you recognise the symbollic nature of water baptism. What does it symbolize? True baptism or the new birth. Water baptism is only a symbol. I am already married. I wear a wedding band to symbolize what has already taken place in the past. Putting on the ring each day is not what causes the marriage. It is only a symbol.

You gave no reason to accept your interpretation of 'for'.

to be continued

[drjme]

Evangelical, you said:

You see, I am giving arguments for my interpretations........... Rather, I am saying that your views are simply mistaken if my interpretation of the Bible is correct

You are not addressing any of the scriptures we are providing from the bible that contradict your interpretation and position. You do the classic head turn, and ignore.

As long as you do this, You will get nowhere.

[brother01]

In the OT certain elements of religious rite were performed by a certain priesthood. God didn't work miracles to make those not of that linage of priesthood to become one authorized. You were either born into those charged with that duty or you were not. That was the old, and Jesus came to fulfill those things that He might make one man of the two.

Per Jesus' teachings one cannot know that He is the Son of God except God Himself reveals that to the person. Also, when that has been revealed and the person acts in faith to that witness of God, then it is also God who gives the Spirit at baptism...Acts 2:38,39. It was the exception of baptism and not being aware or baptism of John, that the apostles gave the gift of the Holy Spirit. In no case where people heard the gospel message in wholeness do we find that the Holy Spirit was granted by the laying on of hands.

I've talked to a number of LDS who witness this as true because they said they definately felt the presence of the Spirit immediately at baptism, not when they later had hands lain on them to receive the Spirit by the authority of those laying hands on them as received authority by the doctrine of Joseph Smith Jr.

Jesus clearly said, "Those that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, he who do not believe will be condemned." This puts the difference clearly on belief or unbelief, not being baptized by one in authority versus not being baptized by one with authority. Since Jesus clearly, in the great commission, said to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things He have commanded and to baptize the disciples they made - further clarified by the immediate teaching upon the day of Penticost as directed by their being filled with the Holy Spirit. We are not His disciples except we seek to do His will and keep His word. Also note in the great commission that the disciples were to teach what Jesus taught them - not what Jesus was going to teach them through later direct teaching as though He forgot to tell them other things:-)

[drjme]

These are the basics of the faith. And since you don't properly understand them, I must explain them to you. Before we go on to solid meat, we must stick with the milk.

Classic…. love the condecension....So what's the meat? We now have scripture clearly defining the doctrine and basics of the Gospel, we have multiple scriptures clearly defining the actions taken by the early church leaders in carrying out those principles and ordinances and so defining them further, we have accounts of the early church fathers confirming those again. We have these same principles and ordinances restored and reconfirmed through latterday prophets of God. and it's still wrong... hhmmm.

Yes, you recognise the symbollic nature of water baptism. What does it symbolize? True baptism or the new birth. Water baptism is only a symbol. I am already married. I wear a wedding band to symbolize what has already taken place in the past. Putting on the ring each day is not what causes the marriage. It is only a symbol.

I would compare it more to the wedding, the signing of the marriage certificate, defining by action the things you said you were going to do and making it an official commitment. Whether you like it or not the History of Christianity is full of symbolism. It is part of helping us understand what we are doing and why, a way of demonstrating a complicated subject in simple terms, the action of confirming a binding covenant between us and God in a way we can relate and understand.

Note above scriptures and ask these questions:

Q:why did sinners justify God in being baptized?

Q:John baptized with water unto repentance, why was Jesus baptized when he was perfect?

Q:Why does it say ‘those who believe and are baptized, will be saved’, not just ‘those who believe, will be saved’?

Q: why was baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ and what does this mean?

Q: what are the attributes of the believer who has received water baptism?

Hint: Old life is dead, Sins washed away, Free from old sins, born into a newness of life.

You gave no reason to accept your interpretation of 'for'.

I really don't know what you are trying to get at here, we are not going to argue semantics, because the meanings of the verses are very clear. 'because' is an acceptable conjunction. It does not alter the meaning of the verse.

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried (immersed into water) with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 because if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

7 because he that is dead is freed from sin.

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 Because 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.

Now I could keep quoting more and more scriptures from the bible to confirm our beliefs, and I haven’t even got to the BOM yet. But I think I will leave it there with you evangelical. You need say no more to show me how far in error you are.

[Islander]

Evangelical - It is obvious you already decided on the interpretation and the application of the doctrine and it seems yours differs from LDS doctrine. Where do we go from here? It is also obvious that until this day you have not tried to explore our position (which in theory is the reason why you came into the forum in the first place) but continue to hammer your point of view in an argumentative way that, truly, will lead nowhere.

"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."

There can not be a more precise and transparent exhortation and explanation in the NT for and the reasons to be baptized. To argue otherwise is to attempt something that I rather not define here in order to keep the exchange civil.

What else should we say?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Islander

[brother01]

Evangelical - It is obvious you already decided on the interpretation and the application of the doctrine and it seems yours differs from LDS doctrine. Where do we go from here? It is also obvious that until this day you have not tried to explore our position (which in theory is the reason why you came into the forum in the first place) but continue to hammer your point of view in an argumentative way that, truly, will lead nowhere.

"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."

There can not be a more precise and transparent exhortation and explanation in the NT for and the reasons to be baptized. To argue otherwise is to attempt something that I rather not define here in order to keep the exchange civil.

What else should we say?

Let's never forget that what Peter said is the very promise of God till Jesus comes again at the end of the age... at least till then....

The restoration of the doctrine about baptism is not a new thing. It is a battleground that has been contended for throughout the generations since Peter first gave those words by revelation of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Peter directly answered the question posed by those who had come to know who Jesus was, the Messiah, and that they had killed Him. They believed after He resurrected and was known about town until His return to the Father. The issue of how others think baptism is not necessary baffles me. Jesus commanded baptism of disciples. The Holy Spirit declared it as well, as did all the apostles. Sure, it isn't just being dunked in water, it must be mixed with faith and the truth of the pophetic word made sure. The Holy Spirit is not merely the Comforter, but the Spirit of truth. How can one have the Spirit of Truth and not acknowledge what the Spirit reveals to be the truth?????

How can they read the teachings of Jesus Christ = the very doctrine of God to all men, and then come away from those things and not realize it is about repenting and doing good. What we do and believe = our works. In light of His teachings, it seems many are in denial to the point of rejecting the very words of God that Jesus gave us all.

One Disciple to Another

John 7:16,17; "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority."

John 14:23,24; "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me."

John 8: 31,32; "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

If we don't desire to do those things then our faith is in nothing but what we imagine, and God has never spoken well of anyone who follows his own heart or imaginations - let alone doctrines of demons.

Edited September 11, 2008 by brother01