Only mentioned once.

[Lost_one]

My Brother is talking with a friend and has hit a snag.

His friend has brought up the subject of Baptism for the dead and the fact that its only mentioned once. Are there other things that are only mentioned once in the New Testament which are common practice in most Christian churches. What we want to show is that the Baptism for the dead is not unique in only being mentioned once.

He is also talking about other Temple Ordinances not having any scriptural basis in the New Testament.

As you can see, he seems to base his whole faith on the New Testament only and will not accept quotes from the BoM or even the Old Testament.

My Brother feels that this guy could be a real possability for joining the church, as long as we can get past the indoctrination of his Catholic upbringing. He goes to a modern style church now however, Not exactly born again, But with some elements of that. This is where he gets the idea that the New Testament is all that matters and the Old Testament as simply being a history book, with no real spiritual value.

Thanks

[mnn727]

As you can see, he seems to base his whole faith on the New Testament only and will not accept quotes from the BoM or even the Old Testament.

Unless you can get him past that - there is no hope.

Find out his feeling on mordern revelation -- Can (and does) God still talk to man? if not, why not? - Prove to him from the N.T. that God still talks to and gives revelation to mankind even after Christs death/resurrection.

Point out there were Prophets mentioned in the NT after Christs death/resurrection. Point out there was still revelation to both the Church as a whole (the Book of Revelation) and individuals (Saul/Paul, Peter, etc) after Christs death/resurrection, if thats the case and it was as printed in the N.T. - why then does he think God stopped talking to mankind in the same way He always had (He is afterall unchanging - right?)

[volgadon]

Look at the context in which Paul mentions it.

At any rate, it was practiced by the early Christians, until the council of Carthage, in the 4th century AD.

[Ezequiel]

....As you can see, he seems to base his whole faith on the New Testament only.....

well, there is his major hang up!~

For someone to limit the words of an infinite and eternal God to a few pages of scripture would only show his very limited understanding of God and his relationship to us. It would also mean that God was a dissinterested with humanity. Or at least, dissinterested with the people that came before and after the few pages of the NT.

Unfortunetly the one reference to baptism for the dead is really really obscure, and in the content that it was used, Paul wans't even teaching about that doctrine, but the doctrine of ressurrection. To discuss the doctrine of baptism for the dead with soemone who has his heart closed, will benefit in nothing. I think that just as mention in the posts above, he needs to understand revelation. Infact, I think he actually needs to understand the Atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel before anything else.

Once he understands that the Atonement is infinite, and that EVERYONE must have faith, repent, and be be baptised for the remission of their sin in order to qualify for salvation; authority, revelation, Joseph Smith, and baptism for the dead will all fall in their respective places. Good luck, and keep us posted!~

[ztodd]

I agree the real issue is whether he is willing to find out through prayer and study whether there can be modern prophets of the same authority as biblical prophets, and how to know if they are true prophets.

I'm curious of your question though about other practices that are common today but are not mentioned often in the bible, if anyone knows of any others.

[Justice]

I have spoken to people about this very topic. To be blunt, I think the fact that it's only mentioned once in the Bible is a very poor excuse for not believing it.

There are many ways to discuss this fruitfully. But, it sounds as if he's just trying to hang onto his old beliefs... if he won't believe it because it's only mentioned once.

[Misshalfway]

Isn't it interesting that NT believers can't even hold the OT in the same regard? Too bad this guy can't see at least the example king Solomon's temple.

But I have to agree that in order to understand why baptism for the dead and other temple rites aren't in the Bible in explicit detail, one would have to open their minds to modern revelation. And maybe to understand that there have been plain and precious truths that have been lost from the Bible over time.....maybe even deliberately lost.

[Vort]

My Brother is talking with a friend and has hit a snag.

His friend has brought up the subject of Baptism for the dead and the fact that its only mentioned once. Are there other things that are only mentioned once in the New Testament which are common practice in most Christian churches. What we want to show is that the Baptism for the dead is not unique in only being mentioned once.

How about common practices and beliefs that are only mentioned zero times? Like the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine that revelation has ceased, or the celebration of Christmas, or the idea that there should not be any apostles in our day, or any of countless other beliefs and practices that have no basis whatsoever in any scriptural teaching?

Talk about straining at gnats and swallowing camels...

[rameumptom]

If you can show him that early Christians believed or practiced many of these things, then you can show him that they were anciently believed. A good starting place is Barry Bickmore's book, "Restoring the Ancient Church", which is available for free online: Restoring the Ancient Church, Table of Contents

[cjmaldrich]

It's a simple concept, really. Sure there's only one mention of it in the New Testament, but if you stop and think logically for two seconds it makes sense.

The dead will have the gospel preached to them (John 5:25, 28; 1 Peter 3:18-21; 1 Peter 4:6)

Christ taught that man must be born of water to enter into the kingdom of God. He didn't say living man or people who want to be baptized. He said man.

What other way is there for a person without a body to be baptized than by someone standing in their place? Did not Christ stand in the place for our punishment for sin? So why is it so impossible for us to stand in place of our brothers and sisters to be baptized?

[prisonchaplain]

Isn't it interesting that NT believers can't even hold the OT in the same regard? Too bad this guy can't see at least the example king Solomon's temple.

As FYI, most Protestants and Catholics regard the New Testament as a fulfillment of the Old Testament, and hold both in equal regard. In practice though, just as some LDS find the latter revelations more appealing, many Christians do favor the New Testament in their studies and devotions. When people tell me they are "New Testament Christians," I love to retort, "You do realize that the Christians of the New Testament did not have the New Testament?"

But I have to agree that in order to understand why baptism for the dead and other temple rites aren't in the Bible in explicit detail, one would have to open their minds to modern revelation. And maybe to understand that there have been plain and precious truths that have been lost from the Bible over time.....maybe even deliberately lost.

It's the bolded part that causes many of us to pull back. Modern revelation? Sure, God can certainly speak today, through prophetic word, through dreams and visions. But saying that the Bible is missing truths, or that truths may have been intentionally left out...those thoughts raise the theological eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics--and especially of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

[ztodd]

As FYI, most Protestants and Catholics regard the New Testament as a fulfillment of the Old Testament, and hold both in equal regard. In practice though, just as some LDS find the latter revelations more appealing, many Christians do favor the New Testament in their studies and devotions. When people tell me they are "New Testament Christians," I love to retort, "You do realize that the Christians of the New Testament did not have the New Testament?"

If there are New Testament Christians, then can we be considered Book of Mormon Christians? :)

As for myself, I love the scriptures, but I do not worship them. I love and honor them as I do the prophets, for the way they lead me to Jesus Christ, who is the one I worship.

But I have to agree that in order to understand why baptism for the dead and other temple rites aren't in the Bible in explicit detail, one would have to open their minds to modern revelation. And maybe to understand that there have been plain and precious truths that have been lost from the Bible over time.....maybe even deliberately lost.

It's the bolded part that causes many of us to pull back. Modern revelation? Sure, God can certainly speak today, through prophetic word, through dreams and visions. But saying that the Bible is missing truths, or that truths may have been intentionally left out...those thoughts raise the theological eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics--and especially of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

That's understandable... But that's only because of tradition. The Lord did not declare the collection of writings we call the Bible to be infallible- did He? The writings are definitely inspired, and the fact that they were preserved for many thousands of years is miraculous- but one cannot conclude that the bible we have today is inerrant.

/

[prisonchaplain]

If there are New Testament Christians, then can we be considered Book of Mormon Christians? :)

Fresh idea there...give it a run, and let us know how folk react.

That's understandable... But that's only because of tradition. The Lord did not declare the collection of writings we call the Bible to be infallible- did He? The writings are definitely inspired, and the fact that they were preserved for many thousands of years is miraculous- but one cannot conclude that the bible we have today is inerrant.

Scripture is infallible. And yes it is inspired. But, very few believe that the biblical authors were mere scribes, dictating as God spoke to them audibly. It may be that some define "infallible" it a far too literal manner. There are misprints, and there are a few passages that remain difficult--the longer ending of Mark 16 being perhaps the most common example.

It is a tradition, one long-held by Christians, that Scripture must be interpreted so that it is consistent. So, while the New Testament might interpret the old, it does not contradict it--forcing the Old to be subordinate to the New. So, when we look at the BoM, we expect it to comport to already revealed truth. However, if we allow for the belief that the Bible has substantial gaps, then ultimately it can offer no "check" on the veracity of purported new revelation.

[Dr T]

I agree with what u just said PC. That is why trying to base doctrine on something that has only been mentioned once is a big deal to me.

[Prodigal_Son]

If the New Testament alone could prove the Truth, we wouldn't need the others.

[jadams_4040]

well, there is his major hang up!~

For someone to limit the words of an infinite and eternal God to a few pages of scripture would only show his very limited understanding of God and his relationship to us. It would also mean that God was a dissinterested with humanity. Or at least, dissinterested with the people that came before and after the few pages of the NT.

Unfortunetly the one reference to baptism for the dead is really really obscure, and in the content that it was used, Paul wans't even teaching about that doctrine, but the doctrine of ressurrection. To discuss the doctrine of baptism for the dead with soemone who has his heart closed, will benefit in nothing. I think that just as mention in the posts above, he needs to understand revelation. Infact, I think he actually needs to understand the Atonement and the first principles and ordinances of the gospel before anything else.

Once he understands that the Atonement is infinite, and that EVERYONE must have faith, repent, and be be baptised for the remission of their sin in order to qualify for salvation; authority, revelation, Joseph Smith, and baptism for the dead will all fall in their respective places. Good luck, and keep us posted!~

He needs a good stiff shot of the spirit to get his attn before his heart will open up to understanding of anything.:)

[Justice]

But saying that the Bible is missing truths, or that truths may have been intentionally left out...those thoughts raise the theological eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics--and especially of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Raise them how PC?

Frankly, I don't think its raising them enough.

[Traveler]

Beholding just to scriptures and nothing else is dangerous. The Pharisees and Scribes that were the world’s leading experts in scripture rejected the L-rd and G-d, Jesus Christ because they were convinced his doctrine contradicted their sacred scriptures.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Justice: Most religions do not suspect that truths are missing from the Scriptures. Even those who believe in on-going revelation tend to believe such modern messages will serve more as application of truth already revealed, not fill in signficant gaps. None of this proves the BoM is wrong or false--rather I'm attempting to explain the reticence most Christians have.

Traveler, I've said this before: All Scripture and no Spirit leads to pharisaism, all Spirit and no Scripture leads to dangerous heresy. Even the Bible itself is a spiritually inspired book that must be spiritually discerned. So, you'll get no arguments from me.

[Justice]

Yes, I'm aware. I guess what I meant is that I don't see how anyone who gives the history of the Bible even a cursory study can walk away thinking it's perfect.

Do you?

[rameumptom]

It's the bolded part that causes many of us to pull back. Modern revelation? Sure, God can certainly speak today, through prophetic word, through dreams and visions. But saying that the Bible is missing truths, or that truths may have been intentionally left out...those thoughts raise the theological eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics--and especially of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Prison Chaplain,

What would you say about the Johannine Comma? Was it intentionally added by later Trinitarians to give Biblical "proof" to the Trinity, or was it originally written by John? If originally written by John, then why do so many newer translations omit it? If it isn't originally written by John, then who added it and why?

If Erasmus intentionally left it out of his original 2 versions of the Bible, only to add it later when others pressed him, then was it or was it not an intentional inclusion/omission (depending on your viewpoint)?

How about the writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Many newer Bibles are using the OT copies from the DSS for their translation. If they are more correct, why not also accept the other DSS books into the Biblical canon? What makes some of them authoritative, and others uninspired? Are they not intentionally being excluded? Or how about the Apocrypha, which the Catholics accept, but the Protestants reject? Is that not an intentional omission of writings?

Of course, we could also look at the book of Enoch, which is quoted or referenced 39 times in the New Testament (see Jude for a prime example), but was not included. Why not? Jesus and his apostles obviously thought it was inspired. Was leaving it out an accident, or an intentional omission? Enoch writes about his ascension into the heavens (plural), his being clothed in white robes, given a new name as an archangel (Metatron), and enthroned upon God's throne, where lesser angels worship him! This is all very Mormon-ish in its teachings and not supported by traditional Christianity. Right here, we have a perfect example of plain and precious items being excluded intentionally by St Jerome and St Augustine.

[Jamie123]

...why then does he think God stopped talking to mankind in the same way He always had (He is afterall unchanging - right?)

It's difficult to see where you can really go with this argument. Isn't "stopping talking to mankind" exactly what God did between the "Great Apostasy" and the early 19th Century? The fact that before Joseph Smith the statements "nothing can be added to the Bible" and "all the prophets died long ago" were valid remains equally true from both LDS and non-LDS standpoints. From the nonmember's point of view this situation (which we all must agree was valid in its time) is still the status quo. The potential convert needs to be persuaded not that God "can" talk to mankind, but that improbable as it may sound, He actually does!

(Clarification: Of course by "nonmember" I mean non-LDS Christian of one of the mainstream denominations. Not an unbeliever in Christ.)

Edited July 7, 2009 by Jamie123
Clarification

[rameumptom]

I agree with what u just said PC. That is why trying to base doctrine on something that has only been mentioned once is a big deal to me.

Should we then reject the New Testament, as a huge breakaway from traditional Judaism? The concept of a Messiah in the Old Testament appears very late - most scholars believe it really shows up after the Diaspora. Even resurrection was not mentioned more than once in the OT (Job, I think), so that the Sadduccees did not believe in it.

The concept of Jesus being the literal Son of Man/God, had Jews trying to stone him. Why? Because when the concept of Messiah came about, the people understood it to mean a great deliverer from physical slavery (Rome, Greece, etc). They already had the temple sacrifices to atone for their sins, after all. And God gave the law of Moses as an "eternal covenant." How does it suddenly become fulfilled or ended by Jesus, if it is eternal?

Suddenly, we have a problem with the New Testament as giving new teachings and ideas that do not show up in the Old Testament. What a conundrum!

So, are you willing to reject the New Testament, simply because such concepts really do not clearly show up at all in the Old Testament? That is, after all, your reasoning for rejecting modern scripture, isn't it?

[Misshalfway]

As FYI, most Protestants and Catholics regard the New Testament as a fulfillment of the Old Testament, and hold both in equal regard. In practice though, just as some LDS find the latter revelations more appealing, many Christians do favor the New Testament in their studies and devotions. When people tell me they are "New Testament Christians," I love to retort, "You do realize that the Christians of the New Testament did not have the New Testament?"

You know, I do think I understand this dynamic. But thank you for pointing this out. You always do so with such talent.

It's the bolded part that causes many of us to pull back. Modern revelation? Sure, God can certainly speak today, through prophetic word, through dreams and visions. But saying that the Bible is missing truths, or that truths may have been intentionally left out...those thoughts raise the theological eyebrows of Protestants and Catholics--and especially of evangelicals and fundamentalists.

I know these LDS perspectives are hard to swallow. And that is ok that you don't agree. I understand that I am speaking boldly. Accepting this most certainly would be a leap of faith away from the traditions that many hold dear. I think that is why I appreciate the point Ram is trying to make with regards to Jesus and how he shook up the establishment/traditional thinking of his time to bring the people to better understanding. It seems that in your above comments you and yours understand that the NT was a progression of things.

I don't think we are any different than the early Christians who felt the power of Jesus and felt the convincing power of the spirit and moved forward toward him and farther from the traditions of the majority. I suppose it is the same challenge we send to the world today. Come and learn and let the Spirit teach you if what we say is true and perhaps open your mind to greater views.

And while it may be hard for some to accept, for others this makes perfect theological sense. In fact, it answers many questions and brings the patterns of God thru out the OT, NT and today into much clearer and cohesive view.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes, I'm aware. I guess what I meant is that I don't see how anyone who gives the history of the Bible even a cursory study can walk away thinking it's perfect.

Do you?

What do you mean by perfect? It's what God wants us to have. It's profitable for instruction--even for rebuking, if need be. It's true. Hearing it brings faith, which does lead to salvation.

My suggestion is that anything God would add to biblical revelation would mesh smoothly with it. IMHO, the New Testament completes the Old--it does not have new truths, nor fill in gaping holes--what Jesus brought and taught was prophesied in the Old and fulfilled in the New.