Is the baptism part of the gospel message?

[HeavensHound]

Joseph Smith’s teachings concerning priesthood makes up one of the very many differences between traditional Christianity also as it constitutes a special part of Latter-day Saint faith. The priesthood, according Latter-day Saints, has two specific meanings. 1) It is authority from God to act in his name, and 2) power to accomplish God’s purposes.

Mormons believe Joseph Smith received such authority and power directly from God and that ordinances of the church performed without divine authority have no binding effect outside this life including or especially in baptism. According to traditional Chritianity we are all priest and have authority to excerise that preisthood through Christ.

Rev 1:5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

According to the Bible we don't have need that any man teach us and we have the authority and responsibility to try the spirits of what is being taught to us by any who claim God's authority. 1Jn. 2: 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

"Baptism is NOT a part of the Gospel message. Rather, it is one of the aspects of our response of faith TO the Gospel message. Baptism would fall under the category of Doctrine: critical teaching to which one who has heard the gospel must be immediately exposed so as to know how to respond to God's gracious offer contained in the Gospel. Salvation enters the equation in that God's gracious offer spurned results in condemnation. The "Gospel" is the message of what God has done for us through the gift of His Son's self-sacrifice for our atonement and redemption. Our response to that offer will determine our eternal fate. If we choose to accept that gift of life -- and baptism is a demonstration of that accepting faith -- then we shall receive immortality. If we refuse His gift, our fate will be an everlasting forfeiture of life. Thus, immersion is clearly NOT a part of the Gospel, but is rather an integral part of our response to it.

In my opinion, baptizing someone is not about "authority" (especially not about the "authority" of the one performing it), rather it is simply an honor and privilege to help facilitate another's entrance into the One Body. We are all merely servants in that process; no one servant superior to another. Thus, there is no authority to usurp in simply immersing a penitent believer into Christ." (al maxey)

Edited June 28, 2009 by HeavensHound

[Hemidakota]

Then why bother with baptism if there is no reason [beside honor and a privilege] for it? You failed me on this one.

[Justice]

I don't believe those quotes are directed at "all members of the Church." When they say "we" they are speaking about "those" who have that authority.

Your interpretation that everyone is included is curious. How did you arrive at that?

Since those who are speaking in your quotes have that authority, it's just as easily interpreted as "those of us who have been given this authority." In fact, the words suggest it to me. King or Priest would be one ordained and holds such authority. Where was there ever a king or priest that was not given authority?

The difference is that you don't understand the authority the Apostles held, and gave to worthy male members.

Matthew 16:

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Whatever they do will be honored in heaven. Jesus gave it to the Twelve that day and told them not to tell anyone.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Justice

[AnthonyB]

Hemi,

I think that the OP was trying to say that there is no need for a specific prienthood or connectedness with any particular group/church to be the person doing the dunking. He think he wasn't refering to the "dunkee".

LDS hold that only baptism performed by a priesthood holder with a true priesthood can do a real baptism. The poster is saying that anyone can do it.

(Although I don't agree with the idea that baptism is not part of the gospel. Baptism formed part of Peter's sermon and of mulitple versions of the great commission.)

[Justice]

This is where I love the Book of Mormon.

Ether 4:

18 Therefore, repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.

Whether or not you deem it part of the Gospel message of Christ isn't the issue. The issue is that no matter what it's a part of, it's a commandment, and it IS necessary for salvation.

Interestingly enough, baptism isn't the end-all ordinance, there are others. I don't view this as a complete list of things we must do, but a beginning, because Christ gave us commandments we have to keep.

[HeavensHound]

There are many uses of the term "baptism" within the pages of the New Covenant writings. Thus, it is totally fallacious to assume they all have reference to water baptism. Jesus, by way of a singular example, spoke of a baptism He would soon experience, and which many of His disciples would experience as well [Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50]. This was an immersion into suffering and death, however, which had nothing to do with the rite of water baptism. Let us always remember those three essential rules of biblical interpretation: context, context, context!! It can prove to be a life saver ... literally!

When the Holy Spirit plunges us completely and intimately into Jesus, we are so utterly immersed in Him that we are daily thereafter increasingly transformed into His character, overwhelmed with His grace, and endowed with His gifts. It is this immersion of which Paul speaks, NOT the rite of water baptism. It is an immersion performed BY the Spirit of God that incorporates us into the Son and thus not only unites us with Him, but also with all others who have been thusly incorporated by the Spirit into the Son. THEREIN is the basis of our unity and oneness!! Paul tells us that when this is our reality, we, in effect, have cast off our "old man" and have "put on the new self" who is being transformed into the very image of the One into whom we have been immersed -- "a renewal in which there's no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all" [Col. 3:10-11]. It is an immersion we dare not deny, and dare not diminish, both of which I believe we do when we seek to restrict the meaning of "immersion" in these passages to the rite of water baptism.

Does this perception in any way whatsoever diminish the place of water baptism as a visible demonstration of faith; as an evidence essential to our faith response? Of course not. I am in no way suggesting such a thing. I am merely suggesting that perhaps we have misapplied the above passages in our zeal to prove a particular doctrine and practice that, frankly, if one is not careful, can be easily given improper emphasis and thereby abused. Water baptism most definitely has its place in the process that leads us to and evidences our union with Christ Jesus. I fear, however, that too many for too long have elevated it to such a place of distinction that the work of the Spirit has been all but forgotten, if not replaced altogether. This is dangerous, and such a practice really needs to be challenged.

IMO, I personally find nothing within the Scriptures that suggests anyone's baptism is rendered void or invalid due to who or the words spoken prior to immersion by the one performing that act.

[Justice]

There are many uses of the term "baptism" within the pages of the New Covenant writings. Thus, it is totally fallacious to assume they all have reference to water baptism.

Fallacious? The Greek word for baptism literally means "to immerse in water."

Fallacious? Jesus spoke of water baptism plainly, yet people bend and twist because they don't want to believe it. They don't know how to reconcile those who have not been baptized before they die.

The fallacy is assuming He's NOT referring to water because He's referring to other things as well. Why can't it have multiple meanings, like so many other things in the scriptures? He wasn't talking about *just* water baptism, no, but He most certainly WAS talking about water baptism.

John 3:

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.

People try to overcomplicate this. The Book of Momron makes it clear.

If you follow Jesus you will follow Him into water baptism.

Do you know baptism is of 2 parts? Water is just the first part of it. There is another. There is a Spirit baptism also. Joseph Smith said (paraphrasing) You may as well baptize a bag of sand instead of a man if you do not baptize him with the spirit afterward.

I just have 1 question about the rest of your post.

Was Jesus baptized in water?

C'mon, this makes no sense. You're thinking past the mark. Jesus is the One who didn't need baptism, but He was baptized because it was a commandment of His Father. That makes it necessary.

You need the Book of Mormon. It is much more clear on this subject. Many people have twisted the the Bible's teachings on this subject.

3 Nephi 7:

24 Now I would have you to remember also, that there were none who were brought unto repentance who were not baptized with water.

25 Therefore, there were ordained of Nephi, men unto this ministry, that all such as should come unto them should be baptized with water, and this as a witness and a testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins.

3 Nephi 11:

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.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

Alma 19:

35 And it came to pass that there were many that did believe in their words; and as many as did believe were baptized; and they became a righteous people, and they did establish a church among them.

Alma 32: 16

16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

[Justice]

IMO, I personally find nothing within the Scriptures that suggests anyone's baptism is rendered void or invalid due to who or the words spoken prior to immersion by the one performing that act.

So, Christ told the Twelve that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

Is that not the granting of authority? Is He not saying the Father will honor whatever they bind or loose?

If you do not believe that's what it means, I hope you'll explain your interpretation.

[HeavensHound]

So, Christ told the Twelve that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

Is that not the granting of authority? Is He not saying the Father will honor whatever they bind or loose?

If you do not believe that's what it means, I hope you'll explain your interpretation.

I believe that! They were given that authority, but we have also been given that authority. And it is not because we are worthy. It is because of what Christ has done for us.

Edited June 28, 2009 by HeavensHound

[HeavensHound]

By the way, being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is not a water baptism.

Edited June 28, 2009 by HeavensHound

[HeavensHound]

"The noted theologian F. W. Robertson went straight to the heart of the issue when he observed, "The baptismal question is this: Whether we are baptized because we are the children of God, or whether we are the children of God because we are baptized; whether we are to understand thereby that we are made something which we were not before -- magically and mysteriously changed, or, that we are made the children of God by baptism in the same sense that a sovereign is made a sovereign by coronation." Others have asked the same question, but with different illustrations. The wedding ceremony, for example. Is it a signed and stamped marriage certificate, duly recorded by a county clerk, that marks the moment of union between man and wife? Is it words pronounced by a minister in an official ceremony that joins the pair? Or is this public ceremony and its legal certificate simply a visible demonstration of a covenant already entered into by a man and woman deeply devoted to one another, and who had already pledged their commitment to one another for life? Is the former merely visible evidence of the latter? Or, does the latter not truly exist in reality until the completion of the former?

These are questions that God's people have pondered for centuries, with good, honest, godly men strongly advocating both positions. Needless to say, both sides take their perspectives most seriously, with many regarding the matter to be a "salvation issue." Group #1 will condemn group #2 for diminishing the place of immersion in God's plan of salvation and proclaiming salvation by faith only, while group #2 will condemn group #1 for elevating the place of immersion in God's plan and proclaiming salvation by meritorious works of law. It is essentially the age-old battle of Law versus Grace, Works versus Faith, and, in most cases, neither side fully comprehends the position of the other, thus leading to ever increasing confusion, condemnation, and castigation. The reality is that both camps are probably closer to agreement on the issue than either realizes. Lack of communion is far too frequently simply a matter of lack of communication!

Perhaps Max Lucado summed it up best when he wrote, "Our danger is to swing to one of two extremes: we make baptism either too important or too unimportant. Either we deify it or we trivialize it. One can see baptism as the essence of the gospel or as irrelevant to the gospel. Both sides are equally perilous" (Baptism: The Demonstration of Devotion, p. 1). There is absolutely no question as to the importance of baptism to God's plan of salvation for fallen man. It is an essential feature. It is vital. It should never be trivialized. However, neither should it be virtually deified as THE focus of God's plan. It is an aspect of that plan, but I would no more characterize it as the pivotal point than I would confession or repentance. Each of these is critical, but the CENTER of God's plan of salvation is JESUS CHRIST, with God's grace and man's faith being the two dominant characteristics that make this wondrous gift of salvation accessible to all." (Al Maxey)

Edited June 28, 2009 by HeavensHound

[Traveler]

HeavensHound: Obviously you do not believe the Bible.

1. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the mediator between The Father and man.

2. The Bible teaches that to understand Jesus is to understand the Father.

3. The Bible teaches that Jesus did nothing except it was according to the will of the Father.

4. The Bible teaches that Jesus did nothing but that he was COMMANDED of the Father.

5. The Bible teaches that Jesus was baptized. Therefore we know that Baptism is a commandment from the Father and is according to the will of the Father and the Son.

I believe the Bible and I believe that you have come here to teach false doctrine contrary to the will and commandment of G-d as given to us in the example of Jesus Christ. It also appears to me that you do not believe in Jesus Christ any more than you believe in the Bible. This is my opinion according to my belief in the sacred Bible scriptures, my belief that Jesus was the Christ and the Messiah of G-d and that the baptism of Jesus was a true witness of the will and commandment of G-d the Father.

The Traveler

Edited June 28, 2009 by Traveler

[Ezequiel]

guys, dont play into this. He has already made up his mind and closed his heart to whatever anyone of us can say. No matter how many scriptural points we bring up. Unfortunetly, it seems like our fellow christian just stopped by to "prove us wrong".

[AnthonyB]

By the way, being baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire is not a water baptism.

I don't want to get into an unprofitable discussion but I'm curious, what do you make of Eph 4:5 and there being "one baptism"? Sounds like you believe that there are two Christian baptisms.

As for those of us who think baptism is an effective expression of faith and not just a pantomine, it isn't about "faith alone" (or "faith from first to last" as I like to say it) but what is "faith". Is it mere mental assent or should it be a full person response to the gospel.

Jesus Christ is clearly the centre of the gospel but your question was "Is baptism part of the gospel message?" not "What is the centre of the gospel?"

I think...

AC 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

AC 8:36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?"

Jesus is the summary of the whole message, the centre of it and the response is immediate baptism as the expression of faith in Jesus.

I'm a little uncertain at your point in your initial post, are you saying the "good news" is only what you get but not how you get it? Surely being told how to receive a gift is part of being able to get the gift?

Edited June 28, 2009 by AnthonyB

[dnc76v22]

guys, dont play into this. He has already made up his mind and closed his heart to whatever anyone of us can say. No matter how many scriptural points we bring up. Unfortunetly, it seems like our fellow christian just stopped by to "prove us wrong".

In other words we are in danger of ?

[Snow]

There are many uses of the term "baptism" within the pages of the New Covenant writings. Thus, it is totally fallacious to assume they all have reference to water baptism. Jesus, by way of a singular example, spoke of a baptism He would soon experience, and which many of His disciples would experience as well [Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50]. This was an immersion into suffering and death, however, which had nothing to do with the rite of water baptism. Let us always remember those three essential rules of biblical interpretation: context, context, context!! It can prove to be a life saver ... literally!

When the Holy Spirit plunges us completely and intimately into Jesus, we are so utterly immersed in Him that we are daily thereafter increasingly transformed into His character, overwhelmed with His grace, and endowed with His gifts. It is this immersion of which Paul speaks, NOT the rite of water baptism. It is an immersion performed BY the Spirit of God that incorporates us into the Son and thus not only unites us with Him, but also with all others who have been thusly incorporated by the Spirit into the Son. THEREIN is the basis of our unity and oneness!! Paul tells us that when this is our reality, we, in effect, have cast off our "old man" and have "put on the new self" who is being transformed into the very image of the One into whom we have been immersed -- "a renewal in which there's no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all" [Col. 3:10-11]. It is an immersion we dare not deny, and dare not diminish, both of which I believe we do when we seek to restrict the meaning of "immersion" in these passages to the rite of water baptism.

Does this perception in any way whatsoever diminish the place of water baptism as a visible demonstration of faith; as an evidence essential to our faith response? Of course not. I am in no way suggesting such a thing. I am merely suggesting that perhaps we have misapplied the above passages in our zeal to prove a particular doctrine and practice that, frankly, if one is not careful, can be easily given improper emphasis and thereby abused. Water baptism most definitely has its place in the process that leads us to and evidences our union with Christ Jesus. I fear, however, that too many for too long have elevated it to such a place of distinction that the work of the Spirit has been all but forgotten, if not replaced altogether. This is dangerous, and such a practice really needs to be challenged.

IMO, I personally find nothing within the Scriptures that suggests anyone's baptism is rendered void or invalid due to who or the words spoken prior to immersion by the one performing that act.

PLAGIARISM ALERT

I get such a kick when people behave unethically while trying to preach the gospel.

[volgadon]

Baptism is the outward token of our covenant. Covenants have to be accompanied by a token. This token can only be administered by an appointed representative. This is a scriptural as it comes.

[volgadon]

Noted and preeminent biblical scholar Frank Moore Cross has written on covenants.

[Justice]

The noted theologian F. W. Robertson went straight to the heart of the issue when he observed, "The baptismal question is this: Whether we are baptized because we are the children of God, or whether we are the children of God because we are baptized; whether we are to understand thereby that we are made something which we were not before -- magically and mysteriously changed, or, that we are made the children of God by baptism in the same sense that a sovereign is made a sovereign by coronation."

What people like your source here miss is obedience. So many Christians think that since we can't be perfectly obedient that that means we don't have to be obedient. That makes no sense at all. That's like saying since you can't pass your driving test you don't have to take it, you can just have a license.

You do because you believe.

If you claim to believe and don't do, then you really don't believe.

Matthew 7:

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 6: 46

46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

So, it's a catch 22. Yes, this man you quoted is partially right. We are baptized because we believe. However, how can you claim to be a child of God if you are not willing to be obedient to God's commandments?

Show me where God ever said that it wasn't necessary for us to follow ANY of His commandments.

What most people exclude from this discussion is that we are to repent when we sin. It's not that "since you can't be perfect you don't have to keep the commandments."

Edited June 28, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

guys, dont play into this. He has already made up his mind and closed his heart to whatever anyone of us can say. No matter how many scriptural points we bring up. Unfortunetly, it seems like our fellow christian just stopped by to "prove us wrong".

It's OK. I really don't mind having these discussions. It's one way I can keep my saw sharp.

[Justice]

PLAGIARISM ALERT

I get such a kick when people behave unethically while trying to preach the gospel.

Yep, that's the thing that bothers me most, is why can't people speak in their own words?

Besides, if I was going to quote someone, I'd quote someone who gave it a little more thought.

[Justice]

I believe that! They were given that authority, but we have also been given that authority. And it is not because we are worthy. It is because of what Christ has done for us.

So, Christ did what He did for all mankind. Does that mean an Atheist can baptize us?

If you say no then you are headed down the path of "authority required." You just need to understand how that authority comes.

Moroni 2:

1 The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them—

2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.

Christ laid His hands on them and gave them authority to lay their hands on others, just like He did to the Apostles at Jerusalem.

You're exactly right, we don't get this authority because we are worthy. But, can we get this authority if we believe we do not have to keep His commandments? How can He show you greater things if you are not even willing to keep His commandments in small things first? If you do not get baptized because you do not believe you need to, then you can never be in His Church, nor can you even see God's Kingdom. Why would He make such a person a priest?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Justice

[Justice]

Each of these is critical, but the CENTER of God's plan of salvation is JESUS CHRIST, with God's grace and man's faith being the two dominant characteristics that make this wondrous gift of salvation accessible to all.

Man cannot demonstrate faith unless he is up and doing God's commandments.

If a man feels he doesn't have to do them then what will motivate him to have faith?

This is a very old discussion, and with your stance, one you will not win here. Every commandment God gives is necessary, including repentance when we fall short. The most important part of repentance is that we do that thing we have been commanded to do that we did not do, and that we stop doing that thing we have been commanded not to do.

So, if the commandment is to repent and be baptized, and we only repent, we need to repent of not being baptized... meaning in order to show true repentance we need to be baptized. Repentance is the equalizer in our lives. It is how we learn to become obedient to Christ. It is how we come to Christ, we hear His voice and follow Him.

If we choose not to repent, how is that different than those who don't believe in Christ?

There is a saying that says you do not become a Christian by being at Church any more than a car become a car because it is in the garage.

What we do makes us Christian, just as much as what we do can make us not Christian. If you claim to believe in Christ then you will do what He says. If you do not do what He says then you cannot claim to be Christian... or if you do claim it, you are a hypocrite.

[bytebear]

I think this debate can be settled by two of the thirteen Articles of Faith (emphasis mine).

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

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

(A reminder. The Articles of Faith are scripture.)

Edited June 28, 2009 by bytebear

[NeuroTypical]

Hey Heavenshound - I see you're identifying yourself as being from the UK. You wouldn't happen to be a part of the Reachout Trust countercult ministry, would you? Your tactics remind me of some of them.

LM