NationStates Jolt Archive

So in the other forum I occasionally reference, I've been debating LDS vs. Evangelism and the subject of Baptism came up.

As some of you may know, Mormon belief is that Baptism is a critical step in Salvation, and that it must be done by proper priesthood authority. (Per Mark 16:16) (Similar to Catholicism, except that in the Mormon Church baptism must be done by immersion.)

Evangelical Christians, from what I can tell, set high importance of Baptism but will not commit to saying it's essential.

In trying to pin down my opponents in this other forum I offered an example, in the interest of improving my own understanding, but so far I can't get a straight answer, just dodges.

The example was this:

When I was 7 years old I was still Catholic but I went with my friends to a youth Bible Study Fellowship thingy. I was taught the doctrine of salvation by choosing Christ, no mention was made about Baptism. Then they asked us if any of us didn't feel like we had Christ in our heart. I had no idea what that meant and, being uncertain, I raised my hand.

So I was taken off to the side privately and led through a prayer in which I essentially asked Jesus to come into my heart. This, as I understand it in retrospect, was the process by which an Evangelical Christian becomes saved.

Note: I was never baptized in any Protestant manner. I have been baptized twice in my life. Once as an infant in the Catholic Church, and once as a 24 year old in the LDS Church.

So my question, for Protestants out there is, you tell me, did I get saved or not, by your reckoning?

If yes, then by Evangelical theology baptism becomes irrelevant. If no, then we are in agreement that baptism is essential for Salvation.

Which is it?

beats me.

but

y'all have an extra "out" since you can be baptised after death. the evangelical cant so he HAS to have a work around for all those righteous souls who missed the dunking.

This so depends on who you ask. There are some denominations that will say that Baptism is essential to salvation, while others will tell you that it's merely symbolic.

Seriously, "Protestant" is about as specific a label as "European".

If you want salvation and seek salvation, then you already have it. *nod*

Baptism is, IMO, the most important symbol in Christianity. It is our public proclamation that we have been born again in the Grace of Christ Jesus.

That being said, I don't think it is necessary, what of a man (hypothetically) who has blasphemed, and cursed God his whole life, and he was never baptized. Standard Christian theology would argue that a death bed penitance can indeed invoke Christ's Grace, though he never had the chance to be baptized.

As for, say, someone to say "Well, sure I follow Christ, I'm just not motivated to get baptized." that is a gray area, I don't think a ceremonial bath is the vehicle by which we recieve the Grace of Christ, but I also feel that baptism is an important part of Christian teachings, again citing it being the public proclamation of rebirth.

I used pretty much these same arguments against a fellow NSer (and Lutheran) recently to suggest that dogmatically following what his priest said (rather than through study of the Bible firsthand) was a foolish choice to make. Sadly he thought I was trying to convert him (from protestantism to non-denomination protestantism?), and even when I used Luther's own beliefs (that sacrament are symbols, and that Salvation lies truly within our hearts) he refused to commit to not dogmatically following the idea that Baptism both is, and isn't necessary.

As for the comment about Baptism being performed only by certified clergy, I disagree. I hold no official position in any religious body, yet I would have no problem offering Communion, or Baptism to anyone who wanted it from me (assuming I reasonably believed they wanted to follow Christ).

beats me.

but

y'all have an extra "out" since you can be baptised after death. the evangelical cant so he HAS to have a work around for all those righteous souls who missed the dunking.

Totally... and this, to me, represents a contradiction. It seems some people are deathly afraid of being accused of advocating "Salvation by works" so they won't even say Baptism (hardly a 'work' as I understand it) is essential, and yet even Jesus had to be Baptized so how can those be reconciled?

Baptism is, IMO, the most important symbol in Christianity. It is our public proclamation that we have been born again in the Grace of Christ Jesus.

That being said, I don't think it is necessary, what of a man (hypothetically) who has blasphemed, and cursed God his whole life, and he was never baptized. Standard Christian theology would argue that a death bed penitance can indeed invoke Christ's Grace, though he never had the chance to be baptized.

As for, say, someone to say "Well, sure I follow Christ, I'm just not motivated to get baptized." that is a gray area, I don't think a ceremonial bath is the vehicle by which we recieve the Grace of Christ, but I also feel that baptism is an important part of Christian teachings, again citing it being the public proclamation of rebirth.

I used pretty much these same arguments against a fellow NSer (and Lutheran) recently to suggest that dogmatically following what his priest said (rather than through study of the Bible firsthand) was a foolish choice to make. Sadly he thought I was trying to convert him (from protestantism to non-denomination protestantism?), and even when I used Luther's own beliefs (that sacrament are symbols, and that Salvation lies truly within our hearts) he refused to commit to not dogmatically following the idea that Baptism both is, and isn't necessary.

As for the comment about Baptism being performed only by certified clergy, I disagree. I hold no official position in any religious body, yet I would have no problem offering Communion, or Baptism to anyone who wanted it from me (assuming I reasonably believed they wanted to follow Christ).

Thanks for the detailed reply. I know we'd disagree about the priesthood element, since AFAIK that's not a part of most Denominations of Protestantism, I just threw it in there for clarity.

As to the rest, I've heard baptism described as a symbol before but it sounds so easily discarded that it's hard to imagine it having any meaning if it isn't essential.

What you wrote, is that a common perspective among Protestants?

Lastly, how would it apply to my example? Would that make me an actual Evangelically saved Mormon? ;) (I know that might sound mocking, but it's not intended to be. I'm just trying to understand.)

Totally... and this, to me, represents a contradiction. It seems some people are deathly afraid of being accused of advocating "Salvation by works" so they won't even say Baptism (hardly a 'work' as I understand it) is essential, and yet even Jesus had to be Baptized so how can those be reconciled?

Christians have been asking why Christ was baptized for a very long time. That and why He advocated baptisms when He abhorred ritualistic rites. I might suggest that baptism for salvation is kind of like salt and lemon for tequila.

Totally... and this, to me, represents a contradiction. It seems some people are deathly afraid of being accused of advocating "Salvation by works" so they won't even say Baptism (hardly a 'work' as I understand it) is essential, and yet even Jesus had to be Baptized so how can those be reconciled?

I don't see a contradiction. Christians should get baptized. Now, this should is still a pretty high priority, Jesus, who is pretty much the perfect example of what a Christian should be, was of course baptized. Now, because Jesus was a much better Christian than I was, do I lose my salvation? Not at all, in fact it was His strength, and His faith that saves me, through my own belief in Him.

When we accept Christ, He takes our place in death, and His baptism settles over us, leaving human baptism a symbol as much as Communion, which celebrates that grave sacrifice He made for the sake of the world.

Christians have been asking why Christ was baptized for a very long time. That and why He advocated baptisms when He abhorred ritualistic rites. I might suggest that baptism for salvation is kind of like salt and lemon for tequila.

Back then they also didn't bathe a lot. Maybe that's the only way he could keep the congregation clean.

I might suggest that baptism for salvation is kind of like salt and lemon for tequila.

Meaning it's highly suggested, but not absolutely required? Agreed.

If you don't mean that... well poop in my mouth.

(thats an expression, not a genuine request... FYI)

Back then they also didn't bathe a lot. Maybe that's the only way he could keep the congregation clean.

"Ok dudes, you are seriously starting to stink. I think it's time for a baptism!"

Let me ask you this... How does that reconcile with Mark 16:16?

Totally... and this, to me, represents a contradiction. It seems some people are deathly afraid of being accused of advocating "Salvation by works" so they won't even say Baptism (hardly a 'work' as I understand it) is essential, and yet even Jesus had to be Baptized so how can those be reconciled?

But the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, and yet Jesus made a point of telling him that he was going to Heaven.

Let me ask you this... How does that reconcile with Mark 16:16?

"He that believeth not shall be damned."

The role of baptism according to that verse is vague, and can be well taken either way, for being unbaptized is not a requierment for damnation.

It suggests that baptism is not necessary for salvation, nor is it alone enough to stave off damnation.

But the thief on the cross wasn't baptized, and yet Jesus made a point of telling him that he was going to Heaven.

Well, not Heaven... Paradise. There's a difference.

(But I see no contradiction with that, because it is possible to baptize posthumously in LDS teaching.)

Let me ask you this... How does that reconcile with Mark 16:16?

I think the ideas put forth in that passage are contradicted in Luke 13:56, Mark 10:21, and John 20:3. Not particularly in that order, but in the same fashion.

Meaning it's highly suggested, but not absolutely required? Agreed.

If you don't mean that... well poop in my mouth.

(thats an expression, not a genuine request... FYI)

It's an expression you should use cautiously. If at all.

I mean more that baptism is a tool and not a process. You can chop down a tree with a saw, an axe or a herring but if people really like the solid feel of axes in their hand, then there's no harm in telling people they can chop down trees with an axe if it works and it makes them happy as long as the tree gets cut down.

"He that believeth not shall be damned."

The role of baptism according to that verse is vague, and can be well taken either way, for being unbaptized is not a requierment for damnation.

It suggests that baptism is not necessary for salvation, nor is it alone enough to stave off damnation.

See, you've left out the first part of that verse.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Well, not Heaven... Paradise. There's a difference.

Not in traditional protestant theology, there's not. I'm assuming it's part of Mormon theology, then?

It's an expression you should use cautiously. If at all.

I mean more that baptism is a tool and not a process. You can chop down a tree with a saw, an axe or a herring but if people really like the solid feel of axes in their hand, then there's no harm in telling people they can chop down trees with an axe if it works and it makes them happy as long as the tree gets cut down.

I would give anything to see you chop down a tree with a herring. All the while quoting Monty Python.

Back then they also didn't bathe a lot. Maybe that's the only way he could keep the congregation clean.

A distinct possibility.

Not in traditional protestant theology, there's not. I'm assuming it's part of Mormon theology, then?

Right.

I would give anything to see you chop down a tree with a herring. All the while quoting Monty Python.

Once was enough.

Well, not Heaven... Paradise. There's a difference.

(But I see no contradiction with that, because it is possible to baptize posthumously in LDS teaching.)

Ok... so perhaps Christ posthumously baptizes all believers who didn't get baptized on Earth? Also, which of Jesus' teachings ever suggest a thing such as posthumous baptism?

Also also, where do you necessarily derive a difference between Paradise, and Heaven? What are your definitions for each? I think that Jesus would have defined them congruently.

I see this debate as I see every question about the sacraments. Going without them is like walking somewhere as opposed to riding a bike. You'll eventually get there if your a good person, but wouldn't you rather take the bike to make it easier and give you a helping hand?

See, you've left out the first part of that verse.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I did so fully aware I was doing it. I used the second part, because that is what I was using to refute your confusing interpretation of the verse. It does not at all say that the unbaptized are damned, it says the unbelieving are damned, suggesting a higher emphasis on belief, than on baptism.

I think the ideas put forth in that passage are contradicted in Luke 13:56, Mark 10:21, and John 20:3. Not particularly in that order, but in the same fashion.

Luke 13:56 doesn't exist... Typo?

I don't think Mark 10:21 excludes the veracity of Mark 16:16.

John 20:3 doesn't deal with Salvation... Typo?

It's an expression you should use cautiously. If at all.

I mean more that baptism is a tool and not a process. You can chop down a tree with a saw, an axe or a herring but if people really like the solid feel of axes in their hand, then there's no harm in telling people they can chop down trees with an axe if it works and it makes them happy as long as the tree gets cut down.

I use it quite frequently, but I'm a completely ridiculous person, so most people just look at me funny, then get used to it, lol.

Can you explain the 'tool' metaphor in a different way? I am probably dense, and not really getting the fish-chop metaphor.

I did so fully aware I was doing it. I used the second part, because that is what I was using to refute your confusing interpretation of the verse. It does not at all say that the unbaptized are damned, it says the unbelieving are damned, suggesting a higher emphasis on belief, than on baptism.

I would venture to agree that belief is more important, in the sense that someone who merely goes through the motions of baptism but has no belief is not receiving grace...

But one can't ignore the first half of the verse. It just doesn't get any plainer than that.

Although I do admit that my objective in this thread isn't to convince anybody of that, only to learn what, exactly, Protestants believe on the matter. Thus I propose we agree to disagree to avoid the sidetrack.

I don't think Mark 10:21 excludes the veracity of Mark 16:16.

It doesn't necessarily. However, you should not that Jesus does not command the rich man to sell all his possessions, give everything to the poor, get baptized, and follow Him.

So it seems that the emphasis would be on following Jesus, in this case.

the easiest way to for me to explain baptism for evangelical Christians is that baptism is like a wedding ring. you don't need the wedding ring to be married but it is an outward sign to everyone your commitment to your spouse. the same is true for baptism. you need not be baptised to have salvation but it is an outward sign of your commitment to Jesus for all to see.

I would venture to agree that belief is more important, in the sense that someone who merely goes through the motions of baptism but has no belief is not receiving grace...

But one can't ignore the first half of the verse. It just doesn't get any plainer than that.

Although I do admit that my objective in this thread isn't to convince anybody of that, only to learn what, exactly, Protestants believe on the matter. Thus I propose we agree to disagree to avoid the sidetrack.

I'm pretty sure most Protestants believe that the sacraments are symbolic.

Martin Luther stressed these views strongly, though the Lutheran Church as I've experienced it is still pretty caught up in ritual, and the sacraments as a necessity (infant baptism, first communion, and things like that).

Once was enough.

LOL

Ok... so perhaps Christ posthumously baptizes all believers who didn't get baptized on Earth? Also, which of Jesus' teachings ever suggest a thing such as posthumous baptism?


No, such baptisms are done here on Earth. (This is an LDS doctrine, per 1 Corinthians 15:29)



Also also, where do you necessarily derive a difference between Paradise, and Heaven? What are your definitions for each? I think that Jesus would have defined them congruently.

That's a complex topic, probably well beyond the scope of this thread. The short answer is that Paradise is where good people go to await Judgment Day.

I see this debate as I see every question about the sacraments. Going without them is like walking somewhere as opposed to riding a bike. You'll eventually get there if your a good person, but wouldn't you rather take the bike to make it easier and give you a helping hand?

How do you relate that to belief in Jesus Christ?

the easiest way to for me to explain baptism for evangelical Christians is that baptism is like a wedding ring. you don't need the wedding ring to be married but it is an outward sign to everyone your commitment to your spouse. the same is true for baptism. you need not be baptised to have salvation but it is an outward sign of your commitment to Jesus for all to see.

Yeah? Says you.

I agree, as well.

Totally... and this, to me, represents a contradiction. It seems some people are deathly afraid of being accused of advocating "Salvation by works" so they won't even say Baptism (hardly a 'work' as I understand it) is essential, and yet even Jesus had to be Baptized so how can those be reconciled?
there is so much of evangelical protestantism that i disagree with that its hard for me to reply.

i do think, however, that god/jesus wouldnt damn those righteous souls who were never baptised and wouldnt have waited 1800 years to mention that it can be done posthumously.

but then i also think that he wouldnt have sent a savior to one region well into the history of humanity and have belief in him be in any way the key to going to heaven/avoiding hell.

It doesn't necessarily. However, you should not that Jesus does not command the rich man to sell all his possessions, give everything to the poor, get baptized, and follow Him.

So it seems that the emphasis would be on following Jesus, in this case.

That seems like an overly literal interpretation, since one could argue that Jesus doesn't instruct the man to accept Him as the Son of God. (It's implicit in the command to follow Him, which is where I'd categorize the baptism)

the easiest way to for me to explain baptism for evangelical Christians is that baptism is like a wedding ring. you don't need the wedding ring to be married but it is an outward sign to everyone your commitment to your spouse. the same is true for baptism. you need not be baptised to have salvation but it is an outward sign of your commitment to Jesus for all to see.

Nothing more?

I'm pretty sure most Protestants believe that the sacraments are symbolic.

Martin Luther stressed these views strongly, though the Lutheran Church as I've experienced it is still pretty caught up in ritual, and the sacraments as a necessity (infant baptism, first communion, and things like that).

I didn't know Lutherans did infant baptism.

there is so much of evangelical protestantism that i disagree with that its hard for me to reply.

I still appreciate your insights.


i do think, however, that god/jesus wouldnt damn those righteous souls who were never baptised and wouldnt have waited 1800 years to mention that it can be done posthumously.

Actually it's in the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:29


but then i also think that he wouldnt have sent a savior to one region well into the history of humanity and have belief in him be in any way the key to going to heaven/avoiding hell.

Mormons have an answer for that, too ;)

Luke 13:56 doesn't exist... Typo?
I don't think Mark 10:21 excludes the veracity of Mark 16:16.
John 20:3 doesn't deal with Salvation... Typo?

I meant Luke 12:56.

But really, my post was BS.

I figured if I tossed a few Bible passages out there no one would bother to look them up/verify. I thought that was kind of the idea on NSG, but apparently we are all more serious here than I thought.. hrm.

I am a former evangelical protestant. Evangelicals believe that baptism is a symbol of the grace that is already there in your heart. It is not necessary for salvation but a Christian should do it. Of course this ignores 1 Peter 3:21

"21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22who is at the right hand of God,having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. "

and Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and also the Nicene Creed where it says "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"

Although I do admit that my objective in this thread isn't to convince anybody of that, only to learn what, exactly, Protestants believe on the matter. Thus I propose we agree to disagree to avoid the sidetrack.
I always thought Mormons were a Protestant denomination. Do they not consider themselves as such?

I didn't know Lutherans did infant baptism.

Yep. I was baptised as an infant, and a couple years back, I got baptized again, when my dad asked me "You've already been baptized, wasn't that good enough?" I had to try to explain that some guy in a robe dumping some water on me as a baby didn't really do it for me, but, without being offensive to Lutheran practice....

I meant Luke 12:56.

But really, my post was BS.

I figured if I tossed a few Bible passages out there no one would bother to look them up/verify. I thought that was kind of the idea on NSG, but apparently we are all more serious here than I thought.. hrm.

Putz. :p

I am a former evangelical protestant. Evangelicals believe that baptism is a symbol of the grace that is already there in your heart. It is not necessary for salvation but a Christian should do it. Of course this ignores 1 Peter 3:21

"21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22who is at the right hand of God,having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. "

and Acts 2:38

38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and also the Nicene Creed where it says "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"

Great references, thanks!

I always thought Mormons were a Protestant denomination. Do they not consider themselves as such?

I think the common understanding of what Protestants are definitely excludes Mormons, since a lot of Evangelicals won't even acknowledge Mormons are Christians, let alone fellow Protestants.

I think people tend to categorize us as Restorationists, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists.

For our part, we don't really worry about it :)

Yep. I was baptised as an infant, and a couple years back, I got baptized again, when my dad asked me "You've already been baptized, wasn't that good enough?" I had to try to explain that some guy in a robe dumping some water on me as a baby didn't really do it for me, but, without being offensive to Lutheran practice....

Ah, gotcha. When a person is baptized as an adult in the Lutheran Church, do they do it by immersion or by sprinkling like in Catholicism?

Ah, gotcha. When a person is baptized as an adult in the Lutheran Church, do they do it by immersion or by sprinkling like in Catholicism?

As an adult? Not sure. I've never been present for an adult baptism, and only once that I can remember for an infant one (which... was sprinkling... of course).

I know my church does full immersion, and we even use a real (though disgusting) river.

I think the common understanding of what Protestants are definitely excludes Mormons, since a lot of Evangelicals won't even acknowledge Mormons are Christians, let alone fellow Protestants.

I think people tend to categorize us as Restorationists, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists.

For our part, we don't really worry about it :)

and, if you think about it, it defines christian denominations in reference to the roman catholic church--that being what the protestants were protesting against.

which would not be a good way to categorize the latter day saints at all. the church wasnt formed in protest of anything.

Every time I read about Baptism in the NT, I always see it going along the line of "Repent and be Baptized". To me that signifies that it IS crucial. Jesus didn't say "Hey, go to church, confess, and get your name on the member books, and you'll get to heaven". His message was a simple "repent and be baptized"

I will also speak from my own experience about the subject. I was first baptized in 2004(maybe 05?) because of pressure from my "home" church at the time. I don't consider myself to have been a Christian at that time, but needless to say, I was baptized. What did that do for me? Nothing. Nothing at all. Now, March 3rd, 2007, I confessed my sins before the Lord, and started considering myself an honest believer. I wasn't just going to Church, and wasn't just reading my Bible. I became committed to Christ. However, at the same time, I didn't get baptized into Christ, and so I walked around living a Christian life, but I didn't feel "clean", so to speak. Well, this past April I decided to get dunked, and the instant I came up out of that water I felt every unclean feeling I had wash away. And there was something else that was very important that happened to me that night. I received the Holy Spirit. Do you remember in Acts 2 when the Spirit came over the Apostles? What did it describe the Spirit as? Like a wind from heaven. This is exactly how I feel all the time. Its hard to explain, but even in the stillness, I can feel a slight "breath" upon me. It is something I can't see, taste, or hear, but it guides me, and it does bring comfort (The Great Comforter, as Jesus described it.). So not only do I believe that baptism is essential, based on the Bible, but also from my own experience. If you are a follower of the Christ, and you haven't been dunked, I VERY strongly recommend you be baptized soon. But before you do it, make sure you know why, and that its an honest to God change in your heart.

Blessings,
Zilam

and, if you think about it, it defines christian denominations in reference to the roman catholic church--that being what the protestants were protesting against.

which would not be a good way to categorize the latter day saints at all. the church wasnt formed in protest of anything.

True. I just knew the Church of Latter-Day Saints definitely wasn't Catholic, and it definitely wasn't Orthodox. But Restorationist, that makes sense.

The official Southern Baptist belief was that baptism is an ordinance that shows obedience to God and stuff. The water wasn't magic. All the references to being "baptized" were either a spiritual baptism and washing away or talking specifically about the physical act which was a symbol.

As indicated by their name a primary Baptist distinction is their practice of believer's baptism and their rejection of infant baptism. Baptists consider Christian baptism to be an ordinance for believers only, by immersion only, and as a symbolic act, not having any power in itself. The act of baptism pictures what Christ has done for the believer in His death, burial, and resurrection. It pictures what Christ has done for the believer through the new birth, enabling death to the old life and newness of life to walk in. Baptism gives testimony to a salvation already received; it is not a requisite for salvation. It is an act of obedience to Jesus Christ.

http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/baptistdenom.htm

Most other protestants believe IIRC that it is required for the receiving of the gift of the holy spirit and/or remission of sins. Although most of them agree that grace will cover you if you can't get baptised. Pointing to the man on the cross next to Jesus as proof. I wonder if you actually have to be nailed down as you are dying or if there is a clause for people with water phobia?:confused:

so if its mostly symbolic what is the big freaking deal over infant baptism?

it makes perfect sense if its "magic" but if its symbolic not so much.

so if its mostly symbolic what is the big freaking deal over infant baptism?

In a lot of churches, mine included, infant baptism is more of a dedication by the parents to raise the baby with the love of God.

In a lot of churches, mine included, infant baptism is more of a dedication by the parents to raise the baby with the love of God.
yeah.

and its "magic" in that it guarantees a trip to heaven if the worst happens.

which is something to fight over, denominationally speaking. but if its just a pretty much empty ceremony why should any denomination be so adamant against it?

which is something to fight over, denominationally speaking. but if its just a pretty much empty ceremony why should any denomination be so adamant against it?

Because some people feel like baptism should be a choice one makes later in life. As a baby you don't really understand the implications.

yeah but ... if its symbolic, why fight about it?

yeah but ... if its symbolic, why fight about it?

Because the symbol is an outward sign of a spiritually significant decision the individual has made. One of the arguments is that infant baptism removes most of that and leaves an empty ritual that could even be seen as forcing the decision on the child.

I'm very sorry I don't have more time to read this entire thread, and I don't have enough time to really answer the question in it's entirety, just the specifics... But if we follow what the first Christians did and what Jesus himself said, we can quickly determine the importance of the topic.

First off, after the ascension, it is clear that converts to Christianity were immediately baptized whenever possible.

Acts 2:38
And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Clearly they both believed that it was important that Baptism be performed, AND they both mention the forgiveness of sin with the act of Baptism, something you will seldom find American Protestants to do.

If, however, the Protestant ordinances are just ordinances and not sacraments, such as baptism and the Communion/Eucharist meal, then words like, “for the forgiveness of Sins” and, “baptized into his death” would not occur in the scripture, but they do...

Romans 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

Without his death, there is no redemption, if you are not baptized, how are you buried with him? IF you are not buried with him, how do you expect to share in his resurrection?

The simple answer is, if you consider yourself a Christian, get baptized AND share in the Eucharist…

John 6:53
So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

As to what American Protestants believe, I would suggest that most of them would say that a LDS person isn't saved not because they are baptized or not, but because they reject the authority of the scripture when it contradicts the Book of Mormon, that is why they are not saved. LDS reject Gods ability to protect his own scripture, thus they substitute something new in it's place. Baptism or not is irrelevant to why the Protestants reject LDS theology.

yeah but ... if its symbolic, why fight about it?

*puts on SB hat*


The fact that some people think it's magic water and therefore don't see their need for salvation after being sprinkled as a baby.

It's like telling people with AIDS that if they pray before they fuck the virus won't pass. It's a lie, praying before they fuck might help, but it's probably useless. It's probably better to tell them that it's more helpful to wear a condom.

*puts on SB hat*


The fact that some people think it's magic water and therefore don't see their need for salvation after being sprinkled as a baby.

It's like telling people with AIDS that if they pray before they fuck the virus won't pass. It's a lie, praying before they fuck might help, but it's probably useless. It's probably better to tell them that it's more helpful to wear a condom.
that almost makes sense to me.

SB substitutes "accepting jesus as your personal lord and savior" for baptism.

that almost makes sense to me.

SB substitutes "accepting jesus as your personal lord and savior" for baptism.

Yep, it's the concious choice to be a follower of Christ. If you do that you should be obedient and go through the baptism and if you don't get baptised one might question your level of "wanting to follow Christ" since Christ said to do that.

It's very twisty and wonky. It's not required but if you are a "real" Christian you'll do it.

its so much harder to be a protestant and be sure that you have it all right.

as a catholic (if i went backto the church, went to confession and made a sincere act of contrition) i dont have to worry that i am a good enough christian to have it count.

its so much harder to be a protestant and be sure that you have it all right.

as a catholic (if i went backto the church, went to confession and made a sincere act of contrition) i dont have to worry that i am a good enough christian to have it count.

ah, but Southern Baptists have backed up your salvation with "once saved always saved" meaning if you really meant it back in the day, you can't fuck up enough to lose your standing.......although if people fuck up too much the old ladies in the church will say you "weren't really committed" in the first place.

yeah so how do you really know?

considering how many private sins people commit how do you know for sure that its not one of those situations?

ah, but Southern Baptists have backed up your salvation with "once saved always saved" meaning if you really meant it back in the day, you can't fuck up enough to lose your standing.......although if people fuck up too much the old ladies in the church will say you "weren't really committed" in the first place.

Usually a person's view on that depends on whether they lean more Calvinist or Armenian, theologically.

So in the other forum I occasionally reference, I've been debating LDS vs. Evangelism and the subject of Baptism came up.

As some of you may know, Mormon belief is that Baptism is a critical step in Salvation, and that it must be done by proper priesthood authority. (Per Mark 16:16) (Similar to Catholicism, except that in the Mormon Church baptism must be done by immersion.)

Evangelical Christians, from what I can tell, set high importance of Baptism but will not commit to saying it's essential.


Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

For Assembly of God (who are evangelical Christians)

The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.

* Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
* Mark 16:16 [KJV/NIV]
* Acts 10:47,48 [KJV/NIV]
* Romans 6:4 [KJV/NIV]

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

For Assembly of God (who are evangelical Christians)

The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.

* Matthew 28:19 [KJV/NIV]
* Mark 16:16 [KJV/NIV]
* Acts 10:47,48 [KJV/NIV]
* Romans 6:4 [KJV/NIV]
perhaps it is those he is debating with on the other forum who dont know what they are talking about.

Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change. In other words, it is not essential to get baptised after asking Jesus into your heart.

Only you and Jesus (God) know if you truly asked Him into your heart. If you meant it when you prayed the prayer, then you are saved and you have absolutely nothing to worry about. You can't lose your salvation, and you won't go to Hell for not being baptised.

Baptism is just an outward sign that you have excepted Christ; if someone gets saved and dies in a car crash before he or she can be baptised, they will still go to Heaven. But most believers get baptised.

Some Protestant denominations sprinkle and others emerse. I am a Southern Baptist, and Southern Baptists use emersion, but Methodists sprinkle as far as I know.

I hope this helps you. :)

I'll take a stab, albiet it may be a swing and a miss.

I was raised Southern Baptist (which I will from this point forward refer to as SBC) all my life, and currently attend one in the town in which I live. Although I feel as though I need to throw my disclaimer out there... I only go to this one certain SBC church because I feel most comfortable at it, not because I adhere to the SBC Theological Doctrine (thank God).

Now, you say that you were dragged aside after being asked if you "had Jesus in your heart" or not. And the person who took you aside led you through the "Sinner's Prayer" and gave you a slap on the back, a lollipop, and said, "Congrats, my brother. You are now saved."

What you experienced at this Protestant, supposedly Fundamentalist church was probably what I would consider one of the greatest travesties in the American church today, and I will be the first to say that the SBC is the worst. The Fundamentalist doctrine followed by too many churches today states that if one can give intellectual assent to a few various Biblical truths (the diety of Christ, heaven and hell, the inspiration of the Bible, the death/burial/resurrection of Christ), one may be a Christian. And if a person knows where to say, "Yep," at the four or five places he was asked to, they are "saved". Of course, there is the Sinner's Prayer, which many believe must be said in order to be saved. This, however, is nowhere in the Bible, and is never mentioned as a must for Christian salvation. If anything, it should only be used as a "marker," if you will: a certain thing that one can remember and say, "That's when I was 'saved.'"

Salvation, from all I believe, is an act of true repentance for the sins of ourselves. It is finding true redemption through Jesus Christ (and him alone), and surrenduring to a life absolutely under the control of Christ. The act of salvation in today's modern church has turned into a scheme as to get into heaven and nothing else; it has turned into a plot that is little different than a group of guys at a bar who scheme to rob a bank in order to get something for nothing. Travesty, I believe. (Now, to go more in depth... I believe that a true act of salvation is giving up one's life, so that one may worship God and love Him and live [and do] as He commands even if one goes to hell at the end of it all, simply because God is worthy.)

On the subject of baptism, however... It is one of the two ordinances given by Christ, those being baptism and the Lord's Supper (or Communion, for my Catholic buds). However, nowhere in the Bible is it stated that one MUST be baptised in order to be "saved" by Christ. Paul states simply that we are saved by grace through faith. Baptism is an act which may be used to show other people our act of "dying to ourselves" and becoming one with Christ. It is silly, in my own, humble opinion, to believe that baptism is required for salvation. Baptism is an act by humans, while Paul and numerous New Testament authors attest that salvation is accomplished by NO ACT OF MAN, but only through Christ Jesus. Do I believe baptism is stupid? No. Do I believe it has been made something that it originally wasn't supposed to be? Yes. My thoughts turn to when people in church won't ask if you're 'saved' or a Christian, but they will most likely ask, "Have you been baptised?" Me personally, I have never really been baptised. I was when I was a kid and didn't really know what I was doing. But since then, I have become a true Christian (in my own, crappy wording); albiet unbaptised. I have my own, personal reasons for not being baptised as of yet, but it sometimes it is funny to see little old ladies ask if I have ever been baptised, and I say, "No, no ma'am I have not."

Now I feel I should mention that I may consider myself Evangelical, but in no way would I consider myself Fundamentalist or even a "member" of the SBC (I simply go to one...). I hope this has been at least a little explanatory. Sorry if it was just a rant, as I'm sure it probably was.

its so much harder to be a protestant and be sure that you have it all right.

as a catholic (if i went backto the church, went to confession and made a sincere act of contrition) i dont have to worry that i am a good enough christian to have it count.

No one is good enough to enter Heaven by good works. That's why we need salvation; it's through the grace of Jesus and His sacrifice that we are saved. "Believe on the Lord your God and you will be saved."

No one is good enough to enter Heaven by good works. That's why we need salvation; it's through the grace of Jesus and His sacrifice that we are saved. "Believe on the Lord your God and you will be saved."
yes but as a baptised catholic i can be assured of going to heaven as long as i keep up with confessing my sins and having them absolved.

*statement not made for its truth, only for its theology*

To the OP: I am of the belief that the outward sacrament of baptism is entirely meaningless if you were not baptized in the spiritual sense. "Does the Holy Spirit indwell you?" is the question you should be asking yourself.

That being said, I believe that there is a significant difference between baptizing an infant and baptizing an adult. When an infant is baptized in my denomination, it is an outward sign of the commitment of the parents and the congregation to do their very best to lead the infant towards faith in Christ, and to ask God's blessing on the child's life. When an adult is baptized, it is an outward sign before the congregation that one has accepted Christ and has already been "baptized" in the spiritual sense. In both cases, the physical act of baptism holds no saving value in and of itself.

I realize that there are many other positions out there, but based on what I know and my spiritual convictions, I am convinced that this is the proper explanation. However, since it is the sprinkling or immersion of the heart in the Spirit rather than the sprinkling or immersion of the body with water that matters, I would suppose that one's position on the issue is not something you'd go to hell over for being wrong. ;)

Quick question.

LDS vs. Evangelical Christians???

Mormons ARE a form of evangelical Christian.

You are Christians, you evangelize, ipso facto Evangelical Christian.

Quick question.

LDS vs. Evangelical Christians???

Mormons ARE a form of evangelical Christian.

You are Christians, you evangelize, ipso facto Evangelical Christian.

yeah, that's not what evangelical christian means

I was baptized by a Methodist pastor, apparently, so I guess I'm set as long as the Methodists are right. Although I don't think I was ever actually in a Methodist church again after that...

Then again, I went to Mass with a friend and took communion despite not giving confession and not being Catholic. So I guess if the Catholics are right I'm screwed.

You are Christians, you evangelize, ipso facto Evangelical Christian.

Ipso facto presto chango abracadabra.

Alakazam!

Quick question.

LDS vs. Evangelical Christians???

Mormons ARE a form of evangelical Christian.

You are Christians, you evangelize, ipso facto Evangelical Christian.

Being an evangelist is not the same as being evangelical. I am not an evangelical christian, but I do evangelize. Evangelical Christians are what's considered mainstream protestantism. Evangelizing is spreading the Gospel of Christ.

Every time I read about Baptism in the NT, I always see it going along the line of "Repent and be Baptized".
<snip>
Blessings,
Zilam

I'm very sorry I don't have more time to read this entire thread, and I don't have enough time to really answer the question in it's entirety, just the specifics...
<snip>
Baptism or not is irrelevant to why the Protestants reject LDS theology.

ah, but Southern Baptists have backed up your salvation with "once saved always saved"
<snip>


Baptism is an outward sign of an inward change.
<snip>
I hope this helps you. :)

I'll take a stab, albiet it may be a swing and a miss.
<snip>
Sorry if it was just a rant, as I'm sure it probably was.

To the OP: I am of the belief that the outward sacrament of baptism is entirely meaningless if you were not baptized in the spiritual sense.
<snip>
I would suppose that one's position on the issue is not something you'd go to hell over for being wrong. ;)

Thanks very much to each of you for your detailed posts. I read them all but I snipped in this reply for the sake of saving space :) You didn't all agree with each other, but it was all still very useful to me in understanding.

See, my biggest gripe with the other site where I'm conducting this debate is that while I feel like I'm making an honest effort to understand the point of view of my opponents, they're really not the least little bit interested in understanding mine so we have been going in ever more boring circles, but even then it's clear that they've never really put much thought into this matter and so their explanations prettymuch boiled down to "Well you're wrong you hellbound Mormon so it doesn't matter anyway."

I sometimes think if I start a thread on that site and state that the Earth is the 3rd planet in our solar system or that birds have wings, somebody will dispute it because the idea of having ANYTHING in common appears to be anathema to them.

/rant

But anyway, I thank you again and being as this is one of few threads on NSG where reading it actually makes me feel good (as opposed to agitated or annoyed) I hope it continues :)

To the above I add a few more details on the LDS perspective of Baptism.

Baptism is actually the process by which one accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and Covenants to live in accordance with His divine will. There's no other way. We baptize by immersion after the manner of John the Baptist and by priesthood authority (Also after the manner of John the Baptist, who was a Levite.)

This Covenant we make through baptism is the means by which we receive Christ's Grace and commit ourselves to following Him. Sin is washed away and we then receive the Holy Ghost afterward during Confirmation, thus completing the process of our membership.

Thanks very much to each of you for your detailed posts. I read them all but I snipped in this reply for the sake of saving space :) You didn't all agree with each other, but it was all still very useful to me in understanding.

See, my biggest gripe with the other site where I'm conducting this debate is that while I feel like I'm making an honest effort to understand the point of view of my opponents, they're really not the least little bit interested in understanding mine so we have been going in ever more boring circles, but even then it's clear that they've never really put much thought into this matter and so their explanations prettymuch boiled down to "Well you're wrong you hellbound Mormon so it doesn't matter anyway."

I sometimes think if I start a thread on that site and state that the Earth is the 3rd planet in our solar system or that birds have wings, somebody will dispute it because the idea of having ANYTHING in common appears to be anathema to them.

/rant

But anyway, I thank you again and being as this is one of few threads on NSG where reading it actually makes me feel good (as opposed to agitated or annoyed) I hope it continues :)

To the above I add a few more details on the LDS perspective of Baptism.

Baptism is actually the process by which one accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and Covenants to live in accordance with His divine will. There's no other way. We baptize by immersion after the manner of John the Baptist and by priesthood authority (Also after the manner of John the Baptist, who was a Levite.)

This Covenant we make through baptism is the means by which we receive Christ's Grace and commit ourselves to following Him. Sin is washed away and we then receive the Holy Ghost afterward during Confirmation, thus completing the process of our membership.

It's kind of hard to make the initial assertion that you did, that all evangelical Christians are some homogeneous group.

They aren't. As you note from the Assembly of God example that I posted, baptism is a requirement. Other churches may vary.

When you're asking questions about "how does your church work?" I only have to post an answer - I don't really care to hear how yours works - if I did, I would have asked.

Why would an omnipotent, all knowing being require you to plunge yourself in a tub of water so he can confirm whether to torture you for an eternity in hell or not?

Why would an omnipotent, all knowing being require you to plunge yourself in a tub of water so he can confirm whether to torture you for an eternity in hell or not?

No offense, but your characterization of it doesn't exactly indicate an honest question.

No offense, but your characterization of it doesn't exactly indicate an honest question.

Let me put it this way, God (if he is omnipotent) will know at any given point in time whether you're ready to commit your life to him, thus a baptism to show him you're ready is totally unnecessary, only ceremonial.

Why would an omnipotent, all knowing being require you to plunge yourself in a tub of water so he can confirm whether to torture you for an eternity in hell or not?

Jews are "baptized" as well, in a mikvah, but not for the reasons that Christians are.

It's a ritual cleansing - taking a bath for God.

In my church, it is required, and symbolic of your commitment.

One might say that if you're not committed to walk with Jesus, then you're rejecting God.

Neo also misses some salient points about evangelical differences. Some believe that once you accept Jesus, and are baptized, you're going to heaven, no matter what you do later. This is the general (but not always) route that Baptists take. Pentecostals, on the other hand, believe that it's just the beginning of your walk with God when you commit and are baptized. You have no guarantee of going to heaven - and your commitment will be measured only at the end.

Lumping them all into one basket is specious, to say the least.

I'm not lumping anyone into a basket. That question applies DIRECTLY to any Christian sect that believes that baptism is required to go to heaven, whether it's the beginning of the journey or not is irrelevant. If a sect does it for symbolic purposes then my question does not apply to them.

No, Neo is lumping them all in one basket. Not you.

Let me put it this way, God (if he is omnipotent) will know at any given point in time whether you're ready to commit your life to him, thus a baptism to show him you're ready is totally unnecessary, only ceremonial.

If it's purely ceremonial, then I agree with you.

No, Neo is lumping them all in one basket. Not you.

Whoops, I'll delete that post.

I'll rant a bit again, because it's fun and I'm a writer and it's what I do.

It's actually pretty sad that mainstream protestantism has turned out to be what it is, and I apologize for those that have made Christianity (and I use this word reffering to the belief system outside of the LDS Church) to be a cool, hip social club with only exclusive members instead of the all-consuming pool of accepting, loving Believers that it was meant to be in the first place. (NOTE: I speak generally, mostly toward your experience at the other forum.)

Too many Christians today, especially mainstream Evangelical types, have the "us against them" mindset, when (at least in my postmodern, Emerging Christian point of view) it should be a "we're all in this together" type mindset. Such as, I don't agree with LDS theology or doctrine. However, I see no reason why that should make me shun a member of the LDS, damn them to hell, and debate the finer points of systematic theology in order to prove who is right. Too much of Christianity today has turned into a big debate as to whose theology is better (Calvinism or Armenianism? Calvinism, dammit!); so much so, that we have lost the true focus of what Christianity is about in the first place: Jesus Christ.

But I ramble and digress and will end up turning this thread into a pointless debate. Thus, I cease.

If it's purely ceremonial, then I agree with you.

Wait, not sure exactly what you're saying here.

Note: I was never baptized in any Protestant manner. I have been baptized twice in my life. Once as an infant in the Catholic Church, and once as a 24 year old in the LDS Church.

You became a Mormon as an adult? They feed you an even bigger spoonful of bullshit that the Catholics do.

What made you make the switch?

(I was raised sort of Catholic, although religion never played a great role in my upbringing).

I'll rant a bit again, because it's fun and I'm a writer and it's what I do.

It's actually pretty sad that mainstream protestantism has turned out to be what it is, and I apologize for those that have made Christianity (and I use this word reffering to the belief system outside of the LDS Church) to be a cool, hip social club with only exclusive members instead of the all-consuming pool of accepting, loving Believers that it was meant to be in the first place.

Too many Christians today, especially mainstream Evangelical types, have the "us against them" mindset, when (at least in my postmodern, Emerging Christian point of view) it should be a "we're all in this together" type mindset. Such as, I don't agree with LDS theology or doctrine. However, I see no reason why that should make me shun a member of the LDS, damn them to hell, and debate the finer points of systematic theology in order to prove who is right. Too much of Christianity today has turned into a big debate as to whose theology is better (Calvinism or Armenianism? Calvinism, dammit!); so much so, that we have lost the true focus of what Christianity is about in the first place: Jesus Christ.

But I ramble and digress and will end up turning this thread into a pointless debate. Thus, I cease.

I think you make a pretty good point though, which is why I'd like to share my sig from the other forum:


Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship. I am just as ready to die defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination.- Joseph Smith

(Having a sig from Joseph Smith really irritates them, but I think the message is well worth repeating.)

Wait, not sure exactly what you're saying here.

Baptism done purely for 'show' is useless. It's the reason why, according to my belief, it is a lot deeper than that and must be done by proper priesthood authority.

I think you make a pretty good point though, which is why I'd like to share my sig from the other forum:

(Having a sig from Joseph Smith really irritates them, but I think the message is well worth repeating.)

Yes, and it's another thing we as Christians miss so much of the time. We think that unless you're a Christian (sometimes it's even if you're not a Baptist/Presbyterian/Catholic!), you have nothing useful to say. Ghandi made some great remarks, one of the greatest being:

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.

It is one reason, I believe, the Church has, for the most part, become irrelevant to the postmodern culture. We require people to "accept Jesus" (although there's nothing in the Bible that says anything about 'accepting Jesus') before we'll listen to a word they say. Maybe if we listened to people, shared their joy and pain, and actually acted like... Who was it... Oh, Jesus, then maybe the Church wouldn't be in the pathetic state it is today.

Baptism done purely for 'show' is useless. It's the reason why, according to my belief, it is a lot deeper than that and must be done by proper priesthood authority.

Some churches, such as the Catholic and Episcopal churches, have baptisms done by priests who can trace their own baptisms through a chain of priests going back to the beginning - thereby in their churches establishing "priestly authority".

The message of Jesus, on the other hand, is remarkably simple, and doesn't require you having to find a priest. You can baptize yourself in many churches - after all, it is your individual commitment that is at stake, and I doubt that God is going to check the records if you're honestly committed.

The LDS have a real obsession with record keeping, which I find strange and stupid at the same time.

its so much harder to be a protestant and be sure that you have it all right.
Reminds me of a TV program I recently watched about Orthodox Jews; a Church of England vicar, a close friend of one of the Orthodox Jews, was asked if he thought if he "had it easier" than his friend because he didn't have to follow all the strict rules, especially dietary, that accompany Orthodox Judaism.

He answered that he felt it was the opposite; his Jewish friend had it easier, because his friend had a clear set of principles to get into Heaven; the Vicar's job was much more vague, much more up to interpretation.

Reminds me of a TV program I recently watched about Orthodox Jews; a Church of England vicar, a close friend of one of the Orthodox Jews, was asked if he thought if he "had it easier" than his friend because he didn't have to follow all the strict rules, especially dietary, that accompany Orthodox Judaism.

He answered that he felt it was the opposite; his Jewish friend had it easier, because his friend had a clear set of principles to get into Heaven; the Vicar's job was much more vague, much more up to interpretation.

It's pretty easy to be Pentecostal.

As an aside, we don't baptize anyone until they're old enough to understand what they're doing and what they are committing to - for example, unlike a lot of churches, we don't baptize babies and small children.

As an aside, we don't baptize anyone until they're old enough to understand what they're doing and what they are committing to - for example, unlike a lot of churches, we don't baptize babies and small children.
Yeah, that's quite different from my Church of Scotland, Presbyterian, upbringing.

Baptism done purely for 'show' is useless. It's the reason why, according to my belief, it is a lot deeper than that and must be done by proper priesthood authority.

And I'm saying that, if God is omnipotent, it doesn't NEED to be done at all.

You became a Mormon as an adult? They feed you an even bigger spoonful of bullshit that the Catholics do.

What made you make the switch?

(I was raised sort of Catholic, although religion never played a great role in my upbringing).

Not sure what kind of answer you want to your question, since you seem to have already decided that whatever I say next will be 'bullshit.'

Yes, and it's another thing we as Christians miss so much of the time. We think that unless you're a Christian (sometimes it's even if you're not a Baptist/Presbyterian/Catholic!), you have nothing useful to say. Ghandi made some great remarks, one of the greatest being:

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.

It is one reason, I believe, the Church has, for the most part, become irrelevant to the postmodern culture. We require people to "accept Jesus" (although there's nothing in the Bible that says anything about 'accepting Jesus') before we'll listen to a word they say. Maybe if we listened to people, shared their joy and pain, and actually acted like... Who was it... Oh, Jesus, then maybe the Church wouldn't be in the pathetic state it is today.

Not to get into a bash, but I have found this to be true, although certainly not (as I'm sure you would agree) a statement of all of them.

My sister's ex-husband was one of those who constantly spoke about Jesus every moment of every day and in many ways seemed to be a good example... But underlying it all was an attitude of superiority and arrogance that took Christianity and seemed to turn it into a very exclusive club. Sure, he wanted others to join it, but only as a way of validating it, not out of love or a desire to spread the Gospel.

He tried to debate his religion vs. LDS a couple of times. He gave up quickly when his first round of shallow criticisms didn't work. I think his problem was that to him, it was all a show anyway and he had no real theological understanding of his own beliefs, let alone mine. I think he was just used to having people take his word for everything automatically, and didn't know how to react when I didn't.

And I'm saying that, if God is omnipotent, it doesn't NEED to be done at all.

In a technical sense, it doesn't, but that level of control over us would rob us of our freewill, and that is not something He would do.

In a technical sense, it doesn't, but that level of control over us would rob us of our freewill, and that is not something He would do.

Oh please. It's not robbing you of your free will by not forcing you to baptise. You're still free to accept or reject God, you're still free to baptise or not baptise yourself. God isn't deciding for you in this case, you're still the one deciding, it's just that God doesn't need to see you submerged in water to know what you've decided.

Yeah, that's quite different from my Church of Scotland, Presbyterian, upbringing.

I grew up as a Presbyterian - it was boring beyond belief (the Presbyterians over here are what we call "Vanilla Protestants").

I think Neo is trying to put up a strawman that "you know, these Christians in the US who hate the LDS and give us shit all the time".

Frankly, the majority of Christians in the US could care less about the LDS. We don't have the First Amendment for nothing, you know.

And as far as his need to have the other strawman "you know, those Christians don't know much about their own religion" - well, he needs that argument to imply that because he knows about LDS, then every LDS person knows, and then that makes it right.

The usual starter at my house when talking to missionaries begins with "I personally do not believe the Book of Mormon is authentic".

When asked, "why not?" I ask them to produce the original plates, stone glasses, and make them available for public inspection, as every other Biblical or religious artifact in the world is.

When they say that the LDS will not allow that, I say, "why not?"

The poor fellows then are forced to argue with me, using only the Bible. And they always lose.

Oh please. It's not robbing you of your free will by not forcing you to baptise. You're still free to accept or reject God, you're still free to baptise or not baptise yourself. God isn't deciding for you in this case, you're still the one deciding, it's just that God doesn't need to see you submerged in water to know what you've decided.

I think you misunderstand me.

The purpose for Baptism is the remission of sins. It isn't just symbolic, it's a literal process that must take place.

Now, could God use His omnipotence to see to it that we never sin? Sure, but that robs us of freewill and makes the whole idea of returning to Him meaningless, because it would have happened by force, not by choice.

Ask Neo about the other rituals the LDS have.

Found this one:

I was TBM, BIC in suburban Salt Lake City...I was preparing to go on my mission, not because I had the missionary zeal necessarily, but because that's what 19 year olds do in suburban Salt Lake City, but I was a believer (I didn't know anything about the gospel or the history...like most suburban Salt Lake City 19 year olds).

So, I went to the temple a few weeks prior to my mission...and watching my 80 year old grandfather and 80 year old grandmother pretend to slit their throats and disembowel themselves was really a shock.

I was never comfortable going to the temple after that experience...

The example was this:
When I was 7 years old I was still Catholic but I went with my friends to a youth Bible Study Fellowship thingy. I was taught the doctrine of salvation by choosing Christ, no mention was made about Baptism. Then they asked us if any of us didn't feel like we had Christ in our heart. I had no idea what that meant and, being uncertain, I raised my hand.

So I was taken off to the side privately and led through a prayer in which I essentially asked Jesus to come into my heart. This, as I understand it in retrospect, was the process by which an Evangelical Christian becomes saved.
Note: I was never baptized in any Protestant manner. I have been baptized twice in my life. Once as an infant in the Catholic Church, and once as a 24 year old in the LDS Church.
So my question, for Protestants out there is, you tell me, did I get saved or not, by your reckoning?
If yes, then by Evangelical theology baptism becomes irrelevant. If no, then we are in agreement that baptism is essential for Salvation.
Which is it?

Ok my opinion, and I believe that of my churches. You were saved in the bold part///now baptism, IMHO, and again as I believe that of my churches is in no means necessary for salvation...however it is symbolic of your belief, you show that you are not ashamed to show that you believe in God.

I think you misunderstand me.

The purpose for Baptism is the remission of sins. It isn't just symbolic, it's a literal process that must take place.


Nope, I'm not misunderstanding. Baptism still requires divine intervention for you to have your sins washed away. But if God is omnipotent, there is absolutely no need for such an action. He will know when you are repentant and wanting remission of your sins, you would only need to ask him in your thoughts (thus keeping your free will).


Now, could God use His omnipotence to see to it that we never sin? Sure, but that robs us of freewill and makes the whole idea of returning to Him meaningless, because it would have happened by force, not by choice.

Irrelevant, I'm not talking about making people not sin. Incidentally, I don't really believe strictly in free will anyway, and if you believe God knows the future (not sure what the LDS stance on that is) then neither can you.

Ok my opinion, and I believe that of my churches. You were saved in the bold part///now baptism, IMHO, and again as I believe that of my churches is in no means necessary for salvation...however it is symbolic of your belief, you show that you are not ashamed to show that you believe in God.

Neo is trying, with this example, to say that all evangelical churches baptize children, when they do not.

Strawman!

Ok my opinion, and I believe that of my churches. You were saved in the bold part///now baptism, IMHO, and again as I believe that of my churches is in no means necessary for salvation...however it is symbolic of your belief, you show that you are not ashamed to show that you believe in God.

I think that's what they'd have said on that other forum, except it seems they're loath to acknowledge the possibility of a Mormon going to Heaven with them ;)

Nope, I'm not misunderstanding. Baptism still requires divine intervention for you to have your sins washed away. But if God is omnipotent, there is absolutely no need for such an action. He will know when you are repentant and wanting remission of your sins, you would only need to ask him in your thoughts (thus keeping your free will).


True, so that leads one to wonder why it isn't that simple. Maybe it's that there's a certain set of 'rules' in how things work and He is obligated to work within them. That implies a lack of omnipotence in its most literal sense, but I'm okay with that.


Irrelevant, I'm not talking about making people not sin. Incidentally, I don't really believe strictly in free will anyway, and if you believe God knows the future (not sure what the LDS stance on that is) then neither can you.

Our stance is that He does, and we do believe in freewill. Actually, there's a debate on that very issue going on over on the What kind of God is a good God thread as we speak ;)

I've been in a Southern Baptist Church for roughly 13 years of my life, so I've got a decent understanding of our views, in the least.

Basically, our stance has always been this:
No, baptism is not necessary to be saved, nor does baptism save you.
It cannot save you. To say that baptism can save you implies that the water itself has some power; it does not. Water is water, two hydrogen atoms paired with an oxygen atom. It implies that blindly following an act you believe nothing in can put you into heaven.
To say that baptism is required to save you is to become legalistic and, in some cases, unrealistic. It still places importance on the water and the act, not the mindset or belief.

To be saved, one must believe in God, and one must also have a relationship with Jesus Christ. One must still yet be willing to live for Him (quite enjoyable actually), or, in those very rare instances that come to missionaries, even die. (To have to die for Him in the Western World would also imply that government, or people in general, have reached a deplorable state on utter intolerance that must be rallied against by religious and atheist alike, no?)

Now, that is not at all to say that Baptism isn't important. Yes, it is very important indeed. However, it is not necessary. One should try to be Baptized (after you've established a relationship with Christ, which has no actual rituals to it, only requirement being believing in Him and confessing that you've sinned), however, not doing it won't send you to hell.
Baptism should be done as a means of obedience to Him, to show that you are willing to live for him.

God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. However, just because he knows what is going to happen and because he can control everything doesn't mean he does. He gives free-will, and doesn't force anyone to be Baptized.

As for the LDS? I could care less.
Politically, I like them. When I was still in high-school, whenever an arguement became religious or political in nature, any LDS around me took my side...
... However, they are not perfect. Several, in particular, didn't walk-the-walk or talk-the-talk. Same with Christians, generally. It's impossible to differentiate who is Christian, LDS, Atheist, Agnostic, JW, whatever these days until you see what they are doing on a Sunday morning (or Saturday, for some, or for some LDS, weekday-mornings.)

Religiously? Neh. LDS are no different from anyone else. They have their fanatics and their apathetic members. Some of them can debate with the best of them (never met one who could out-argue my Pastor, though, but a few can hold their own against me until I get underhanded and start asking about their origins). I agree with them on many moralistic values, and some practices, but we noticeably deviate at others.

From the 1999 Mormon Handbook of Instruction
Summary

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as the "Mormon Church") confidential Church Handbook of instructions (1999), Book 1. Book 1 of the handbook reveals the procedures for handling matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination). Book 1 is not generally available to normal members, nor the public. In particular Book 1 is unavailable to women, since the Church positions (bishops, etc.) which are permitted access to the document are not open to women. Some sections of Book 2, which cover less sensitive issues, are available from ldscatalog.org. The full book is not available.

See also: Mormon Church General Handbook of Instructions (1968)

Some excerpts:

Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups

Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.

Persons Who Are Considering or Have Undergone a Transsexual Operation

Persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized. Persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy in an interview with the mission president or a priesthood leader he assigns. Such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend.

Surrogate Motherhood

Surrogate motherhood is strongly discouraged.

Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy)

The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. It should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

Sperm Donation

The donation of sperm is strongly discouraged.

Hypnosis

The use of hypnosis under competent, professional medical supervision for the treatment of diseases or mental disorders is a medical question to be determined by competent medical authorities. Members should not participate in hypnosis for purposes of demonstration or entertainment.

Name Removal and Church Discipline

If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president has evidence of transgression that warrants convening a disciplinary council, he should not act on the request until Church discipline has been imposed or he has concluded that no disciplinary council will be held. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline. If a member requests name removal and a bishop or stake president suspects transgression but lacks sufficient evidence to convene a disciplinary council, the request for name removal may be approved. Any evidence of unresolved transgressions should be noted on the Report of Administrative Action form so priesthood leaders may resolve such matters if the individual
applies for readmission into the Church.

I grew up as a Presbyterian - it was boring beyond belief
Och, I'm sure any denomination can have its boring congregations. Some of The Kirk's ones are quite lively, and some deadly boring.

the Presbyterians over here are what we call "Vanilla Protestants"
Why so?



<snip>
I couldn't find your actual quote, but you mentioned that the church of LDS considers 'Paradise' and 'Heaven' to be separate places.

Would you mind explaining that to this poor ex-Calvanist? I'm not trying to jump on your back; merely curious, as it's quite an alien concept from the Christian theology I'm familiar with. (But then again, so is much of Catholicism.)

True, so that leads one to wonder why it isn't that simple. Maybe it's that there's a certain set of 'rules' in how things work and He is obligated to work within them. That implies a lack of omnipotence in its most literal sense, but I'm okay with that.


If God created the universe, then he created the rules. He can't be subject to any rules, he makes the rules (although then we have the Euthyphro dilemma...). Nevertheless, why believe that God is limited in that way and requires a baptism? What reason is there to believe that?


Our stance is that He does, and we do believe in freewill. Actually, there's a debate on that very issue going on over on the What kind of God is a good God thread as we speak ;)

Right well I won't debate it here then.

Neo is trying, with this example, to say that all evangelical churches baptize children, when they do not.

Strawman!

For anyone else who may have somehow derived that from what I posted (although thus far this appears to be the only case) I said the prayer and the asking Jesus to come into the heart was the means, as I understood it, by which people are Saved in the point of view of Evangelism as I understood it. Nowhere am I saying that all Evangelical churches baptize children, especially since, in my example, I wasn't even baptized into one at all. This event just happened to take place when I was a child but as far as I'm concerned the very same event could have been when I was 20.

Also, if I were assuming all Evangelical churches were homogeneous in their approach to Baptism, then I would hardly have come asking here for additional insights when I'm already hearing one set of viewpoints on the other thread.

I also am fully aware that Hotwife has been attempting to flamebait me, and I'm ignoring his posts for that reason. I figure most of you already realized this, but it can't hurt to clarify things ;)

More fun from the LDS Handbook:

Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems: Suggestions for
Ecclesiastical Leaders (32250)

4. Has committed a homosexual transgression.
5. Is considering or has undergone an elective transsexual operation (see page 27).

If a person has participated in homosexual acts during or after the last three teenage years, he or
she will not be considered for full-time missionary service unless the bishop and stake president
see strong evidence of lasting repentance and reformation, with at least one year free of
transgression.

Although HIV and AIDS can afflict innocent victims, the principal safeguards are chastity
before marriage, total fidelity in marriage, abstinence from any homosexual relations, avoidance of illegal drugs, and reverence and care for the body. (I guess condoms are OUT).

Homosexual Behavior
Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human
sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in
family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or
who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be
forgiven through sincere repentance.
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church
leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of
repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility
for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

I also am fully aware that Hotwife has been attempting to flamebait me, and I'm ignoring his posts for that reason. I figure most of you already realized this, but it can't hurt to clarify things ;)
Oh, it's quite obvious, dinnie worry.

From the 1999 Mormon Handbook of Instruction...
And...?

None of these positions of dogma are any more strange than plenty of other Christian sects. What's your point?

For anyone else who may have somehow derived that from what I posted (although thus far this appears to be the only case) I said the prayer and the asking Jesus to come into the heart was the means, as I understood it, by which people are Saved in the point of view of Evangelism as I understood it. Nowhere am I saying that all Evangelical churches baptize children, especially since, in my example, I wasn't even baptized into one at all. This event just happened to take place when I was a child but as far as I'm concerned the very same event could have been when I was 20.

Also, if I were assuming all Evangelical churches were homogeneous in their approach to Baptism, then I would hardly have come asking here for additional insights when I'm already hearing one set of viewpoints on the other thread.

I also am fully aware that Hotwife has been attempting to flamebait me, and I'm ignoring his posts for that reason. I figure most of you already realized this, but it can't hurt to clarify things ;)

I'm not flamebaiting you. I'm just correcting your ignorance of evangelical churches. You asked the questions, so I answered.

Calling you out on your ignorance is not flamebaiting. Nor is calling you out on your strawman arguments.

I've been in a Southern Baptist Church for roughly 13 years of my life, so I've got a decent understanding of our views, in the least.
<snip>
Now, that is not at all to say that Baptism isn't important. Yes, it is very important indeed. However, it is not necessary. One should try to be Baptized (after you've established a relationship with Christ, which has no actual rituals to it, only requirement being believing in Him and confessing that you've sinned), however, not doing it won't send you to hell.
Baptism should be done as a means of obedience to Him, to show that you are willing to live for him.
<snip>
I agree with them on many moralistic values, and some practices, but we noticeably deviate at others.

Thanks very much for your insights!

My question is though, what makes Baptism important then? I get what you're saying about demonstrating obedience to Christ but wouldn't a Christian be doing that anyway by following the Commandments, praying, reading Scripture, living a moral life? What makes Baptism necessary otherwise?

Not a challenge, just looking to see your viewpoint :)


I couldn't find your actual quote, but you mentioned that the church of LDS considers 'Paradise' and 'Heaven' to be separate places.

Would you mind explaining that to this poor ex-Calvanist? I'm not trying to jump on your back; merely curious, as it's quite an alien concept from the Christian theology I'm familiar with. (But then again, so is much of Catholicism.)

Sure.

I'm not going to quote the zillions of relevant Scripture verses just yet in teh event that you were just looking for a summary overview as opposed to a detailed lesson plan :)

Upon death, people exist still in spirit. Good people live in Paradise, a rest from their burdens. Truly bad people will, as I understand it, just sleep. At the First Resurrection (In Revelations 20, IIRC) it describes the First Resurrection and the Judgment Day, at which time people will receive their Eternal Reward, whatever that may be. The Glory of Heaven or Outer Darkness.

If God created the universe, then he created the rules. He can't be subject to any rules, he makes the rules (although then we have the Euthyphro dilemma...). Nevertheless, why believe that God is limited in that way and requires a baptism? What reason is there to believe that?


Good question.

My answer is that while He did create the Universe, He did so in accordance with a set of laws. Who imposes those laws is a matter that can be discussed, but they do seem to be a constraint upon His actions.

One of those constraints appears to be the nature of sin. An impure vessel cannot exist in God's full glory, so impurities must be removed before one can return to His presence. Baptism is the key.

Good question.

My answer is that while He did create the Universe, He did so in accordance with a set of laws. Who imposes those laws is a matter that can be discussed, but they do seem to be a constraint upon His actions.

One of those constraints appears to be the nature of sin. An impure vessel cannot exist in God's full glory, so impurities must be removed before one can return to His presence. Baptism is the key.

Right, this isn't really answering my question though. You're telling me what you believe, I already know this. I'm asking you WHY you believe this, because then I can decide whether to continue this debate. If you believe this through some sort of religious experience, then I can't really debate against that. If you believe this due to biblical or logical reasons, then I may be able to debate that.

Sure.
Cheers.

I'm not going to quote the zillions of relevant Scripture verses just yet
Thank for that!

[I]Upon death, people exist still in spirit. Good people live in Paradise, a rest from their burdens.
So it's a nice place, but not as good as heaven? Or is it that it's a wonderful place, but you're not walking and talking with God in his home? Or something else?

Truly bad people will, as I understand it, just sleep.
Akin to the Catholic conception of Limbo?

...The Glory of Heaven
The same, as far as you know, as 'Protestant Heaven' (for want of a better term)?

Outer Darkness.
Akin to Hell?

Thanks very much for your insights!

My question is though, what makes Baptism important then? I get what you're saying about demonstrating obedience to Christ but wouldn't a Christian be doing that anyway by following the Commandments, praying, reading Scripture, living a moral life? What makes Baptism necessary otherwise?

Not a challenge, just looking to see your viewpoint :)
Merely, it is an act of obedience. Usually, I just answer this with "symbolism," but after a recent (and exactly the same conversation, really) arguement/conversation with my girlfriend, over whether or not it was necessary (she is a United Methodist and actually was baptized two Sundays ago), I realized it was a matter of obedience, not only symbolism. She, who believed that it was necessary for salvation, was convinced in that the Thief on the Cross (crucified at the same time as Jesus), was told, by Jesus, "You will be in Paradise with me today," (pending on translation of Bible), while he had never been Baptized (to argue he had been is foolish - he was taunting Jesus earlier, in some translations, and therefore arguably didn't believe in him until he was physically on the cross).

God calls us to be Baptized in the Bible, and therefore, we should. Necessary? That depends on your definition and your context. Baptism will not cleanse us of our sins, only Jesus can wipe our slate clean of sin. To say it can, as I have said, is to say that water and the action have some true power. They do not. It is merely symbolic that the person has undergone a confession to God on his own, and wishes to live for Christ, and believes in him. Baptism is only symbolic of that, and announcing it to the members of the Church, in a sense.

It's obedience - God created the Universe, so he makes the rules, and if you follow the rules, life can get pretty easy, but it's life, so it doesn't always work. If you need convincing to follow some of the apparently useless rules that don't appear to benefit everyone, think of it this way, it's like the ultimate Mother Guilt-trip. Moms generally don't go into labor past 16 hours, at most). God went into labor for six days (and rested on the seventh), and out popped an baby weighing several million umptillion-pounds (the universe), and for what? Sorry, I couldn't resist making that analogy.
So, yeah, we kinda owe it to him to be baptized if we believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

As such, because it is done for God and not for the Church, some churches don't require you to be Baptized multiple times, such as if you go from being a Baptist to a Methodist back to a Baptist to a Pentecostal back to Methodist... in theory, you should only be baptized one time, say, at that first Baptist church, unless you weren't baptized there to begin with. However, I know of some people who choose to be re-baptized, and some churches require it.

Worse, I've seen some churches refuse to baptize people on absolutely absurd grounds, and others require a 4 year confirmation... I can understand the confirmation, but four years? All I had was four months, and that was also a logistics-issue of having it done.

Basically, our stance has always been this:
No, baptism is not necessary to be saved, nor does baptism save you.
It cannot save you. To say that baptism can save you implies that the water itself has some power; it does not.

In John, ch. 3, Jesus says, "I say to you, Unless one is born of Water and The Spirit , he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

It looks like the good Lord disagrees with the Baptists. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time. In John ch.6, He makes it pretty clear that the bread and wine are NOT just symbols, but the Real Presence isn't taught in most Protestant denominations.

For a group that takes the Bible as the heart of their faith (after God, of course), they sure have an easy time ignoring the obvious in it.

Right, this isn't really answering my question though. You're telling me what you believe, I already know this. I'm asking you WHY you believe this, because then I can decide whether to continue this debate. If you believe this through some sort of religious experience, then I can't really debate against that. If you believe this due to biblical or logical reasons, then I may be able to debate that.

I don't think I can provide anything useful to a debate on that one. This comes partly from my own religious experience and partly my own conclusions.



So it's a nice place, but not as good as heaven? Or is it that it's a wonderful place, but you're not walking and talking with God in his home? Or something else?

My understanding is that it's a place of spirit, sort of like earth but brighter, more vibrant, no sickness, no pain. There is missionary work going on there, in order to enable the posthumous baptisms that our Church performs.


Akin to the Catholic conception of Limbo?

Not really, in the sense that Catholic Limbo derives from the idea that an infant who dies without baptism cannot go to Heaven and yet doesn't deserve Hell.

What I'm talking about here is a sleep, a place to wait for those people who were not worthy to go to Paradise upon their death. You could use the two thieves who dies with Jesus to illustrate what I mean. The thief who showed his faith in Christ was promised that he'd be in Paradise, while the one who mocked Him will presumably not.


The same, as far as you know, as 'Protestant Heaven' (for want of a better term)?

No. According to LDS doctrine, Heaven is a multi-tiered place of varying degrees of eternal glory. At the highest level, which we call the Celestial Kingdom, you'll find the most faithful, the ones who have done everything commanded of them. This is the literal presence of God. Its glory is analogous to the brightness of the Sun.

Below that is the Terrestrial Kingdom which is where you'll generally find those who were good people but who, for whatever reason, opted out of following God's law fully. The glory of this place is analogous to the brightness of the Moon.

And below that is the Telestial kingdom which is pretty much where everybody else is (except for those who have truly destroyed themselves spiritually) and it's comparable to the brightness of the stars in the sky.


Akin to Hell?

Yes, but rather than imagining a bunch of lava and fire and devils and telemarketers it's more like a place of darkness, where the suffering comes from the knowledge of what was given up, and agonizing over that for eternity.

In John ch.6, He makes it pretty clear...
As the history of Christianity has shown, Scripture is anything but 'clear'.



<snip>
Thanks very much, it's all most interesting.

Quick question: as an infant-baptised, non-LDSer, who's now an atheist, would I even make it to Paradise (assuming I wasn't baptised again pre or post-death)?

Quick question: as an infant-baptised, non-LDSer, who's now an atheist, would I even make it to Paradise (assuming I wasn't baptised again pre or post-death)?

You certainly won't get your own planet, and populate it with your spirit children.

...snip...
To say that baptism can save you implies that the water itself has some power; it does not. Water is water, two hydrogen atoms paired with an oxygen atom. It implies that blindly following an act you believe nothing in can put you into heaven.
To say that baptism is required to save you is to become legalistic and, in some cases, unrealistic. It still places importance on the water and the act, not the mindset or belief.
...snip...

I'm not quoting your entire post because I agree with you more than I disagree with you, but I'm posting to point out the error of what you've said about non-baptist church theology.

Your magic water analogy is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "Baptism is sacrament, not just ordination" Christian denominations believe. Infant Baptizing theology does NOT teach that babies are saved by the water, they do not believe the water is magic.

A better example is a paint brush and paint. I can admire the artists works, say its miraculously inspiring etc., but that does not mean that I think Michaelangelo used magic paint or had a magic paint brush. The hand of the artist does the work, not the paint. God chooses to work through sacrament, his flesh and blood, and his baptism. God does the work, not the water. No one is pretending that the water has any power of it's own.

Jesus chose to prepare himself for his ministry with baptism by John. Paul believed that John's baptism wasn't enough and had Christians re-baptized in the name of Jesus. Baptized for the cleansing of sin may not be 100% required for salvation, but asking God to save you without water is like asking Michaelangelo to paint your portrait without using a brush and paint, pehaps God can do it, but he told you how he wants you prepared first, and that was with Baptism...

In John, ch. 3, Jesus says, "I say to you, Unless one is born of Water and The Spirit , he cannot enter the Kingdom of God."

It looks like the good Lord disagrees with the Baptists. Of course, this wouldn't be the first time. In John ch.6, He makes it pretty clear that the bread and wine are NOT just symbols, but the Real Presence isn't taught in most Protestant denominations.

For a group that takes the Bible as the heart of their faith (after God, of course), they sure have an easy time ignoring the obvious in it.
Jesus repeatedly says those whom believe in him may enter Heaven, giving no other needed arguement. Yes, indeed, Jesus does say that, as a mandate for us to be baptized. However, water is unimportant. (i.e. Thief on the cross) Jesus means to say that you must be truly reborn and baptized in the Spirit, and that, in a method, have shown that you truly do wish to follow Christ, and have at least attempted to be an example.
Lets say a man accepts Christ in his home, and has not yet been baptized. As he drives to the Church, he is killed by a drunk driver. Does he go to heaven or not?
While this is an extremely legalistic view, and is easily countered by, "That's a situational thing God would probably dis-consider, and allow him in," one must consider, Nicodemus, his target audience in John, Chapter 3, was a legalistic man. He was a Pharisee of the Sanhedrin, and laws and obedience were what got to him. Might I add, that is the only mentioning of said water in that instance, and he repeats himself, saying one must only believe. While I am not certain, translation could have very easily screwed that up, however, that's an arguement for studied scholars. I do not mean to demean the importance of baptism except in that it is not an absolutely required. However, I do believe everyone should try to be baptized.

As for the Bread and Wine, I do not wish to go on a tangent, however, they are merely symbols. Such a thing, as is the Baptism, is an ongoing arguement between much more knowledgeable and educated peoples.

Jesus does not wish for us to get wrapped up in the legalistic matters of the Bible ("he says this here, but he says this vaguely here and here, but he does say this over here, and it all can follow in with itself, however...," however, context of his words are very important) - such legalism is exactly what he tried to steer the Pharisees and early Church away from.

Basically, on a scale of 1-10 of the importance of Baptism, it appears the arguement is over that little hundreth of a point between 9.99 and 10.

Certainly, I do believe that Baptism is a necessary step everyone who believes in Christ should take, and it is extremely important, yes. One should not take it lightly at all. I am just saying that if you aren't Baptized, God's not damning you to Hell.

Jesus repeatedly says those whom believe in him may enter Heaven, giving no other needed arguement. Yes, indeed, Jesus does say that, as a mandate for us to be baptized. However, water is unimportant. (i.e. Thief on the cross) Jesus means to say that you must be truly reborn and baptized in the Spirit, and that, in a method, have shown that you truly do wish to follow Christ, and have at least attempted to be an example.
Lets say a man accepts Christ in his home, and has not yet been baptized. As he drives to the Church, he is killed by a drunk driver. Does he go to heaven or not?
While this is an extremely legalistic view, and is easily countered by, "That's a situational thing God would probably dis-consider, and allow him in," one must consider, Nicodemus, his target audience in John, Chapter 3, was a legalistic man. He was a Pharisee of the Sanhedrin, and laws and obedience were what got to him. Might I add, that is the only mentioning of said water in that instance, and he repeats himself, saying one must only believe. While I am not certain, translation could have very easily screwed that up, however, that's an arguement for studied scholars. I do not mean to demean the importance of baptism except in that it is not an absolutely required. However, I do believe everyone should try to be baptized.

As for the Bread and Wine, I do not wish to go on a tangent, however, they are merely symbols. Such a thing, as is the Baptism, is an ongoing arguement between much more knowledgeable and educated peoples.

Jesus does not wish for us to get wrapped up in the legalistic matters of the Bible ("he says this here, but he says this vaguely here and here, but he does say this over here, and it all can follow in with itself, however...," however, context of his words are very important) - such legalism is exactly what he tried to steer the Pharisees and early Church away from.


Try as you might to remove the 'legalisms' from your theology, but you're still using examples of when a person is saved and when he is not, that is legalism in its very essence. Take an outside look at what you posted here, does Jesus save your examples or does the man save himself through is intellectual understanding of the theology you favor? I suggest that even a proper and perfect 'belief' will not save you. I'm quite confident that Satan himself knows exactly who Jesus is and what he'd done, but his understanding of the theology will not save him. Jesus saves, we cannot, even with perfect faith and perfect theology, save ourselves. Thus, even the most ignorant incoherent imbecile who cannot answer any questions about belief or not, can be saved and the most highly advanced theologian the human race ever produces, would, if left to his own resources, would not be saved through anything he can do or anything trust in his own mind.

If Baptist theology was right, it either requires exceptions for mentally handicapped people and very small children, or else they can't be saved.

side-note: the criminal on the cross may have already been baptized, John is said to have baptized multitudes... That example from scripture is based on silence, it doesn't say he wasn't baptized.

As some of you may know, Mormon belief is that Baptism is a critical step in Salvation, and that it must be done by proper priesthood authority. (Per Mark 16:16) (Similar to Catholicism, except that in the Mormon Church baptism must be done by immersion.)

Just a minor nit pick, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church is that anyone can baptize someone as long as the matter (water), form ("I baptize you ... etc") and intent (as this is not being done as a part of a movie) are contained. Not only can any Christian baptize, even pagans can baptize. (Candidates waiting baptism and being thrown into a cell to be thrown to the lions could have in theory baptized each other.)

Generally the church requires (throgh the moral force of procedure) baptisms by deacons or priests for those in the church but it is not necessary.

(Actually I think the only sacrament where the ordinary minister of the sacrament is mentioned in the New Testament is the sacrament formerly known as the last rites and not in the Catholic Church referred to as "Anointing of the Sick.")

If Baptist theology was right, it either requires exceptions for mentally handicapped people and very small children, or else they can't be saved.
Where has it been said that one must have a true knowledge of theology? All I have ever truly said is that you must only believe, which is a rather simple thing.

And those whom cannot make the mental steps required are judged on their own accord, I believe. I am no theologian, but that is what I believe and have been taught.

I do agree with your argument that only Jesus can save us, the arguement is how he does it, though. Baptism? I, along with many, say it is not a requirement, as it can be argued (it would, admittedly, be one easily disputed) that it is an act of man, not of God, and therefore not able to make one Holy or Clean, as only Jesus can ordain that.

Needless to say, at least you and I both agree that baptism has it's importance.

Where has it been said that one must have a true knowledge of theology? All I have ever truly said is that you must only believe, which is a rather simple thing.

And those whom cannot make the mental steps required are judged on their own accord, I believe. I am no theologian, but that is what I believe and have been taught.

I do agree with your argument that only Jesus can save us, the arguement is how he does it, though. Baptism? I, along with many, say it is not a requirement, as it can be argued (it would, admittedly, be one easily disputed) that it is an act of man, not of God, and therefore not able to make one Holy or Clean, as only Jesus can ordain that.

Needless to say, at least you and I both agree that baptism has it's importance.

Everyone has their own idea of heaven, and how to get there. I believe it's a personal matter.

If Baptist theology was right, it either requires exceptions for mentally handicapped people and very small children, or else they can't be saved.
They believe that there is an age of responsibility and that until you reach it you are not responsible for your sin.

Babies, small children, the mentally retarded, all go to heaven. There's some scripture they use to back it up, but I have a high fever (again!) and can't remember.

You might look up "age of accountability" though and see.

Reminds me of a TV program I recently watched about Orthodox Jews; a Church of England vicar, a close friend of one of the Orthodox Jews, was asked if he thought if he "had it easier" than his friend because he didn't have to follow all the strict rules, especially dietary, that accompany Orthodox Judaism.

He answered that he felt it was the opposite; his Jewish friend had it easier, because his friend had a clear set of principles to get into Heaven; the Vicar's job was much more vague, much more up to interpretation.
which is great theologically but not so great if you want a nice ham sandwich.

Where has it been said that one must have a true knowledge of theology? All I have ever truly said is that you must only believe, which is a rather simple thing.

It may be a simple thing, but believe in what? Believe what the preacher says? Believe what this church says or what that church says? Did I save myself because I've discovered the 'hidden or secret meaning of life' the proper thing to believe in?

And those whom cannot make the mental steps required are judged on their own accord, I believe. I am no theologian, but that is what I believe and have been taught.

If anyone is judged on their own accord, they will fail, or else scripture lies when it says all have fallen short... If the imbecile cannot finish the intellectual statement of faith required to receive the churches baptism (in some churches theology), then I disagree with that church theology, he should be given water baptism anyway. There is no harm done by it, it should not be denied them. The same with infant children.

I do agree with your argument that only Jesus can save us, the arguement is how he does it, though. Baptism? I, along with many, say it is not a requirement, as it can be argued (it would, admittedly, be one easily disputed) that it is an act of man, not of God, and therefore not able to make one Holy or Clean, as only Jesus can ordain that.

Needless to say, at least you and I both agree that baptism has it's importance.

And I also agree with you that your theology leads to salvation and I encourage you in it. We nitpick with each other for better understanding, not for the sake of 'winning' the fight. I do not believe that everyone has to agree with me to be saved by Christ. Christ decides who his followers are, not I ;)

which is great theologically but not so great if you want a nice ham sandwich.

Or be able to turn the lights on and off on Saturday.

They believe that there is an age of responsibility and that until you reach it you are not responsible for your sin.

That is what they believe, and until the children reach that age, their parents are responsible for them. So why then shouldn't the parents get the children baptized? Baptism is scripture, age of responsibility is not.

Babies, small children, the mentally retarded, all go to heaven. There's some scripture they use to back it up, but I have a high fever (again!) and can't remember.

You might look up "age of accountability" though and see.

I understand what their theology is, I'm disagreeing with it. They intellectually say they don't save themselves, but then they have a mental 'test' to assure a person believes the right things before they let them be baptized or call them Christians or think of them as saved. That is more like gnosticism than Christianity. Gnosticism being, 'secret' knowledge, only the elite are saved, etc. Baptist theology, when examined on a fundamental level of actually daily practice, requires an intellectual capability, as if people are saving themselves through what they believe.

Everyone has their own idea of heaven, and how to get there. I believe it's a personal matter.

I believe it's a Jesus matter.

I believe it's a Jesus matter.

Well, for Christians, it's a "between me and Jesus" matter.

Well, for Christians, it's a "between me and Jesus" matter.

And non Christians too, whether they know it or not :wink:

And non Christians too, whether they know it or not :wink:

I never push that on them - I figure I would be upsetting the free will thing.

Or be able to turn the lights on and off on Saturday.
oh yeah i forgot about that one.

i wouldnt make a good orthodox jew.

oh yeah i forgot about that one.

i wouldnt make a good othodox jew.

My first wife made me try for a few years.

I did learn how to make challah and matzo ball soup, though. The rest of it I could do without.

It may be a simple thing, but believe in what? Believe what the preacher says? Believe what this church says or what that church says? Did I save myself because I've discovered the 'hidden or secret meaning of life' the proper thing to believe in? Interesting arguement, actually. However, my belief is that one must only believe in God. To some extent, yes, gray area can be argued. However, for, say, an imbecile or small child, in some cases it's made easier. Don't forget the "faith of a child" argument. If they are too young to make that step, then they are also too young to know right from wrong, truly, and cannot sin.



If anyone is judged on their own accord, they will fail, or else scripture lies when it says all have fallen short... If the imbecile cannot finish the intellectual statement of faith required to receive the churches baptism (in some churches theology), then I disagree with that church theology, he should be given water baptism anyway. There is no harm done by it, it should not be denied them. The same with infant children.If an imbecile or small child is judged of their own accord, it would be on the grounds that they cannot comprehend sin or cannot comprehend a belief on Jesus, necessarily.
As for the intellectual statement of faith? If you meant a scripted approach, I don't believe in that - while I'll never argue against such method, it is my belief any statement of faith should come from the heart, not a script (even though generally, from what I have seen, such statements are answers to questions and are only "Yes," or "I do.")




And I also agree with you that your theology leads to salvation and I encourage you in it. We nitpick with each other for better understanding, not for the sake of 'winning' the fight. I do not believe that everyone has to agree with me to be saved by Christ. Christ decides who his followers are, not I ;)Good. At least we agree entirely in practice, it's just over the minor disputes that in the end, make no difference. At least it's not over Jesus' Holiness, or something on the scale of the Gnostic Gospels (which were found with literal holes in them...)

Interesting arguement, actually. However, my belief is that one must only believe in God. To some extent, yes, gray area can be argued. However, for, say, an imbecile or small child, in some cases it's made easier. Don't forget the "faith of a child" argument. If they are too young to make that step, then they are also too young to know right from wrong, truly, and cannot sin.

Arguing about whether or not a infant child can sin is not important, we can see that infants and imbeciles live in this world and that means they live in death, we are all born in death. Jesus' promise of true life does more than forgive us of our sins, it moves us from our current life of death here, to our true life with him in true living. Infants and imbeciles need to be moved from this existence in death to the life with him too, whether they have 'sinned' or not. We are born in death, we need Jesus for true life.

If an imbecile or small child is judged of their own accord, it would be on the grounds that they cannot comprehend sin or cannot comprehend a belief on Jesus, necessarily.
As for the intellectual statement of faith? If you meant a scripted approach, I don't believe in that - while I'll never argue against such method, it is my belief any statement of faith should come from the heart, not a script (even though generally, from what I have seen, such statements are answers to questions and are only "Yes," or "I do.")

It should come from the heart, if Jesus is in us, it will come from the Heart. How did Jesus get in their heart? I do not believe unless he first believes in me, I do not love unless he first loved me? A parent taking their child to be baptized is doing nothing more than what Jesus parents did to him, take the child to the Priest and have him marked. For Jesus it was circumcision, for children of Christians, it should be baptism with water.


Good. At least we agree entirely in practice, it's just over the minor disputes that in the end, make no difference. At least it's not over Jesus' Holiness, or something on the scale of the Gnostic Gospels (which were found with literal holes in them...)

Again, I agree.

Thanks very much, it's all most interesting.

Quick question: as an infant-baptised, non-LDSer, who's now an atheist, would I even make it to Paradise (assuming I wasn't baptised again pre or post-death)?

You're welcome.

As for where you'd go, it's not mine to judge but if I were pressed for a guess, my guess would be that if you're a person of honor and integrity then I would expect you to make it there.

But don't quote me on that, as not only could I be wrong but again, it isn't my place to judge ;)

Just a minor nit pick, but the beliefs of the Catholic Church is that anyone can baptize someone as long as the matter (water), form ("I baptize you ... etc") and intent (as this is not being done as a part of a movie) are contained. Not only can any Christian baptize, even pagans can baptize. (Candidates waiting baptism and being thrown into a cell to be thrown to the lions could have in theory baptized each other.)

Generally the church requires (throgh the moral force of procedure) baptisms by deacons or priests for those in the church but it is not necessary.

(Actually I think the only sacrament where the ordinary minister of the sacrament is mentioned in the New Testament is the sacrament formerly known as the last rites and not in the Catholic Church referred to as "Anointing of the Sick.")

Thanks for the correction. I thought I remembered it being that way from when I went to Catholic school but I didn't remember for sure so I didn't hazard to put it out there.

I believe generally churches that have an Age of Accountability for purposes of baptism have that age set at 8, my church included.

People with mental disabilities are taken case by case and with the aid of prayer, but generally if they reach a level of maturity that is equivalent to an 8 year old then they must be baptized.

so if its mostly symbolic what is the big freaking deal over infant baptism?

it makes perfect sense if its "magic" but if its symbolic not so much.

Because unbaptized babies go to hell.

Or so the Catholic belief goes.

I'm pretty sure only Catholicism and Lutheranism do it though, and why Lutheranism? I'm not exactly sure. Looking at Luther's ideas, he found it necessary, so far as it was possible, I suppose it was just tradition by this point, Catholicism had been around for a little more than 1200 years when Luther came in, and he wasn't trying to create Lutheranism so much as trying to reform Catholicism, so who knows.

I believe generally churches that have an Age of Accountability for purposes of baptism have that age set at 8, my church included.

Mine is around 12, but you have to be able to discuss it. It's a matter of understanding abstract thought, which most children have difficulty with.

Der Teutoniker I don't mean to sidetrack but I had to ask... is your avatar the 4.0 Edition or 3.5 cover? I forget which is which...

Mine is around 12, but you have to be able to discuss it. It's a matter of understanding abstract thought, which most children have difficulty with.

So when a child reaches 12 they go through an interview with the Pastor to determine that? (Or something similar?)

Because unbaptized babies go to hell.

Or so the Catholic belief goes.

I'm pretty sure only Catholicism and Lutheranism do it though, and why Lutheranism? I'm not exactly sure. Looking at Luther's ideas, he found it necessary, so far as it was possible, I suppose it was just tradition by this point, Catholicism had been around for a little more than 1200 years when Luther came in, and he wasn't trying to create Lutheranism so much as trying to reform Catholicism, so who knows.
yeah i understand that.

but if a different denomination believes that no one under 7 should be baptised BUT baptism is only symbolic what the fuck do they care if some catholic (or other denomination) was baptised as a baby? baptism is only symbolic so it is the content of their hearts that matter, not the age they were baptised at.

So when a child reaches 12 they go through an interview with the Pastor to determine that? (Or something similar?)

First, an interview with their parents. They have to ask to be baptized, not the other way around. The parents will also be questioned on this by the deacons and the pastor.

The child will be interviewed by the deacons and pastor casually over many Sundays to determine if the child really wants this, or is being put up to this by their parents. They want to see a visible, consistent commitment when NOT in the presence of the parents.

Parents who force this on their children are unofficially admonished. It's not fair to the child.

yeah i understand that.

but if a different denomination believes that no one under 7 should be baptised BUT baptism is only symbolic what the fuck do they care if some catholic (or other denomination) was baptised as a baby? baptism is only symbolic so it is the content of their hearts that matter, not the age they were baptised at.

My guess is that they wouldn't consider a baptism that occurred before the age of accountability to be valid, and would do it over.

First, an interview with their parents. They have to ask to be baptized, not the other way around. The parents will also be questioned on this by the deacons and the pastor.

The child will be interviewed by the deacons and pastor casually over many Sundays to determine if the child really wants this, or is being put up to this by their parents. They want to see a visible, consistent commitment when NOT in the presence of the parents.

Parents who force this on their children are unofficially admonished. It's not fair to the child.

Gotcha. Thank you.

I wonder if Salvation is like nutrition; there are a few universal constants, but for the most part, everybody has slightly different nutrition(salvation) needs and the best thing to do is listen to your body(soul). A correlary from this is that like nutritionists, priests probably aren't as certain as they pretend to be. :p

I sometimes think if I start a thread on that site and state that the Earth is the 3rd planet in our solar system or that birds have wings, somebody will dispute it because the idea of having ANYTHING in common appears to be anathema to them.

Yeah, thats because you're a mormon, and nobody like mormons! (kidding :tongue:)

But anyway, I thank you again and being as this is one of few threads on NSG where reading it actually makes me feel good (as opposed to agitated or annoyed) I hope it continues :)


Yeah, no kidding, I've been waiting for the flamers and militant athiests to come in here, and refute the existence as a God so your genuine opinions, and questions are irrelevant anyway, but that hasn't happened, and I really couldn't be happier.

My guess is that they wouldn't consider a baptism that occurred before the age of accountability to be valid, and would do it over.



Gotcha. Thank you.
ya but .... if its symbolic insteand of magic, why bother? why get your panties in a bunch over it?

if baptism IS required then it makes good sense. you werent really baptised because you were a baby at the time so its critical to make sure that infant baptism is denounced. leaving it as is is dooming massive numbers of believers to hell.

Yeah, thats because you're a mormon, and nobody like mormons! (kidding :tongue:)

Hehe :p

But in seriousness, there really have been times when I've started to feel that way, even indulging in self-pity but then I think of Matthew 5:10-12 and I feel better :)


Yeah, no kidding, I've been waiting for the flamers and militant athiests to come in here, and refute the existence as a God so your genuine opinions, and questions are irrelevant anyway, but that hasn't happened, and I really couldn't be happier.

Me too. :knock on wood:

ya but .... if its symbolic insteand of magic, why bother? why get your panties in a bunch over it?

if baptism IS required then it makes good sense. you werent really baptised because you were a baby at the time so its critical to make sure that infant baptism is denounced. leaving it as is is dooming massive numbers of believers to hell.

Oh I see what you mean.

I guess (and if I get this wrong somebody please correct me) for those who do not see baptism as essential, they would say that since baptism is a step in demonstrating obedience to Christ, it's really not possible to take that step without being aware you're doing it, and so it robs such people of the chance to take it consciously, on their own, as was in tended. Thus, the symbol is robbed of its meaning.

Merely, it is an act of obedience. Usually, I just answer this with "symbolism," but after a recent (and exactly the same conversation, really) arguement/conversation with my girlfriend, over whether or not it was necessary (she is a United Methodist and actually was baptized two Sundays ago), I realized it was a matter of obedience, not only symbolism. She, who believed that it was necessary for salvation, was convinced in that the Thief on the Cross (crucified at the same time as Jesus), was told, by Jesus, "You will be in Paradise with me today," (pending on translation of Bible), while he had never been Baptized (to argue he had been is foolish - he was taunting Jesus earlier, in some translations, and therefore arguably didn't believe in him until he was physically on the cross).

God calls us to be Baptized in the Bible, and therefore, we should. Necessary? That depends on your definition and your context. Baptism will not cleanse us of our sins, only Jesus can wipe our slate clean of sin. To say it can, as I have said, is to say that water and the action have some true power. They do not. It is merely symbolic that the person has undergone a confession to God on his own, and wishes to live for Christ, and believes in him. Baptism is only symbolic of that, and announcing it to the members of the Church, in a sense.

It's obedience - God created the Universe, so he makes the rules, and if you follow the rules, life can get pretty easy, but it's life, so it doesn't always work. If you need convincing to follow some of the apparently useless rules that don't appear to benefit everyone, think of it this way, it's like the ultimate Mother Guilt-trip. Moms generally don't go into labor past 16 hours, at most). God went into labor for six days (and rested on the seventh), and out popped an baby weighing several million umptillion-pounds (the universe), and for what? Sorry, I couldn't resist making that analogy.
So, yeah, we kinda owe it to him to be baptized if we believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

As such, because it is done for God and not for the Church, some churches don't require you to be Baptized multiple times, such as if you go from being a Baptist to a Methodist back to a Baptist to a Pentecostal back to Methodist... in theory, you should only be baptized one time, say, at that first Baptist church, unless you weren't baptized there to begin with. However, I know of some people who choose to be re-baptized, and some churches require it.

Worse, I've seen some churches refuse to baptize people on absolutely absurd grounds, and others require a 4 year confirmation... I can understand the confirmation, but four years? All I had was four months, and that was also a logistics-issue of having it done.

This is pretty much how I feel.

Necessary in so far as we are able. If someone has the full option to be baptized (say, for a standard evanngelical Christian in the US) then it really should be considered necessary, there is no reason to stop someone from being baptized. As a rule I don't consider infant baptizm to be baptizm, it is a sign of acceptance of Christ, not a sign that a baby has been born.

Der Teutoniker I don't mean to sidetrack but I had to ask... is your avatar the 4.0 Edition or 3.5 cover? I forget which is which...

3.5 completely. I would never use 4e anything.

(if you can't tell, I think it is teh suck).

See, my biggest gripe with the other site where I'm conducting this debate is that while I feel like I'm making an honest effort to understand the point of view of my opponents, they're really not the least little bit interested in understanding mine so we have been going in ever more boring circles, but even then it's clear that they've never really put much thought into this matter and so their explanations prettymuch boiled down to "Well you're wrong you hellbound Mormon so it doesn't matter anyway."
.


What other site are you on?

3.5 completely. I would never use 4e anything.

(if you can't tell, I think it is teh suck).

Heh. The game I'm DMming (which I have a session of tonight, actually) is run in 1st Edition.

Old School.

What other site are you on?

I'll send it to you in TG since I'm not sure what the rules are about posting links to other forums in a thread.

I'll send it to you in TG since I'm not sure what the rules are about posting links to other forums in a thread.

mkay. I am trying to figure out if its a site I visit or not.

mkay. I am trying to figure out if its a site I visit or not.

sent..

Not to get into a bash, but I have found this to be true, although certainly not (as I'm sure you would agree) a statement of all of them.

My sister's ex-husband was one of those who constantly spoke about Jesus every moment of every day and in many ways seemed to be a good example... But underlying it all was an attitude of superiority and arrogance that took Christianity and seemed to turn it into a very exclusive club. Sure, he wanted others to join it, but only as a way of validating it, not out of love or a desire to spread the Gospel.

He tried to debate his religion vs. LDS a couple of times. He gave up quickly when his first round of shallow criticisms didn't work. I think his problem was that to him, it was all a show anyway and he had no real theological understanding of his own beliefs, let alone mine. I think he was just used to having people take his word for everything automatically, and didn't know how to react when I didn't.

Yeah, it's generally those types that irritate me most about the modern (read: American) Christian Church. I refuse to debate my religious beliefs (unless I'm with one particular best bud of mine, and we do it for fun, and very lightheartedly, at that). I used to debate on the NSG several years ago, but I've grown out of that. A debate (especially a religious one) is simply an attempt to make one person or the other be more "right" or "smarter" than the other. It's never about Jesus. Which is why I've grown to despise [religious] debates.

Instead, I may have a religious discussion (but will not attempt to attack or defend other's or my own opinions), in which I may very well point out the utter and totaly depravity of man (and oh how depraved we are!); I may point out the amazing redemption of man through Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation as set forth by God; and I may very well discuss man's desperate need for a savior (through Jesus Christ) and the grace and mercy found through Christ. It's not my job to turn anybody to Christianity. That's God's job. All I can do is speak, and hope that maybe God wants to use my voice for something during that conversation. If not, cool. If so, cooler. But debates always turn out to be about "me, me, me!" and not "God, God, God."

Yeah, it's generally those types that irritate me most about the modern (read: American) Christian Church. I refuse to debate my religious beliefs (unless I'm with one particular best bud of mine, and we do it for fun, and very lightheartedly, at that). I used to debate on the NSG several years ago, but I've grown out of that. A debate (especially a religious one) is simply an attempt to make one person or the other be more "right" or "smarter" than the other. It's never about Jesus. Which is why I've grown to despise [religious] debates.

Instead, I may have a religious discussion (but will not attempt to attack or defend other's or my own opinions), in which I may very well point out the utter and totaly depravity of man (and oh how depraved we are!); I may point out the amazing redemption of man through Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation as set forth by God; and I may very well discuss man's desperate need for a savior (through Jesus Christ) and the grace and mercy found through Christ. It's not my job to turn anybody to Christianity. That's God's job. All I can do is speak, and hope that maybe God wants to use my voice for something during that conversation. If not, cool. If so, cooler. But debates always turn out to be about "me, me, me!" and not "God, God, God."


I give you some cool points for this post.

Yeah, it's generally those types that irritate me most about the modern (read: American) Christian Church. I refuse to debate my religious beliefs (unless I'm with one particular best bud of mine, and we do it for fun, and very lightheartedly, at that). I used to debate on the NSG several years ago, but I've grown out of that. A debate (especially a religious one) is simply an attempt to make one person or the other be more "right" or "smarter" than the other. It's never about Jesus. Which is why I've grown to despise [religious] debates.

Instead, I may have a religious discussion (but will not attempt to attack or defend other's or my own opinions), in which I may very well point out the utter and totaly depravity of man (and oh how depraved we are!); I may point out the amazing redemption of man through Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation as set forth by God; and I may very well discuss man's desperate need for a savior (through Jesus Christ) and the grace and mercy found through Christ. It's not my job to turn anybody to Christianity. That's God's job. All I can do is speak, and hope that maybe God wants to use my voice for something during that conversation. If not, cool. If so, cooler. But debates always turn out to be about "me, me, me!" and not "God, God, God."

How true. And that's why even in this debate on the other forum I keep making it clear that my objective isn't to convert anybody or recruit for my Church. It's to clear up the misconceptions so that if you're going to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I believe, not what some yutz with a flair for sensationalism wrote in a book.

(Several times I've had people try to tell me what I believe based on what they read in a book written by a 'well-known Christian author.' ...As if somehow that individual knows my beliefs better than I. I always wonder how much they got paid to do it.)

I think that's what they'd have said on that other forum, except it seems they're loath to acknowledge the possibility of a Mormon going to Heaven with them ;)

I would love to have mormons go to heaven with me...but having been taught in our church from the book of mormon to educate us on LDS I think that anyone who truly believed everything in there wouldn't go to heaven...but that is way beyond the scope of this "argument" (ie dignified flaming ;))

well said sniper country.
This is one of the reasons the modern churches flamingly ;) anti gay stance disgusts me. Yes they are sinners, yes i believe homosexuality is a sin, but am I anything less of a sinner? sure a lesbian lusts after women...but don't I as well?



the very far right church seems to forget that God is love...yes he can have righteous hate, but thats not our job...

I would love to have mormons go to heaven with me...but having been taught in our church from the book of mormon to educate us on LDS I think that anyone who truly believed everything in there wouldn't go to heaven...but that is way beyond the scope of this "argument" (ie dignified flaming ;))

I take no offense at that, since you're clearly not trying to insult but a question did occur to me:

Supposed a person got saved per your church's process, and subsequently becomes LDS?

I guess the bottom line of my question is, do you believe salvation can be lost, or that it's permanent?

I guess the bottom line of my question is, do you believe salvation can be lost, or that it's permanent?


That would be a good question to start a new thread with. ;)

1. Once saved, always saved - if truly saved then you cannot lose your salvation. If you consistently "misbehave" it is reasonable to ask if you were ever "truly saved" though.

2. Physical baptism is not required in order to gain salvation, instead there must be an acknowledgement that you are a sinner and an honest repentance of all sin and a belief that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin by his death and resurrection.

This is the official position of Southern Baptists anyway.

That would be a good question to start a new thread with. ;)

I may do that on Monday :)

1. Once saved, always saved - if truly saved then you cannot lose your salvation. If you consistently "misbehave" it is reasonable to ask if you were ever "truly saved" though.

2. Physical baptism is not required in order to gain salvation, instead there must be an acknowledgement that you are a sinner and an honest repentance of all sin and a belief that Jesus paid the penalty for your sin by his death and resurrection.

This is the official position of Southern Baptists anyway.

Which is where Baptists differ from Pentecostals.

Which is where Baptists differ from Pentecostals.

Well not necessarily. I know the baptist church I went to (free will baptist) believed that one could lose their salvation.

I don't think that there's Biblical support for losing one's salvation. Afterall, if you are in the hands of the Almighty and one of His children, do you think He'd just let you slip away? We'll never be perfect, and in this life we will continue to sin until the day we die. Thats what prayer is for - to confess your sins, repent, and ask for forgiveness. God can forgive even the worst sins if the person is truly repentant. If a person claims to be a Christian but lives like the devil and is totally unrepentant about their sins, then it is a reasonable possibility that the person was never really a Christian at all. However, the final judgment on that is reserved by God for the Finial Judgment - thats what that "judge not" passage that people are always taking out of context is referring to. We cannot with 100% certainty say what another person's spiritual condition is, as that is between the person and their Maker.

There's actually Biblical evidences for both, but I won't get into this one until a new thread is made.

There's actually Biblical evidences for both, but I won't get into this one until a new thread is made.

I just made a new one!

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13927095

I think that's what they'd have said on that other forum, except it seems they're loath to acknowledge the possibility of a Mormon going to Heaven with them ;)


well as said if they believe everything in the book of mormon and others such books and do all the rituals I don't think they would...(I'm not meaning to flame here, but I don't know how else to say it...)

but I think a lot of mormons are wonderful people, and also a lot of them are better Christians than a lot of Christians...

well as said if they believe everything in the book of mormon and others such books and do all the rituals I don't think they would...(I'm not meaning to flame here, but I don't know how else to say it...)

No offense taken.

But that does beg the question... What if a person is an Evangelical and subsequently joins the LDS Church?


but I think a lot of mormons are wonderful people, and also a lot of them are better Christians than a lot of Christians...

:warm fuzzy:

I don't think that there's Biblical support for losing one's salvation. Afterall, if you are in the hands of the Almighty and one of His children, do you think He'd just let you slip away? We'll never be perfect, and in this life we will continue to sin until the day we die. Thats what prayer is for - to confess your sins, repent, and ask for forgiveness. God can forgive even the worst sins if the person is truly repentant. If a person claims to be a Christian but lives like the devil and is totally unrepentant about their sins, then it is a reasonable possibility that the person was never really a Christian at all. However, the final judgment on that is reserved by God for the Finial Judgment - thats what that "judge not" passage that people are always taking out of context is referring to. We cannot with 100% certainty say what another person's spiritual condition is, as that is between the person and their Maker.

I think a person can lose their salvation, but only through their own conscious actions. I mean, I agree that no power can forcibly take one away from the Savior once they've committed to him, but anyone who has converted to Christ, been baptized, and understands what they've committed to knows what's expected of them and if they willfully act against God, especially in committing severe sins like denying the Holy Spirit or Murder, then they've done so with a deliberate intent, and freewill demands that if that's what they choose to do...