Evangelical with a question

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

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.

Tobeloved, estradling75 didn't say that you said Christ is a tool.  He said you (based on Carborendum's post) claimed Mormons think that (but Carborendum's post was saying the exact opposite - that the church is a tool for Christ to use).  This is an example of some of the confusion - you misunderstood what Carborendum was saying, and again have misunderstood what estradling75 is saying (or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying).

[Tobeloved]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

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

 

I disagree.  I think we do it of good conscience and a public display of faith.

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,)

[Tobeloved]

33 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 "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.

I would ask a question, but since you cannot be civil, nevermind.

[Tobeloved]

34 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

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

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

 

Like I said I disagree. 

It says in good conscience to God using the comparison of Noah being saved in water and baptism.  I don't see it as a st

[Tobeloved]

38 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

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

That is interesting, I thought all baptisms were in the Temple. 

I think I need to clarify, note the word 'thought', as in a thought that I had, for all the hater's.  I'm sure it'll be twisted

[LeSellers]

30 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I disagree.  I think we do it of good conscience and a public display of faith.

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,)

Your disagreement is not surprising. However, it flies in the face of the words of the Bible itself. "The like figure" is bolded (and I cannot tell why, it has nothing to do with your argument) refers back to the noachin flood, a total immersion.

But the word "answer" in the AV is consistently represented by other words in English, French, Italian (all of which I speak well), Spanish and German (which I speak poorly, but passably in many cases) to mean as a witness to a clean conscience.

You are certainly free to ignore the work of translators over the centuries, but your private interpretation of the scripture is not binding on any of us, nor on God.

Now, if there were but one place where we read baptism is salvific, we might just agree to disagree. However, it is not. We have Titus 3:5:

Quote

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And the Evangelical, Jack Cotrell says this:
 

Quote

Because John the Baptist, Jesus and the early apostles baptized those coming forward in repentance, it appears to imply a duty to submit to this process by those who call on Jesus for salvation. If Jesus made it a requirement in John 3:5, then of course we must obey.

Can one be saved without baptism in water? It appears the thief on the cross had no baptism after his conversion, yet Jesus promises that day he will be in paradise with Jesus. This would imply sometimes salvation is not dependent on baptism. However, some who insist baptism is always necessary claim this example is inconclusive for one cannot be sure the thief was not previously baptized. (See this link.)

However, I would conclude that if one comes to repentance and faith just before death, God has power to save anyway as obedience to baptism was not time-wise possible. However, if it is time-wise possible, we should submit to this command. Deliberate disobedience to baptism apparently would risk one's salvation.

He's wrong about there being people who do not need baptism. that's why God instituted baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), but otherwise, his logic and exegesis are good.

You say you point was not to worry about baptism. Soit!

But baptism is an ordinance administered by the Church. Without the Church, baptism is not possible (except when the Priesthood exists temporarily without the church, rare to the point of insignificance today).

So, if baptism doth now also save us, we need the Church: without the Church there is no salvation because without the Church, there is no baptism.

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Tobeloved]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

1 minute ago, LeSellers said:

Your disagreement is not surprising. However, it flies in the face of the words of the Bible itself. "The like figure" is bolded (and I cannot tell why, it has nothing to do with your argument) refers back to the noachin flood, a total immersion.

But the word "answer" in the AV is consistently represented by other words in English, French, Italian (all of which I speak well), Spanish and German (which I speak poorly, but passably in many cases) to mean as a witness to a clean conscience.

 

Because I think that the word "The like figure" is directly referring between the water between the two.

You said 'as a witness to a clean conscience' which agree's with me.  That it is a public declaration that does not save.

 

[Tobeloved]

3 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

You are certainly free to ignore the work of translators over the centuries, but your private interpretation of the scripture is not binding on any of us, nor on God.
 

How is it when I looked at the original Greek, that would not be a translation at all..

 

[LeSellers]

4 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Because I think that the word "The like figure" is directly referring between the water between the two.

You said 'as a witness to a clean conscience' which agree's with me.  That it is a public declaration that does not save.

Not quite. The witness is to God, not the world, or even the Church. To witness a clear conscience to God requires repentance. However, irrespective of how you interpret that phrase, Peter still says "baptism doth now also save us. There is no interpretation that does not do violence to the meaning of the words that can reject baptsim as salvific.

And we still have Titus 3:5 that says the same thing: Christ saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism).

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Jane_Doe]

25 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I would ask a question, but since you cannot be civil, nevermind.

Was there anything particular about my explanation of LDS beliefs what you found uncivil?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Jane_Doe

[Tobeloved]

48 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

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?

 

I said that if there was someone or a church that was between you and Christ that you needed another step to do

I didn't think it was  a trick question.

It was not stating that you do not rely on Christ, it was asking if there was something that had to be done in between.  If it was my doctrine I would own it.  If it is what you believe than what's to hide?

I didn't expect that everything was defensive, as I said Christians debate and discuss much more, so we own our beliefs readily.

[Tobeloved]

13 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Not quite. The witness is to God, not the world, or even the Church. To witness a clear conscience to God requires repentance. However, irrespective of how you interpret that phrase, Peter still says "baptism doth now also save us. There is no interpretation that does not do violence to the meaning of the words that can reject baptsim as salvific.

And we still have Titus 3:5 that says the same thing: Christ saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism).

Lehi

You do not think there is an 'also' in there to show comparison?

Edited April 23, 2016 by Tobeloved

[Tobeloved]

57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

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.

Everyone else called it a misunderstanding, it was.  I explained I was having trouble logging in and keeping up. You are trying to bake a cake with no oven.

[LeSellers]

49 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

You do not think there is an 'also' in there to show comparison?

Peter was comparing baptism to the flood. But the "also" is an artifact of one specific translation. Here's the Greek:

Quote

ο^{G3739 R-NSN}  και^{G2532 CONJ}  υμας^{G4771 P-2AP}  αντιτυπον^{G499 A-NSN}  νυν^{G3568 ADV}  σωζει^{G4982 V-PAI-3S}  βαπτισμα^{G908 N-NSN}  ου^{G3756 PRT-N}  σαρκος^{G4561 N-GSF}  αποθεσις^{G595 N-NSF}  ρυπου^{G4509 N-GSM}  αλλα^{G235 CONJ}  συνειδησεως^{G4893 N-GSF}  αγαθης^{G18 A-GSF}  επερωτημα^{G1906 N-NSN}  εις^{G1519 PREP}  θεον^{G2316 N-ASM}  δι^{G1223 PREP}  αναστασεως^{G386 N-GSF}  ιησου^{G2424 N-GSM}  χριστου^{G5547 N-GSM} 

You probably recognize Strong's numbers. The letters after identify the part of speech and case, tense, etc. The word the AV translates as "also" is και, which is usually translated "and", but also "but", "even", or (which would have been best, in my opinion) "indeed". So we could have had "baptism doth indeed now save us". It's an intensifier, not a comparative.

Young gives it thus:

Quote

also to which an antitype doth now save us--baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ,

Notice he placed the και in its position earlier in the sentence where it functions as a conjunction between the flood and baptism. His is a very literal translation, so when this sort of thing arises, I look here early in the study.

Lehi

Edited April 23, 2016 by LeSellers

[Tobeloved]

57 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

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.

 

 

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Not quite. The witness is to God, not the world, or even the Church. To witness a clear conscience to God requires repentance. However, irrespective of how you interpret that phrase, Peter still says "baptism doth now also save us. There is no interpretation that does not do violence to the meaning of the words that can reject baptsim as salvific.

And we still have Titus 3:5 that says the same thing: Christ saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism).

Lehi

 

[LeSellers]

2 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

I disagree.  I think we do it of good conscience and a public display of faith.

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,)

Your disagreement is not surprising. However, it flies in the face of the words of the Bible itself. "The like figure" is bolded (and I cannot tell why, it has nothing to do with your argument) refers back to the noachin flood, a total immersion.

But the word "answer" in the AV is consistently represented by other words in English, French, Italian (all of which I speak well), Spanish and German (which I speak poorly, but passably in many cases) to mean as a witness to a clean conscience.

You are certainly free to ignore the work of translators over the centuries, but your private interpretation of the scripture is not binding on any of us, nor on God.

Now, if there were but one place where we read baptism is salvific, we might just agree to disagree. However, it is not. We have Titus 3:5:

Quote

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And the Evangelical, Jack Cotrell says this:
 

Quote

 

Because John the Baptist, Jesus and the early apostles baptized those coming forward in repentance, it appears to imply a duty to submit to this process by those who call on Jesus for salvation. If Jesus made it a requirement in John 3:5, then of course we must obey.

Can one be saved without baptism in water? It appears the thief on the cross had no baptism after his conversion, yet Jesus promises that day he will be in paradise with Jesus. This would imply sometimes salvation is not dependent on baptism. However, some who insist baptism is always necessary claim this example is inconclusive for one cannot be sure the thief was not previously baptized. (See this link.)

However, I would conclude that if one comes to repentance and faith just before death, God has power to save anyway as obedience to baptism was not time-wise possible. However, if it is time-wise possible, we should submit to this command. Deliberate disobedience to baptism apparently would risk one's salvation.

 

He's wrong about there being people who do not need baptism. that's why God instituted baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), but otherwise, his logic and exegesis are good.

You say you point was not to worry about baptism. Soit!

But baptism is an ordinance administered by the Church. Without the Church, baptism is not possible (except when the Priesthood exists temporarily without the church, rare to the point of insignificance today).

So, if baptism doth now also save us, we need the Church, and without the Church there is no salvation because without the Church, there is no baptism.

Lehi

[estradling75]

42 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

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

 

And I clearly showed you how that can come across as an accusation

 

44 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

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.

Really you didn't think anyone thought Christ was a tool...  But you had to explicitly mention that you did not?  If we accept this then you must have gone off on a random tangent for no reason whatsoever. 

 

48 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

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?
 

Communication can be a problem...  If you are going off on random tangents have have nothing to do with what anyone is saying or what you are really thinking then it becomes compounded.

I am not sure what you are asking for with the 'bumping' but like I said before they are on the very first page of this thread (which is now 7 pages)

[Tobeloved]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Not quite. The witness is to God, not the world, or even the Church. To witness a clear conscience to God requires repentance. However, irrespective of how you interpret that phrase, Peter still says "baptism doth now also save us. There is no interpretation that does not do violence to the meaning of the words that can reject baptsim as salvific.

And we still have Titus 3:5 that says the same thing: Christ saves us by the washing of regeneration (baptism).

Lehi

Now Titus 3:5 is not about baptism with water, but baptism of the Holy Spirit.  That's a whole other thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tobeloved]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And I clearly showed you how that can come across as an accusation

 

Really you didn't think anyone thought Christ was a tool...  But you had to explicitly mention that you did not?  If we accept this then you must have gone off on a random tangent for no reason whatsoever. 

 

Communication can be a problem...  If you are going off on random tangents have have nothing to do with what anyone is saying or what you are really thinking then it becomes compounded.

I am not sure what you are asking for with the 'bumping' but like I said before they are on the very first page of this thread (which is now 7 pages)

Why do you not ask a moderator to make me leave or else just leave me alone?  What is your issue with me?  I really would rather not talk with you.  I am having a good conversation with someone else.

[Tobeloved]

8 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

And the Evangelical, Jack Cotrell says this:
 

He's wrong about there being people who do not need baptism. that's why God instituted baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), but otherwise, his logic and exegesis are good.

You say you point was not to worry about baptism. Soit!

But baptism is an ordinance administered by the Church. Without the Church, baptism is not possible (except when the Priesthood exists temporarily without the church, rare to the point of insignificance today).

So, if baptism doth now also save us, we need the Church, and without the Church there is no salvation because without the Church, there is no baptism.

Lehi

I've never heard of that guy.

[zil]

Not to cut anyone else short, but why do we need more than the Savior's own words in John 3:5 - clearly baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is needed.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, zil said:

Not to cut anyone else short, but why do we need more than the Savior's own words in John 3:5 - clearly baptism by water and the Holy Ghost is needed.

My thoughts 100%

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Tobeloved said:

Why do you not ask a moderator to make me leave or else just leave me alone?  What is your issue with me?  I really would rather not talk with you.  I am having a good conversation with someone else.

I am a moderator...  I could kick you out (if I wanted to violate how we do things).

This is a thread about you and your questions anyone can  join it...

And I am not sure if you will believe me but I am trying to point out the issue you are having so you can fix them... and continue to have enjoyable conversation with a whole lot of people on this site.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

This is a thread about you and your questions anyone can  join it...

 

Estradling is right. In a public forum you can't pick and choose who you want to respond. 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Tobeloved said:

Now Titus 3:5 is not about baptism with water, but baptism of the Holy Spirit.  That's a whole other thing.

Sorry, but it is about water baptism.

Here's how the Orthodox Jewish Bible renders it:

Quote

Not by tzidkateynu (our righteousness) in ma’asim tovim which is to our zchus (merit), but according to His rachamim, He granted us Yeshu’at Eloheynu through the mikveh mayim ruchani of rebirth and renewing of the Ruach Hakodesh

"mikveh mayim ruchani" means "ritual bath waters of (birth, I think)" — Ruach HaKodesh is the Holy Spirit: separate things. I could post a myraid of other translations, but the most important one is Young's Literal:

Quote

(not by works that [are] in righteousness that we did but according to His kindness,) He did save us, through a bathing of regeneration, and a renewing of the Holy Spirit,

All of those that stick close to the original Greek (and there are many that take unwarranted liberties) talk about washing, bathing, etc., and distinguish between water and spirit.

Baptism doth now also save us. Peter said it, I accept it. I reject Zwilngli's invention.

Lehi