What is faith without works and is baptism necessary?

[Katzpur]

Why does the person actually doing the baptism have to "have the authority to do so"? Why would that matter? God's doing the cleaning, not the other person.

When using human beings to accomplish His purposes, God has -- from the very beginning -- required them to hold the authority that gives them the right to act in His name.

Besides...from where does one get the authority to approve or disapprove anyone?

They get it from someone else who has already been given the authority. The first person to receive it received it directly from God. It is conferred by the laying on of hands, and no one is to simply assume that he has it.

Scriptures do not address this....

Of course they do. Mine just probably go into more detail on the subject that yours do. The very fact that Jesus sought out John is at least an indication that John has been given the authority to baptize. There would have been hundreds of people physically capable of immersing another human being in water but Jesus went to John specifically. John didn't perform baptisms because it was his hobby, but because it was his calling.

 

[Green Kepi]

When using human beings to accomplish His purposes, God has -- from the very beginning -- required them to hold the authority that gives them the right to act in His name.

They get it from someone else who has already been given the authority. The first person to receive it received it directly from God. It is conferred by the laying on of hands, and no one is to simply assume that he has it.

Of course they do. Mine just probably go into more detail on the subject that yours do. The very fact that Jesus sought out John is at least an indication that John has been given the authority to baptize. There would have been hundreds of people physically capable of immersing another human being in water but Jesus went to John specifically. John didn't perform baptisms because it was his hobby, but because it was his calling.

I don't agree with everything you've said; but, this is the reasons for forums...so we can discuss and argue. We probably will never see 'eye-to-eye' because 'we're' human. Even the Apostles argued with each other. One big reason with we two is, "...mine..go into more detail (on the subject) than yours do". My Mormon friends and I use to have the same issues. Back in the 70's, I was with a group of soldiers that taught for awhile at BYU. We couldn't agree on much back then either...but, we were still close friends....

 

[Katzpur]

I don't agree with everything you've said; but, this is the reasons for forums... We probably will never see 'eye-to-eye' because 'we're' human. Even the Apostles argued with each other.

I'm glad that's how you feel because it's how I feel, too. Since we both feel the same way, I'm looking forward to a lot of interesting discussions with you.

Back in the 70's, I was with a group of soldiers that taught for awhile at BYU. We couldn't agree on much back then either...but, we were still close friends....

Are you old like me? If you were having these conversations back in the 70's, I bet you are!

People find themselves discussing things they don't agree on in much greater depth than the things they do agree on. It's much more interesting than just saying, "Yup, you're right about that. Uh huh. I agree. Absolutely. I can't argue with you about that!" What I'm trying to say is that we probably have a lot more in common than you might think. We just tend to get into discussions on the things we don't see eye-to-eye on.

 

[Green Kepi]

I'm glad that's how you feel because it's how I feel, too. Since we both feel the same way, I'm looking forward to a lot of interesting discussions with you.

Are you old like me? If you were having these conversations back in the 70's, I bet you are!

People find themselves discussing things they don't agree on in much greater depth than the things they do agree on. It's much more interesting than just saying, "Yup, you're right about that. Uh huh. I agree. Absolutely. I can't argue with you about that!" What I'm trying to say is that we probably have a lot more in common than you might think. We just tend to get into discussions on the things we don't see eye-to-eye on.

Yeah...I'm old...(sort-of) but...many of my buddies didn't make it this far. One of the problems that we will always have is:

In verses 1-19, the fact of Christ's resurrection is detailed by Paul. Beginning in verse 20 and going through verse 23, Paul speaks about the order of the resurrection. Christ was the first one raised - in a glorified body - and next will be those who are His at His return.

Verses 24 - 29 then mention Christ's reign and the ending of death. This is when my Mormon friends…and I lose each other…. "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"


If you look at history…just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife.



This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. Paul used this example from the pagans in verse 29 when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.



This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.


Paul's point was simple to me. The resurrection is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even those pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they have baptize for the dead? Please tell me how you view this?

 

[Katzpur]

This is when my Mormon friends…and I lose each other…. "Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

If you look at history…just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife.

This religion was mentioned by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79. Paul used this example from the pagans in verse 29 when he said, "...if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.


This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

Paul's point was simple to me. The resurrection is going to happen when Jesus returns. Even those pagans believe in the resurrection, otherwise, why would they have baptize for the dead? Please tell me how you view this?

You say that Paul was referring to a pagan ritual. Why on earth would he have done that? Stop and think about it. Imagine yourself trying to convince someone that Jesus Christ's resurrection really did take place and that, because He became "the firstfruits of them that slept," we too could look forward to being resurrected someday. Would you say, "What purpose do the Mormons have for practicing baptisms for the dead, if the dead are never going to be resurrected? Why do you think they are being baptized for the dead"? I really can't imagine you saying such a thing. You would not use a practice you didn't personally believe in (i.e. baptism for the dead) as an argument to support a doctrine you did believe in (i.e. the resurrection). That's just not the way people debate their beliefs.

Most of the time, when we see a pronoun such as the word "we," it is immediately preceded by a noun which makes it clear who the "we" is referring to. In this case, we don't. Paul does not say, "the Saints at Corinth" or "the pagans in Eleusis." We are left to figure out for ourselves who he was talking about. Even many non-LDS scholars today, however, agree that the Christians in Corinth, at least, were engaging in proxy baptism for those who had not received baptism when they were alive. One such individual is Krister Stendahl (1921-2008) is among these. In the event that you are not familiar with him, he was a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar who served as professor and professor emeritus at Harvard Divinity School.

When the Encyclopedia of Mormonism was being written, one of its editors, LDS scholar, Truman Madsen, approached Stendahl (a long-time acquaintance) and asked him to write an article on baptism for the dead in ancient Christianity. Stendahl refused. Madsen persisted, saying, "We'd really like to have you involved. Would it be possible, could I maybe write an article on the subject, just a brief little thing, and send it to you and you just make any changes you want to and you can put your name on it?" Stendahl relented and agreed to read Madsen’s article.

Madsen, however, was unprepared for what happened next. After reading Madsen’s article, Stendahl immediately responded, “This is a terrible article; it's not nearly strong enough; your case is much better than you are letting on; don't be so reticent." He ended up writing the article himself. It now appears in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Essentially he admitted, that “the consensus of all informed biblical exegetes is that early Christians did practice baptism for the dead and it was a rite essentially as the Mormons describe it." Paul meant what the text appears to be saying and there really aren’t as many other interpretations as most people insist on extrapolating.

Granted, the Bible has little to say on the subject, and it's hard to define a doctine based upon relatively little knowledge of a practice. But it was a practice. It was a practice among first century Christians. It was known to Paul's audience and accepted by Paul.

 

[Green Kepi]

Granted, some Corinthian believers were being baptized for the dead. But...I can't see Paul promoting baptism for the dead, he is illustrating his argument that the resurrection is a reality. In verse 29 Paul uses the word "they/those"...meaning something he wouldn't do and he's teaching against this practice.

I think each of us will be judged for what we did in the body...there's no 'second chance'. Once a person dies, its either the holding area for the unsaved "Hades" or "Heaven" for the saved. In all my years of study...I just can't piece together what you believe. Believe me...I've tried. Any time any of your young elders knock on my door, I invite them in, offer them a caffeine free coke, and we study. However, usually about 3 times is the limit and they never return. But...I enjoy it, because it make me research and think....

 

[Katzpur]

Granted, some Corinthian believers were being baptized for the dead. But...I can't see Paul promoting baptism for the dead, he is illustrating his argument that the resurrection is a reality. In verse 29 Paul uses the word "they/those"...meaning something he wouldn't do and he's teaching against this practice.

I don't think that Paul is specifically promoting baptism for the dead, but I definitely don't think he is implying he disapproves of it. There would have been absolutely no reason for him to bring a practice he disapproved of into the conversation at all. I'm sure you would never try to convince someone of the resurrection by pointing out that it must be a reality, otherwise why are the Latter-day Saints performing proxy baptisms. As I said before, there is no specific indication of who he was referring to because the word "they" doesn't reference any prior noun (pagans or believers).

I think each of us will be judged for what we did in the body...there's no 'second chance'. Once a person dies, its either the holding area for the unsaved "Hades" or "Heaven" for the saved.

Apparently there aren't going to be any first chances for a lot of people then. A lot of people have been born at times and in places where Christianity had never been taught. Others were simply never introduced to it. What about them? I'm assuming you believe baptism to be optional. Is that correct?

In all my years of study...I just can't piece together what you believe. Believe me...I've tried. Any time any of your young elders knock on my door, I invite them in, offer them a caffeine free coke, and we study. However, usually about 3 times is the limit and they never return. But...I enjoy it, because it make me research and think....

Well, thank you for at least trying. I'd seriously be interested in talking to you more about proxy baptism, this "holding area" you refer to, and whatever other doctrines you're interested in discussing. I, too, enjoy the opportunity to stretch my brain and consider perspectives other than my own.

 

[Green Kepi]

The times where people did not have the Scriptures and prior to Christian baptism...God provides that answer. In Romans 2:14 - "...when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...its written on their hearts." Meaning...they did not have "The Law" (they formed their own law). God has put in all men and woman an inner sense of right and wrong...as v 15 states, the ones never hearing or never having the Plan of Salvation, will be judged by Christ by their own conscience (laws)...did they break their own laws?

This type of salvation is what the whole Book of Jonah is about. That's something I cannot figure out either. Many where I attend worship services will get mad when anyone would say that these people were saved. Just like Jonah did. In Jonah 4:1, he became greatly displeased and angry. God said, "Have you any right to be angry?" Jonah actually was mad enough to answer back, "I am angry enough to die."

How can anyone think my loving Lord would let billions slip into eternal Hell (if one believes in such a literal place) without offering them so much as a possibility of finding forgiveness? I can see God with tears in his eyes saying, "How could you think that I could be so heartless?"

The good law abiding people of Nineveh were not baptized...yet the Blood of Christ saved them...just like baptized people of today.

As for the "Holding Area"...that was what was called by the Jews as Abraham's Bosom. It is the place they dwelled until they were to occupy the Kingdom of Heaven. Luke 16:22. The section of Hades reserved for the righteous (before the Cross) by the time Paul wrote chapter 2 Cor 12:2-4 (Paradise) had been taken out of Hades and now was placed in the third heaven.

 

[Katzpur]

How can anyone think my loving Lord would let billions slip into eternal Hell (if one believes in such a literal place) without offering them so much as a possibility of finding forgiveness? I can see God with tears in his eyes saying, "How could you think that I could be so heartless?"

I agree, it would be incomprehensible to think that a loving Father in Heaven would condemn billions to eternal suffering for something entirely beyond their control. That why we Latter-day Saints believe He provided a means by which they would ultimately be able to do that which the Savior commanded of them when He said, "He that believeth andis baptized shall be saved..." Jesus Christ would not have given any commandment without having made it possible for all to obey. If a person dies without having been given the chance to hear and accept the gospel during his lifetime, he will be given that chance after his death but prior to the judgment. Every man and woman who has ever lived will have the opportunity to actually choose to believe, but since baptism is an earthly ordinance (i.e. it would be impossible for a spirit to be immersed in water), God has given mortal beings the privilege of entering the waters of baptism for someone who has died. If the individual for whom the baptism was performed does not choose to believe in Christ, then the baptism has accomplished nothing. On the other hand, if the person, upon hearing the gospel taught, does accept it, does have faith that Jesus Christ can redeem him from his sins, and does repent of those sins, it will be as if he had received the ordinance of baptism himself while still on earth. This, according to LDS theology, is the only way God can be constant, loving, and just. God gave a commandment and provided a way for all to keep that commandment.

As for the "Holding Area"...that was what was called by the Jews as Abraham's Bosom. It is the place they dwelled until they were to occupy the Kingdom of Heaven. Luke 16:22. The section of Hades reserved for the righteous (before the Cross) by the time Paul wrote chapter 2 Cor 12:2-4 (Paradise) had been taken out of Hades and now was placed in the third heaven.

Could you explain this in a bit more detail, please. I see no reason to believe that either Paradise/Abraham's Bosom or the Spirit Prison has ceased to exist. We know they existed once and we understand the purpose for their existence. I fail to see how the need for either of these two states is any different today than it was anciently and I definitely don't see anything in the scriptures that implies that they were abolished.

 

[Green Kepi]

Could you explain this in a bit more detail, please. I see no reason to believe that either Paradise/Abraham's Bosom or the Spirit Prison has ceased to exist. We know they existed once and we understand the purpose for their existence. I fail to see how the need for either of these two states is any different today than it was anciently and I definitely don't see anything in the scriptures that implies that they were abolished.

The portion of Hades where the unsaved are held...is still functioning. Its still there. When Jesus died on the cross, He went to Paradise (He and one of the bandits on the cross). He did not go to Hell as the KJV states. Then Ephesians 4:8 tells us that Jesus took the souls of those in Paradise (Abraham's Bosom) to Heaven (in His Train). That's how the saved will return with Jesus when He returns to be reunited with their bodies. (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

 

[katiemygirl]

What about the thief on the cross? Did he have any works? Was he baptized?[/QUOTE
Hi Rick,
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. The theif on the cross is not the example I wish to follow. I think the inspired apostle Peter makes it pretty clear on the day of Pentecost what we must do to be saved. Acts 2:38. Salvation is by grace but it is conditional. You must first believe. You must also repent, confess and be baptized. It is then you receive the Holy Spirit.
Katie

 

[katiemygirl]

I hear the argument a lot about all you have to do to be saved is to call upon the name of the Lord and believe and trust him with all of your heart and you will be saved. Yes I think that's an important stage but don't you think that's too easy to just believe and say that you're saved and that God wants more from us than that? In James 2:18-20 it says But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? That right there shows that we need to show our works and obey him. The reason I've been looking at this more closely is I know a lot of people who don't think they need to be baptized for the remission of their sins where it clearly states it in Acts 2:38 where it says Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You can go throughout the New Testament too and find many examples of people being baptized including Jesus himself (Matthew 3).

You are on the right track. We must be baptized to be saved. That is when we are forgiven and when we receive the Holy Spirit. Your post is well written and right on.Keep up the good work!
Katie

 

[katiemygirl]

Being saved and salvation are the same word and it is the beginning not the completion.
Salvation begins with baptism. A seed or deposit is held within and is necessary to take the recipient all the way to the fullness of Christ. The gifting will be obvious.

Faith will take an individual all the way into the holy place, the sanctuary of God.
The scripture says to do the Will of God from the heart. This is totally energized in the heart area with a power that can only be called Love from a perfect, pure mind and heart. This is the work that needs to be done. This makes the person totally useful to God.
This is escaping the Kingdom of Satan and entering the Kingdom of God.

Well said, my friend.
Katie

 

[e.r.m.]

What about the thief on the cross? Did he have any works? Was he baptized?

Why do you consider the thief on the cross which was before baptism in Jesus's name for forgiveness of sins was even given?

Why do you only think of only the thief on the cross and none of the other people whom Jesus forgave before baptism in Jesus's name?

 

[e.r.m.]

You are on the right track. We must be baptized to be saved. That is when we are forgiven and when we receive the Holy Spirit. Your post is well written and right on.Keep up the good work!
Katie

Ditto.

 

[e.r.m.]

What about the thief on the cross? Did he have any works? Was he baptized?[/QUOTE
Hi Rick,
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins. The theif on the cross is not the example I wish to follow. I think the inspired apostle Peter makes it pretty clear on the day of Pentecost what we must do to be saved. Acts 2:38. Salvation is by grace but it is conditional. You must first believe. You must also repent, confess and be baptized. It is then you receive the Holy Spirit.
Katie

Welcome to this forum!

 

[e.r.m.]

Another church member who puts denominational creeds about Bible context. Yes. You should welcome him.

But in the final analysis, we don't weigh scripture or determine truth by a vote. The context of God's Word remains true no matter what.

The context of Acts 2:38 remains that one UNTOWARD GENERATION (v40) of Israelites who murdered their very own Messiah. No gentile of any time fits the context.

Dr. O

Another church member who puts denominational creeds about Bible context. Yes. You should welcome him. But in the final analysis, we don't weigh scripture or determine truth by a vote. The context of God's Word remains true no matter what.
Baptists don't have the authority to set context. Scriptures do. It is not your context of God's word that determines truth, God's actual Word determines truth.

The context of Acts 2:38 remains that one UNTOWARD GENERATION (v40) of Israelites who murdered their very own Messiah. No gentile of any time fits the context.
This context is completely at your word, and your context contradicts Acts 2:39 "...for all whom the the Lord our God will call."

 

[jtartar]

I hear the argument a lot about all you have to do to be saved is to call upon the name of the Lord and believe and trust him with all of your heart and you will be saved. Yes I think that's an important stage but don't you think that's too easy to just believe and say that you're saved and that God wants more from us than that? In James 2:18-20 it says But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? That right there shows that we need to show our works and obey him. The reason I've been looking at this more closely is I know a lot of people who don't think they need to be baptized for the remission of their sins where it clearly states it in Acts 2:38 where it says Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You can go throughout the New Testament too and find many examples of people being baptized including Jesus himself (Matthew 3).

KM1141,
Where many people get mixed up about works, is sometimes Paul is talking about WORKS that were necessary under the Mosaic Law Covenant, and the good works that a Christian should do. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law Covenant so many times he was talking to Jews who thought they still had to obey the Mosaic Law Covenant, even though that Covenant ended, was Superceded by the New Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, Like 22:19,20, Heb 8:13.
People get mixed up because Paul said that Faith is what saved a person, not works, that being justified was a GIFT, works being unnecessary, Eph 2:8.9, but notice that we are still expected to do good works, verse 11, those are not works of the Law Covenant. We are under the Law of Faith, Rom 3:27-31, where the Law of. Faith is estabolished, Rom 3:24. So our being justified by God is a free GIFT, because there is no possible way we could EARN everlasting life, even if we did good works every day for all our life. Since we cannot attain everlasting life, it is a GIFT of God, for all those who have Faith in Jesus shed blood, The Greatest Gift that could EVER be given, The Great Corresponding Ranson, 1Tim 2:3-6. James summed up the point perfectly at James 2:22,24, where he says that a man must have both faith and works, for by his works his faith is perfected. Gal 6:10, Matt 7:12. Christian works not works of the Mosaic Law Coovenant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

KM1141,
Where many people get mixed up about works, is sometimes Paul is talking about WORKS that were necessary under the Mosaic Law Covenant, and the good works that a Christian should do. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law Covenant so many times he was talking to Jews who thought they still had to obey the Mosaic Law Covenant, even though that Covenant ended, was Superceded by the New Covenant that Jesus instituted on the night before his death, Like 22:19,20, Heb 8:13.

If non-Jews weren't under the old covenant, why would they be under its replacement?

 

[Harvey]

What is faith and works?

From my studies of the Bible:
Faith is believing in the word of God to be absolutely true, and that whatever verse you read will happen because it is said by God. because God cannot lie and he said it, so no matter what he said, no matter how unlikely it seems, when he said it it will happen.

Mary was told she was going to have a baby without having sex, and she didnt say that cant happen, she said Ok, let it be so.
that is faith.

Works is starting to make baby outfits before her belly got big..


Works of love comes if you really believe.
If one waits for rain before they build a boat, that is not faith that works.

Abraham did not wait when he was told to take his family away from Babylon, he got up and moved.

If one believes a truth is sure in the Bible, then they will take action accordingly, that is real works.

Noah believed the flood was coming, he Loved God, so he built a boat while it had never rained before. That is faith that works.

Othersheard the truth but didn't sell house, farm and everything to build this boat. They perished.
Noah worked for 120 years, and sold everything he had to finance this boat project while the sun shined every day. It didnt rain back then. never had, yet God said it was going to rain, and he believed it.

Scientists of that day calculated that there wasnt enough water on the planet to cover the earth, it is impossible to flood the hwhole earth. Noah believed it anyway. He didn't worry about details like where water was coming from.

And the water came from where they didn't expect it, and it rained and rained and rained. The earth had a water layer high up in stratosphere and there were no oceans back then. a meteor came through and hit earth and the inversion was punctured along with a huge crater that cracked the deep reservors, and the earth had no mountains, the highest hill was covered by several feet of water.

later there were huge earthquakes and resettling and the nderground water reservois failed due to earthquakes and land dropped down and water came out (grand canyon one remaining esample.

Noah didnt worry the details he had faith and he worked.