Can you please help me respond??


Queolby
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Forgiveness is great. But it doesn’t lead to salvation. 3 Nephi 9:27. No unclean thing can enter into his kingdom. Forgiveness is not a cleaning solution.

Also, baptism isn’t just for becoming clean or being forgiven. We are making Covenants with God. Without those Covenants we cannot be saved.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But here is the thing. Traditional Christin views of forgiveness baptism and salvation are vastly different than ours. And every Christian will have their own view and interpretation on it. You won’t get anywhere with it because you have different sources of information that you declare truthful and reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ needed no forgiveness and yet He was baptised. Furthermore, in Mark 16:16 Christ clearly links baptism with salvation

15  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

(New Testament | Mark 16:15 - 16)

 

He commanded His disciples to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Christ needed no forgiveness and yet He was baptised.

Indeed. An open question (to me) is whether Jesus Christ himself "needed" baptism in any sense. My default feeling is that, no, he did not need baptism, because: (1) He was not sinful, so the baptismal covenant did not cleanse him in any sense; and, (2) He had already entered into a covenant with God, and thus did not need to make the baptismal covenant for his own sake. So I assume Christ was baptized purely for our benefit, to give us an example of how we need to act.

But I openly admit that my default feeling might be wrong. Perhaps Christ needed those saving covenants just as we do. Perhaps he needed them, not for the same reasons we do, but for other reasons. I don't know. At this point, it's purely academic, counting pinhead-dancing angels. The important point is that Christ was baptized, just as we need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

If Christ is all-powerful, than He could have just as easily have saved us all by doing a tap routine on Dancing With The Stars, as by letting the Romans crucify Him.

The issue isn’t what He could do (or ask us to do).  The issue is what He does do (and asks us to do).  

He does command us to be baptized, period.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If Christ is all-powerful, than He could have just as easily have saved us all by doing a tap routine on Dancing With The Stars, as by letting the Romans crucify Him.

Although I agree with JAG's logic, let me point out entre nous that this is obviously false. Christ is All-Powerful, but that does not mean that Christ can do undoable, self-contradictory things. Christ cannot make you exist at a certain point in time and space, and simultaneously make you not exist at that point in time and space. Christ cannot make a rock so big that he is unable to lift it. Christ cannot save people in their sins. Christ cannot exalt Satan. The list of meaningless non-things that Christ cannot do is endless. But obviously, that is of no consequence.

When people resort to referencing the I Dream of Jeannie God that blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence, conversation becomes nigh impossible. As long as people think of God as the Great Author who writes our stories out on blank paper, they will never even begin to understand who and what God is. All we can really do is smile and try to let them know that their paradigm is fatally flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Although I agree with JAG's logic, let me point out entre nous that this is obviously false. Christ is All-Powerful, but that does not mean that Christ can do undoable, self-contradictory things. Christ cannot make you exist at a certain point in time and space, and simultaneously make you not exist at that point in time and space. Christ cannot make a rock so big that he is unable to lift it. Christ cannot save people in their sins. Christ cannot exalt Satan. The list of meaningless non-things that Christ cannot do is endless. But obviously, that is of no consequence.

When people resort to referencing the I Dream of Jeannie God that blinks his eyes and things pop into and out of existence, conversation becomes nigh impossible. As long as people think of God as the Great Author who writes our stories out on blank paper, they will never even begin to understand who and what God is. All we can really do is smile and try to let them know that their paradigm is fatally flawed.

Indeed.  I was maybe being too clever by half.  What I meant to suggest was that there are reasons God ordains that things work in a certain way (perhaps because He is *not* really all-powerful in the broadest sense of the term and He *can’t* set things up the way we wish He would; though I doubt most mainline Christians would openly concede such a possibility).  Since it is beyond our capacity to devine (see what I did there?  HA! ;) ) all those reasons, at some point we just have to follow through with the praxis He has set.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Indeed. An open question (to me) is whether Jesus Christ himself "needed" baptism in any sense. My default feeling is that, no, he did not need baptism, because: (1) He was not sinful, so the baptismal covenant did not cleanse him in any sense; and, (2) He had already entered into a covenant with God, and thus did not need to make the baptismal covenant for his own sake. So I assume Christ was baptized purely for our benefit, to give us an example of how we need to act.

But I openly admit that my default feeling might be wrong. Perhaps Christ needed those saving covenants just as we do. Perhaps he needed them, not for the same reasons we do, but for other reasons. I don't know. At this point, it's purely academic, counting pinhead-dancing angels. The important point is that Christ was baptized, just as we need to be.

Jesus said that baptism was necessary to fulfill all righteousness.  The word baptism is a Greek word.  The ancient Hebrews made reference to "washing" to be made clean to establish covenant with G-d.  Jesus was baptized by John in the same place that Joshua (The Hebrew name that in Greek is translated as Jesus) washed Israel before they would be allowed to enter the "promised land".

Baptism is a commandment and covenant with G-d - without which no one can claim to keep the commandments of G-d or have covenant with Him.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Christ's forgiveness is extended to all who follow him. The problem is understanding what it means to follow Christ. And what it fundamentally means to follow Christ is to obey his commandments, to walk the path he marked for us.

If you refuse to be baptized, then you are rejecting Christ's forgiveness. It's pretty much that simple. I don't expect your friend to understand or accept this truth, seeing as how he worships I Dream of Jeannie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Everybody above gave great answers.  I'm going to give you the easy LDS answer juxtaposed to the Catholic perspective whose flaws led to the Protestant perspective.

The restored gospel revealed the truth that Baptism is the ordinance by which the children of God enter into the Covenant with Jesus Christ.  This Covenant became necessary when we accepted the Plan of Salvation.  For us to gain knowledge and progress, we need to go through mortal existence (2 Nephi 2).  But no unclean (sinful) thing can dwell in the kingdom of our Father, therefore, we had to go through a spiritual death (separate fully from our Father).  Without our Covenant with the Savior, there wouldn't have been a way for us to go back to the Father's kingdom and dwell with Him once more - as there wasn't a way for us to be cleansed.  Jesus Christ offered Himself as payment for our inequities to cleanse us and allow us to dwell with the Father once more.  But this salvific offering cannot be forced upon us.  WE HAVE to accept the salvific sacrifice of Jesus Christ and enter into the Covenant of our own free will to have Jesus as our Lord and Savior.  The way to enter into that Covenant is through Baptism.

The Catholic perspective, on the other hand, is missing the teaching on pre-mortal existence and the eternal nature of our spirit.  This led to the Catholic position that God created Adam and Eve - spirit and body - from nothing.  They lived in perfection with the Father until Eve, tempted by the Devil, caused Adam to sin with her leading to the Fall into mortal existence.  Every offspring of Adam and Eve, therefore, are tainted with Adam and Eve's original sin.  Baptism, therefore, cleanses us of original sin and puts us in communion with Christ our Savior which then allows us to be resurrected to live with God after mortal life.  Another missing teaching from the Catholic perspective is post-mortal progression.  Because baptism can only be done before death in the Catholic faith, the Catholics have made it a practice to baptize infants as early as possible so that they may not risk dying without having their original sin cleansed.  This practice has led to much confusion on the status of infants who die before they are baptized - are they then deprived of heaven?  What about people who are born and die without having heard of the name Jesus, let alone have the opportunity to be baptized?  Do they get deprived of heaven without their knowledge?  These and other confusing questions has led to the Protestant reformation that gave birth to other ideas in an attempt to resolve these questions.  Some Protestant faiths carry on the tradition of Baptism as practiced in Catholicism to cleanse us of original sin.  Other Protestant faiths carry on the tradition of Baptism as a symbolic/ceremonial ordinance that may be optional.  While others believe that Baptism is a "Work" that buys heaven and is, therefore, heretic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Queolby: Do you have to be born in order to be saved?

Parnter: Yes.

Q: So, being born saves you?

P: No, of course not.

Q; So, some things are "required" without being the "cause" right?

P: I guess.

Q: And if being born is a "requirement", why is it so far fetched to believe that being "born again" is also a requirement?  Jesus said as much.

Quote

Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit...

If a person thinks he can be saved without being born, then I'd like to see how someone who didn't exist can be saved.

If he's just mincing words and considering the unborn embryo/fetus, then that's just being obstinate.  And you can simply stop talking because he's just looking for a reason to disagree rather than having a free exchange of ideas where we "try" to understand each other.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

What did he say when you asked him about the command to baptize?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

I'd agree with him that baptism might not be necessary...however...

John 3 we are given the commandment by the Lord to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost.  If we are truly going to be following the Lord and put our faith in him, than we have to obey what he has told us to do.  If we DO NOT do as we have been commanded, then do we really have faith?  Are we really following him?

As James says, we show our faith by our works.  Our works do not save us, but they SHOW that we are willing to actually do as we believe...that we are actually going to follow the Lord.

The Adversary and those who rebelled against heaven all believe and even KNOW that the Savior is the real Savior of the world and who is the Lord of heaven and earth.  The difference between one who is following the Lord to be saved of him and them is shown by OUR ACTIONS.  This would include being baptized.

We are baptized because the Lord commanded it.

On the otherhand, the Lord is all powerful.  If he is all powerful he can do whatever he wants.  As he points out in the New Testament, he is the creator of the Law and he can do as he pleases.  So...yes...if he wanted to I'm sure he could save someone who has not been baptized in this life.

Of course, in all likelihood he will be more favorable upon those who SHOWED they were following him by obeying his commandments than those that simply said they believe just like the minions of hell also do, and then, just like those minions, proceeded to ignore every commandment and item which showed they actually were any different than those minions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Indeed. An open question (to me) is whether Jesus Christ himself "needed" baptism in any sense. My default feeling is that, no, he did not need baptism, because: (1) He was not sinful, so the baptismal covenant did not cleanse him in any sense; and, (2) He had already entered into a covenant with God, and thus did not need to make the baptismal covenant for his own sake. So I assume Christ was baptized purely for our benefit, to give us an example of how we need to act.

But I openly admit that my default feeling might be wrong. Perhaps Christ needed those saving covenants just as we do. Perhaps he needed them, not for the same reasons we do, but for other reasons. I don't know. At this point, it's purely academic, counting pinhead-dancing angels. The important point is that Christ was baptized, just as we need to be.

Nephi expresses this about the reasons why the Lord needed to be Baptized...in 2 Nephi 31

Quote

4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

Having lived in the Bible Belt for years I can guarantee you that nothing you say will convince a fairly devout Christian of anything.  I'd rather try my luck convincing someone who is a Buddhist, Muslim or Athiest of the truth than an Evangelical.  They are seldom open to discovery.  That's my experience anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

Having lived in the Bible Belt for years 

off topic-but do you think "the Bible Belt" even exists anymore? With people moving around so much and the drastic decline in religious participation I have my doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

off topic-but do you think "the Bible Belt" even exists anymore? With people moving around so much and the drastic decline in religious participation I have my doubts.

Oh it exists all right.  It's thinned out a bit, but my city is definitely trying to keep the marauders out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Fether said:

Forgiveness is great. But it doesn’t lead to salvation. 3 Nephi 9:27. No unclean thing can enter into his kingdom. Forgiveness is not a cleaning solution.

Also, baptism isn’t just for becoming clean or being forgiven. We are making Covenants with God. Without those Covenants we cannot be saved.

It doesn't go to verse 27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
30 minutes ago, TheRedHen said:

Oh it exists all right.  It's thinned out a bit, but my city is definitely trying to keep the marauders out.

Fascinating. I live in the rural south and the "bible belt" leaders in my area have voiced their concern that their congregations are rapidly shrinking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Queolby said:

I'm talking to this Christian online and it's not confrontational or anything so I just keep talking to him. He points out that because Christ can forgive sin without baptism that baptism is not necessary. And I am stumped on how to answer this. I feel like it's actually a dumb question but I just don't know how to respond to him respectfully. any ideas? Thanks for your time!

This disagreement is really just a symptom of a much larger question that has to do with faith and works. My guess is he believes that we are saved by merely accepting Christ as our Savior. So any other act/work is merely optional including baptism. So if you are to gain any traction with this guy (as unlikely as that is) it will be done by addressing the larger more fundamental question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share