Evangelical with a question

[Tobeloved]

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Please unpack this a little. The AV gives "answer", just as your sources might require.

Here are some of the translations in my library (1 Peter 3:21):

Not all of these use "appeal", but they all say baptism doth  now also save us. It's there in English, Latin, Spanish, French, and Italian. I can show you in Greek, or German, Norwegian, and a couple of other languages I do not speak, but that might be overkill.

Again, what were you trying to get to?

Lehi

 

I posted the Greek and I was looking at the words "in demand" which I think is in good conscience.  I do not need all those other languages.

 

If you cannot see that from the print screens I loaded then, I can not expand on it any further.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[Tobeloved]

Why is everyone being so critical of me?  I've never been treated this way by anyone else of like faith.  It is not what I would call Christian behavior at all.  Now, I am defensive of every word I write.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I'm getting killed for not answering, not listening, not being able to login, duplicating posts.

Why am I automatically shady, it's like I was doomed before I ever answered anyone.  Seems very rude.

Thank you again.  Bye.

Everyone else is having the same login and duplicating post issue.

As for being rude...  What would you call some one that comes to a group of Evangelicals and asks loaded questions declaring that they were not really followers of Christ...  Then realist that is exactly the kind of behavior you have just done... And you are getting all huffy because you were called out on your offensiveness

 

 

[Tobeloved]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Christ cannot/will not save a person unwillingly: we must be come to Him.  This is done through not just through talk, but through action (as James said: faith without works is dead).  These actions include be baptized by those in authority (which non-LDS churches lack).

It is interesting that we are talked down to, like children with LDS being so much better.  Because what?  You give a priesthood at 12 yo?  Who gives a child that responsibility and then at 18 again?  When everyone is the priesthood, it kinda looses it's affect.

 

Also, I do not see niceness or the qualities that we should 'learn' from the LDS.  I've been treated better by atheists.

[Tobeloved]

9 hours ago, zil said:

What do you think of the organizational structure Christ set up in the new testament?

NOTE: The existence of a church, even Christ's church, does not put the church "between" a person and Christ, rather, the church exists for the purpose of assisting a person to come to Christ through the various laws and ordinances Christ himself taught.

I think that the organizational structure works, apostles are actually another word for 'missionaries' most do not equate that to one of the 12 Apostles, we put them up on

[Tobeloved]

10 hours ago, zil said:

What do you think of the organizational structure Christ set up in the new testament?

NOTE: The existence of a church, even Christ's church, does not put the church "between" a person and Christ, rather, the church exists for the purpose of assisting a person to come to Christ through the various laws and ordinances Christ himself taught.

I think that the organizational structure works, apostles are actually another word for 'missionaries' most do not equate that to one of the 12 Apostles, we put them up on (got kicked off again) a higher level as they were personally chosen by and ministered to by Jesus Himself.  Evangelists are ones who spread the gospel to others.

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[Tobeloved]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Everyone else is having the same login and duplicating post issue.

As for being rude...  What would you call some one that comes to a group of Evangelicals and asks loaded questions declaring that they were not really followers of Christ...  Then realist that is exactly the kind of behavior you have just done... And you are getting all huffy because you were called out on your offensiveness

 

 

Can you quote me saying that or anything like that?

Usually people actually show you the offensive post when they accuse.  I can't even get that much.  It seems that there is a lot of hate towards us.   Why  the hate?  Is it some kind of deflection or something?

Truthfully, if I cannot defend my position, than I wouldn't have it.  I'm not into doing it just because someone told you to, that's not me, but I do not care what you think.  I came here thanking people for their answers, not hating anyone.

[Tobeloved]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Everyone else is having the same login and duplicating post issue.

As for being rude...  What would you call some one that comes to a group of Evangelicals and asks loaded questions declaring that they were not really followers of Christ...  Then realist that is exactly the kind of behavior you have just done... And you are getting all huffy because you were called out on your offensiveness

 

 

Can you quote me saying that or anything like that?

Usually people actually show you the offensive post when they accuse.  I can't even get that much.  It seems that there is a lot of hate towards us.   Why  the hate?  Is it some kind of deflection or something?

Truthfully, if I cannot defend my position, than I wouldn't have it.  I'm not into doing it just because someone told you to, that's not me, but I do not care what you think.  I came here thanking people for their answers, not hating anyone.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

I think that the organizational structure works, apostles are actually another word for 'missionaries' most do not equate that to one of the 12 Apostles, we put them up on

First, thank you for sticking around.  The internet can be a hard place to have discussions.  No one can hear tone of voice.  The same phrase can be both curious and sarcastic.  All we see are the words, so it's easy to forget there's a person on the other end of the words.  And I think there's like 3-4 topics in this one thread which makes it feel kind of harried (to me).  I'm also not sure of our purpose in this thread (debate, explanation, understanding...).

I'm thinking maybe your reply was cut off because of the forum problems we've had today.  (FWIW, there have been WAY more than normal - so I think they must be doing something on the back end.)

Anyway, I think maybe I've misunderstood something from your posts (and at this point, my goal is just to understand your perspective).  It seemed earlier like you were opposed to a church organization (or maybe just the need for ordinances (aka sacraments in some denominations), I'm not sure on this).  But in this reply, you seem to be expressing a belief that Christ did indeed set up a church organization while He was on the earth, and that it was a good thing.  Can you please help me understand the disconnect (I'm assuming I've misunderstood - which wouldn't really be surprising to me, as Mormons and other Christians often use the same terms to mean something completely different).

Thanks!

[Jane_Doe]

24 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Why is everyone being so critical of me?  I've never been treated this way by anyone else of like faith.  It is not what I would call Christian behavior at all.  Now, I am defensive of every word I write.

dup

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

23 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Why is everyone being so critical of me?  I've never been treated this way by anyone else of like faith.  It is not what I would call Christian behavior at all.  Now, I am defensive of every word I write.

ToBeLoved:

On this board, we stress having a friendly environment where people ask questions and then listen to the responses.  You came here asking questions, we answered them, but it doesn't feel like you're listening to the answers-- for example you responses have little relation to what we actually said.  It feels like the conversation is going like this: 

You ask: Do you believe A or B?

We say: C.

You say: well since you believe A...

We say: But we believe C....

You say: And here's all the proof that A is wrong...

We say: But we believe C....

 

Something which would help give the feeling of being listen to would be to ask "ok, so you being C, correct?" or "Since you believe C, how does that work?"

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I posted the Greek and I was looking at the words "in demand" which I think is in good conscience.  I do not need all those other languages.

If you cannot see that from the print screens I loaded then, I can not expand on it any further.

I saw the images. That wasn't my question.

Why is this alternative meaning significant? How does it change the argument that Peter says, explicitly, the baptism doth now also save us, i.e., the baptism is salvific?

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Dup

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Tobeloved]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

ToBeLoved:

On this board, we stress having a friendly environment where people ask questions and then listen to the responses.  You came here asking questions, we answered them, but it doesn't feel like you're listening to the answers-- for example you responses have little relation to what we actually said.  It feels like the conversation is going like this: 

You ask: Do you believe A or B?

We say: C.

You say: well since you believe A...

We say: But we believe C....

You say: And here's all the proof that A is wrong...

We say: But we believe C....

I can understand that, but I did say it was my first time here.  I did say I was Evangelical.  I was straightforward with my question and I did thank others for their time and ask for clarification if I didn't understand.

I've been on many forums and I've never seen this amount of pressure put on one person that they are so singled out.  I have barely gotten on here and am trying to keep up, read, and do other things that I have to do.

If that is not good enough, than it is not.  I know boards have a culture, but I do not feel particularly welcome and I actually feel unlistened to, not given a chance, and judged.  So I guess it's just a different perspective.  Someone can get treated like dirt anywhere, I don't expect it being new and by myself.  I would think a little more kindness and patience, but maybe you don't value that as much as we do.

[Tobeloved]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

ToBeLoved:

On this board, we stress having a friendly environment where people ask questions and then listen to the responses.  You came here asking questions, we answered them, but it doesn't feel like you're listening to the answers-- for example you responses have little relation to what we actually said.  It feels like the conversation is going like this: 

You ask: Do you believe A or B?

We say: C.

You say: well since you believe A...

We say: But we believe C....

You say: And here's all the proof that A is wrong...

We say: But we believe C....

I can understand that, but I did say it was my first time here.  I did say I was Evangelical.  I was straightforward with my question and I did thank others for their time and ask for clarification if I didn't understand.

I've been on many forums and I've never seen this amount of pressure put on one person that they are so singled out.  I have barely gotten on here and am trying to keep up, read, and do other things that I have to do.

If that is not good enough, than it is not.  I know boards have a culture, but I do not feel particularly welcome and I actually feel unlistened to, not given a chance, and judged.  So I guess it's just a different perspective.  Someone can get treated like dirt anywhere, I don't expect it being new and by myself.  I would think a little more kindness and patience, but maybe you don't value that as much as we do.

I am surprised at you particularly Jane.  Because even as I feel unwelcome, you kind of twist the knife around. 

I never had a discussion where people are so defensive.  I think we discuss and debate much more and are used to conversation and scripture and supporting our positions with something more than our opinion.  So this is like being a fish out of water and when I treat you like anyone else, I am not listening.  Well, I thought this was a conversation.

I should have said.  Yes, oh yes.  Interesting.  That's how it is and 100 of other pat answers, because that is what you want.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I posted the Greek and I was looking at the words "in demand" which I think is in good conscience.  I do not need all those other languages.

If you cannot see that from the print screens I loaded then, I can not expand on it any further.

I saw the images. That wasn't my question.

Why is this alternative meaning significant? How does it change the argument that Peter says, explicitly, the baptism doth now also save us, i.e., the baptism is salvific?

Lehi

[Tobeloved]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I saw the images. That wasn't my question.

Why is this alternative meaning significant? How does it change the argument that Peter says, explicitly, the baptism doth now also save us, i.e., the baptism is salvific?

Lehi

Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.

[Tobeloved]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I saw the images. That wasn't my question.

Why is this alternative meaning significant? How does it change the argument that Peter says, explicitly, the baptism doth now also save us, i.e., the baptism is salvific?

Lehi

Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.  So it is the entire church, family, friends and a spiritual experience.

[Jane_Doe]

TBL: Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.

 

Jane: The LDS view of baptism is different.  Baptism is not just for show, but rather it "does" something in regard to that person's salvation.  Namely the baptized person making a promise to Christ (and vise versa).   These promises a essential: 1) Christ commanded it, 2) they enable us to be committed and grow closer to Christ (and vise versa).  

The promise is that the baptized person takes on the name of Christ, promises to keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end.  Christ is turn promises to have the Spirit to be with them, the remission of sins, and being spiritually reborn.

Also, LDS baptisms are open to the public, and everyone is invited to watch, feel the Spirit, and support the person being baptized.  It is very normal to have non-LDS friends and family there.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[LeSellers]

14 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

But Peter says the opposite, that is, that baptism is savific.

Your position seems to run in direct conflict with the Bible.

14 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.

We have two places where baptisms take place. The first, well, let's start with the second. We do baptisms for the dead (see 1 Cor 15:29) in the Temples of God. They are not public for a host of reasons.

But the first is a very public thing. It's done for living candidates. I've done baptisms in the Mediterranean Sea, in swimming pools, in dedicated fonts in our regular chapels, in small, portable fonts. Others, like John the Baptist, have performed them in rivers, lakes, streams of various sizes. These baptisms are very public, and the candidate can invite anyone he likes, members of the Church or not. The ordinance is not part of our regular services. We have specific times for our children who choose baptism, but adults can choose almost any time they desire.

If you have confused the two, I hope this explains the difference. If you already knew this, your statements seems odd, at best.

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Jane_Doe]

TBL: Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.

 

Jane: The LDS view of baptism is different.  Baptism is not just for show, but rather it is the baptized person making a promise to Christ (and vise versa).   These promises a essential: 1) Christ commanded it, 2) they enable us to be committed and grow closer to Christ (and vise versa).  

The promise is that the baptized person takes on the name of Christ, promises to keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end.  Christ is turn promises to have the Spirit to be with them, the remission of sins, and being spiritually reborn.

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Can you quote me saying that or anything like that?

 

Sure can... Lets start with page one

 

 

11 hours ago, Tobeloved said:

I wrote the question to find out is if the LDS believe that they are not able to get into the celestial kingdom without  a man or men or church, but only relying 100% on the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.

 

 Clearly stating that you believe LDS do not rely 100% on Jesus Christ... but instead on a man or men or church

Tell me... would you find it offensive if someone declared you and your faith did not rely on Christ  but instead relied on the arm of the flesh?

 

10 hours ago, Tobeloved said:

Is it thought that people who may not be LDS do not love Jesus Christ?  And do not develop and refine that love throughout their lifetime?

 

And here is an example of you clearly not listening...

How you manged to reach that offensive gem is completely mind boggling...  Oh and way to color us judgemental

10 hours ago, Tobeloved said:

I disagree.   Jesus is not a tool used by the church.  Jesus is the one throwing the rope.  I think we already have the rope and Jesus

Again another example of you not listening...  But inspite of what the poster really said lets see you once imply that LDS think Christ is a tool... and that the LDS believe something else will save them.

 

That is just the first page...

 

We have no problem with you defending your position...  We have every bit of a problem when you straw-man and completely distort our position and beliefs.

As discussing with other faiths... we have several non-LDS members of this very forum, and we discuss all kinds of topic with them.  We could do it with you to if you were to really ask and listen to what we say without already presuming our answers.

[Tobeloved]

21 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I saw the images. That wasn't my question.

Why is this alternative meaning significant? How does it change the argument that Peter says, explicitly, the baptism doth now also save us, i.e., the baptism is salvific?

Lehi

Ok.  Maybe it did get confusing. 

1 Peter 2:20-21

when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I think that it is making a comparison back to God in the days of Noah and water and baptism, that Noah was saved by/in water so the comparison is to baptism with water but I think the key piece is "by the resurrection of Christ".  So as I said, I do not see baptism as tied to salvation, although it is important to do, but not a deal breaker.

 

[Tobeloved]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

 

Sure can... Lets start with page one

 

 

 Clearly stating that you believe LDS do not rely 100% on Jesus Christ... but instead on a man or men or church

Tell me... would you find it offensive if someone declared you and your faith did not rely on Christ  but instead relied on the arm of the flesh?

 

And here is an example of you clearly not listening...

How you manged to reach that offensive gem is completely mind boggling...  Oh and way to color us judgemental

Again another example of you not listening...  But inspite of what the poster really said lets see you once imply that LDS think Christ is a tool... and that the LDS believe something else will save them.

 

That is just the first page...

 

We have no problem with you defending your position...  We have every bit of a problem when you straw-man and completely distort our position and beliefs.

As discussing with other faiths... we have several non-LDS members of this very forum, and we discuss all kinds of topic with them.  We could do it with you to if you were to really ask and listen to what we say without already presuming our answers.

I said Clearly that I think that we can have a relationship and be saved without anyone else or a church.

 

I did not say that they think Christ is a tool, I said that I don't think the church is a tool that is needed.  Yes it is nice.  Yes we need to learn, but can it be done between 1 person and God, yes, definately.

Maybe being clear is the problem.  Some people defnately do not like it, but others appreciate knowing exactly what I am thinking.  Can you please bump up the exact quotes you are speaking about so I can see them?

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

TBL: Because I feel baptism is something we do to show others our love for Christ as much as we do it for ourselves.  It is an outward, public showing of making a choice.  Choosing Christ and giving our testimony.

It is a fairly public thing for us.  Not in a temple by ourselves, but in a church usually during a service that lasts a little longer.

 

Jane: The LDS view of baptism is different.  Baptism is not just for show, but rather it is the baptized person making a promise to Christ (and vise versa).   These promises a essential: 1) Christ commanded it, 2) they enable us to be committed and grow closer to Christ (and vise versa).  

The promise is that the baptized person takes on the name of Christ, promises to keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end.  Christ is turn promises to have the Spirit to be with them, the remission of sins, and being spiritually reborn.

I didn't even want to talk about baptism.  I don't care what you do for baptism.  Why did someone ask me?  Was I setup by the LDS or something?  Is this like a mess with the Christian Friday or some such holiday? 

Make yourself feel good, putting someone else down.  Little pat on the back for how great of a listener you are after I answered to SOMEONE ELSE, NOT YOU JANE.

So lighten up.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[LeSellers]

15 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Ok.  Maybe it did get confusing. 

1 Peter 2:20-21

when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I think that it is making a comparison back to God in the days of Noah and water and baptism, that Noah was saved by/in water so the comparison is to baptism with water but I think the key piece is "by the resurrection of Christ".  So as I said, I do not see baptism as tied to salvation, although it is important to do, but not a deal breaker.

 

Yes, Peter compares the noachin flood to baptism because baptism, like the flood, is by immersion. He says the flood was a figure, an ante-type, of baptism, and that baptism doth now also save us. Those are his words. No one made them up but an Apostle of Jesus Christ. An Apostle who got his words included in the Bible you believe.

Baptism is part of a whole, but it is a critical part, a part without which salvation is not possible. Remember Peter said, in every translation (as well as in the original Greek) that baptism doth now also save us. He doesn't say it is a public show of love, he said it saves us. The resurrection and the concomitant Atonement are the acts of God that make salvation possible, but unless one is baptized, he cannot be saved. That's what Peter says, and I believe Peter long before I'd believe Huldreich Zwingli, the inventor of the baptism is only a public show fallacy.

Lehi

 

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers