Why does baptism for the dead bother you?

[Bishka]

some people are stuck in that John the BAPTIST baptisim ( water). I glad John told us the next baptism

And some people in both and give both of them equal consideration. :yes:

 

[astarath]

God exists, this is a universal truth to which all those who ask would be answered to all those who seek would find. If the word never came to them it is because they never looked for it

 

[Katzpur]

some people are stuck in that John the BAPTIST baptisim ( water). I glad John told us the next baptism

Yeah, some people like Jesus Christ. Personally I believe we have to be baptized by water and the Spirit both. Just out of curiosity, why do you believe Jesus was so insistent upon being baptized by water? He clearly had no sins to be cleansed of. Do you believe it even remotely possible that it might have been because He wanted to set an example for us of what He was asking that we, too, do?

 

[Katzpur]

God exists, this is a universal truth to which all those who ask would be answered to all those who seek would find. If the word never came to them it is because they never looked for it

This is truly an interesting concept. Could you elaborate please, and tell me how someone who lived his entire life without ever having heard the name Jesus Christ would be able to understand the nature of the Savior's Atonement? And why, if this is the case, is it necessary that we spread the word at all? If you are saying that one can gain sufficient knowledge to be saved without ever having been exposed to Christianity, I see no need for anyone to bother to teach anyone else the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[astarath]

Ah this is just it, the value of the saying... have faith that those who search for God do not need to find a Christian or a bible to find God... they need to find God. Many times in the bible it tells of how people who should have never known of God are found because they seek!!! God will not abandon someone who seeks for him rather he will show them the atonement through means outside baptism of the water but through the baptism of the soul

 

[Katzpur]

Ah this is just it, the value of the saying... have faith that those who search for God do not need to find a Christian or a bible to find God... they need to find God. Many times in the bible it tells of how people who should have never known of God are found because they seek!!! God will not abandon someone who seeks for him rather he will show them the atonement through means outside baptism of the water but through the baptism of the soul

Is this your answer to my question in the preceding post?

 

[astarath]

Yes!!!

 

[rocka21]

Yeah, some people like Jesus Christ. Personally I believe we have to be baptized by water and the Spirit both. Just out of curiosity, why do you believe Jesus was so insistent upon being baptized by water? He clearly had no sins to be cleansed of. Do you believe it even remotely possible that it might have been because He wanted to set an example for us of what He was asking that we, too, do?

i am just glad, he did not tell the thief on the cross, " you must get down and be baptized in water". Or mabey Jesus knew one day an LDS would proxy baptize him.:drool:

i do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation. People are not saved by the dunk, they are saved by the cross! ( now that will preach!)

another thing to think about, most people think in acts, when 3000 got baptized, was that in water or the holy ghost? 3000 dunks! no, baptism of the heart.

 

[astarath]

amen BROTHER!!!!!

 

[nutshell]

i am just glad, he did not tell the thief on the cross, " you must get down and be baptized in water". Or mabey Jesus knew one day an LDS would proxy baptize him.:drool:

i do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation. People are not saved by the dunk, they are saved by the cross! ( now that will preach!)

another thing to think about, most people think in acts, when 3000 got baptized, was that in water or the holy ghost? 3000 dunks! no, baptism of the heart.

Are you avoiding Katzpur's question. I'd like to see your answer to her actual question.

 

[astarath]

What if he was trying to show that after a long walk you show take a bath????

 

[Bishka]

What if he was trying to show that after a long walk you show take a bath????

Then I doubt it would have been included in the Bible. His other daily hygienical habits were not included, so I doubt this one would have been.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes!!!

Thank you. Since I know next to nothing about what Ebionites believe, I should probably point out at this time that this entire discussion seems pretty pointless to me. Obviously, if you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the only means by which a person can be saved, baptism in His name is of no consequence whatsoever.

 

[Katzpur]

i am just glad, he did not tell the thief on the cross, " you must get down and be baptized in water". Or mabey Jesus knew one day an LDS would proxy baptize him.:drool:

Or perhaps someone in his own day was baptized on his behalf. We could actually take it a step further if you want to. Where does the Bible actually say that he'd never been baptized? Or don't people who have been baptized commit crimes? I'm not saying that he had been baptized, by the way. I'm saying that we simply don't know. But for the sake of argument, I would imagine that one of Christ's disciples who was watching this scene play out would have very likely been baptized for this man. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?

i do believe in water baptism, but not for salvation. People are not saved by the dunk, they are saved by the cross! ( now that will preach!)

People aren't saved by the cross. They are saved by Jesus Christ.

another thing to think about, most people think in acts, when 3000 got baptized, was that in water or the holy ghost? 3000 dunks! no, baptism of the heart.

Why do you say that? I believe they would have been baptized by water and by the Spirit.

 

[astarath]

Then I doubt it would have been included in the Bible. His other daily hygienical habits were not included, so I doubt this one would have been.

AH but that's just it prior to becoming anointed (Messiah meaning annointed one) one must be clean. So perhaps he was showing that if your planning on becoming anointed as the messiah it is neccessary to be ritually clean.. no wait it is just another proof to the jewish people to legitimise the claim of messiah.

Ebionites believe firmly in Christ, we adhere to the tenets of God's law extrapolated by Christ's sermon on the mount!!

 

[Katzpur]

What if he was trying to show that after a long walk you show take a bath????

Perhaps He would have said that. Instead, He said that He was being baptized "to fulfill all righteousness." It would also be quite amazing that the voice of God could be heard speaking from Heaven, voicing approval of this event. A mere bath would hardly have elicited such a commendation from His Father.

 

[Katzpur]

Ebionites believe firmly in Christ, we adhere to the tenets of God's law extrapolated by Christ's sermon on the mount!!

A lot of non-Christians believe in Him. Who do you believe He was and what do you believe He was sent here to accomplish?

 

[Bishka]

AH but that's just it prior to becoming anointed (Messiah meaning annointed one) one must be clean. So perhaps he was showing that if your planning on becoming anointed as the messiah it is neccessary to be ritually clean.. no wait it is just another proof to the jewish people to legitimise the claim of messiah.

Ebionites believe firmly in Christ, we adhere to the tenets of God's law extrapolated by Christ's sermon on the mount!!

Could you show me evidence for this (another thread please)??

 

[Runt]

We don't see it as symbolic in the same way certain groups of Christians (notably those with a more Evangelical leaning) do. While they use the word "symbolic" in describing the reason behind baptism to mean that it is merely "outward sign" of one's conversion (i.e. it symbolizes their acceptance of Jesus Christ to other believers), we believe baptism to be the means by which we enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. As to the idea that the water literally "washes away one's sins," no, we don't believe that.

So to summarize, other Christians regard baptism as a sign of accepting Jesus Christ, while Mormons view it as a covenantal relationship? Can you explain to me (in PM, if necessary, since I know this is getting somewhat off-topic) what characterizes a covenantal relationship and how it differs from simply accepting Christ? I assume that those who accept Christ are entering into a more one-sided relationship, in which simply accepting Christ gives them access to Christ's assistance, grace and salvation, whereas a covenantal relationship is mutually reciprocating and involves more responsibilities on both sides? Or, perhaps a different way of looking at it is the former relationship is more of a contractual relationship, rather than a covenantal? Other??

In Acts 22:16, we read the following: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Because a sin is not something that can be washed off the skin by water, that particular phrase is itself symbolic. That in no way negates the fact that God requires the ordinance of baptism as a means by which we solemnize the covenant we are making with our Savior to take upon ourselves His name and to keep His commandments. Incidentally, we don't believe that baptism is required in order to enter into Heaven, but to us, Heaven is not a one-size-fits-all kind of place. We believe that a number of ordinances, baptism being the first among them, are required in order for a person to receive the "fullness of salvation" or eternal life in the presence of God.

Hmm, I think one of my close friends explained something that might relate to this. She told me that there is more than one level of Heaven in the Mormon cosmology. Some levels are closer to God than others. I don't remember the names of the different levels right off of the top of my head, but for some reason something sounding like "Telomere" (which I'm fairly certain isn't right) is flowing through my memory...

So, when you say that baptism is not required for admittence to Heaven, do you mean that it is merely required as a way of... rising up the ladder in Heaven (going above and beyond) in order to attain a place closer to God? So, the soul (or spirit??) of the unbaptized individual is in Heaven already, but needs baptism in order to get closer to God?

Allow me to correct you, seeing as I'm the one whose beliefs we are discussing. I'll just start by explaining that I will use the word "spirit" instead of "soul" since we believe that, technically speaking, the "soul" exists only when the spirit and physical body are united, as is the case during a person's mortal existence and as will again be the case once that person is resurrected. A person's spirit is incorporeal; therefore it would be impossible for anyone to baptize a spirit. Consequently, baptism is an earthly ordinance. The spirit, on the other hand, is the entity which is given the free will to either accept or reject the baptism done on its behalf. I was baptized at the age of eight. I (i.e. the spirit part of me) made a conscious decision to enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. As a result of this decision, my body was baptized by immersion. My great, great, great grandmother may not have had this opportunity. Because her spirit now exists as a cognizant entity apart from her body, she cannot physically be baptized. I, however, can receive this ordinance for her since I still have my physical body. In the end, the decision to either accept or reject this baptism is hers and hers alone.

I think I'm still confused. Are the soul and the spirit two completely different things? You seem to speak of body, soul and spirit. The body and the soul exist together, whereas the spirit exists independently of both? And it is the spirit which has free will? What then is the soul, and what happens to it upon death? You say that an incorporeal entity cannot be baptized, so I would assume it is the soul then that is being baptized in a baptism-by-proxy? So... the spirit (which has free will) chooses baptism and the soul is baptized? And the soul is able to be baptized despite the person's body being dead because ANOTHER body is standing in for the original body? So.... baptism involves the conferrance of divine grace to the soul only through the flesh???? *somehow made herself even more confused*

I don't know. Maybe you're just smart and I'm just stupid. To each his own.

This isn't a matter of one person being smart and another being stupid. We come from completely different backgrounds and worldviews. I'm seriously trying to understand. This is very alien to me, because I'm not a believer and I've never felt anything remotely like the kind of faith or sense of connection with the divine that believers seem to have. Although I can understand---to a limited degree and in a very academic sense---notions such as God, baptism, and other such things, they are not a part of my worldview and are foreign enough to me that I'm fascinated by them. It seems silly to me at times because I don't share the views you have and can't understand, ultimately, how it is that you possess them without them seeming to you the way they seem from my eyes, but that doesn't mean that your views are wrong, or stupid, or actually silly. It just means that they ring hollow to me personally. I'm trying to understand, not convert you to my view or demonstrate my intellectual superiority or something.

 

[Katzpur]

So to summarize, other Christians regard baptism as a sign of accepting Jesus Christ, while Mormons view it as a covenantal relationship? Can you explain to me (in PM, if necessary, since I know this is getting somewhat off-topic) what characterizes a covenantal relationship and how it differs from simply accepting Christ? I assume that those who accept Christ are entering into a more one-sided relationship, in which simply accepting Christ gives them access to Christ's assistance, grace and salvation, whereas a covenantal relationship is mutually reciprocating and involves more responsibilities on both sides?

Actually, I don't think I could explain it any better than you just did. I could probably expound on the concept a bit more, but you seem to have a very good grasp of what I was trying to say. Basically, the terms of the covenant involve our accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior, and recognizing that He alone has the power to redeem us of our sins and make us clean in the sight of God. We can't do it alone, no matter how hard we may try, but by entering into the covenantal relationship with Jesus Christ, we have the assurance that we don't have to. I have heard this relationship described as one where two individuals enter into a partnership of sorts. One of them (the junior partner) is near broke, while the other (the senior partner) has resources which are essentially unlimited. They open a joint account at a bank. As a result, the once poor partner finds himself in a situation he could never have enjoyed without his wealthy partner. According to the terms of their agreement, he is free to use their assets as needed, as long as he is willing to contribute all of his personal funds to their joint account for the rest of his life. He may have next to nothing, and the senior partner certainly doesn't need his money, but he is bound by the terms of the contract nevertheless, and if he fails to do what he has promised, the senior partner is under no obligation to keep the account open. He (the senior partner) is, however, bound to make everything he has available to the junior partner indifinitely, provided the junior partner keeps his end of the agreement. (I realize that no analogy is perfect, but I hope this one was useful to some extent.)

Hmm, I think one of my close friends explained something that might relate to this. She told me that there is more than one level of Heaven in the Mormon cosmology. Some levels are closer to God than others. I don't remember the names of the different levels right off of the top of my head, but for some reason something sounding like "Telomere" (which I'm fairly certain isn't right) is flowing through my memory...

That's right. We believe in three main "degrees of glory" or "kingdoms" within the Kingdom of Heaven. The lowest of these is the Telestial Kingdom, the next highest is the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the highest is the Celestial Kingdom.

So, when you say that baptism is not required for admittence to Heaven, do you mean that it is merely required as a way of... rising up the ladder in Heaven (going above and beyond) in order to attain a place closer to God? So, the soul (or spirit??) of the unbaptized individual is in Heaven already, but needs baptism in order to get closer to God?

You're thinking along the lines of the traditional Christian belief which is that we die and are immediately welcomed into Heaven or banished to Hell. We as Latter-day Saints don't believe it happens that way. Since you are not a Christian yourself, I'm not going to bother to provide the scriptural support I would if you had either a Catholic or Protestant background. I'll simply state that we do not believe that the spirit goes immediately to either Heaven or Hell. Rather it continues to exist in an unembodied form in a state or condition known as either Paradise (for the righteous, regardless of religion, incidentally) or the Spirit Prison (for the wicked). The spirit continues to exist apart from the body until the return of Jesus Christ, the Resurrection of all mankind and the Last Judgment. During this period of time, it is capable of continued spritual progression, and it is during this time that millions upon millions of spirits will either hear the gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time or will hear it presented in such a way that they feel, for the first time, the desire to accept it as true. It is for these spirits that proxy baptism is performed. For those who accept the ordinance, it will be as if the physical body in which it once resided had itself been baptized. For those who reject it, it will be as if it never happened.

Once every spirit who has ever lived has had the opportunity to hear and either accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, each one will receive a new physical body and will stand before God to be judged. It is only then that the new "living soul" will be sent to either Heaven or Hell (the vast, vast majority to Heaven). Those who have accepted Christ's atoning sacrifice on their behalf and, if have received the ordinance of baptism (either receiving it themselves while here on earth or by accepting the proxy baptism done for them during the time between their death and their resurrection) may, depending upon their obedience and love of God, be granted entrance to the Celestial Kingdom. The others will spend eternity in either the Terrestrial or Telestial Kimgdom. Baptism itself does not assure anyone of anything, but it is a required ordinance nevertheless. Incidentally, the ladder you referred to is removed at this time. There is no progression from the Telestial Kingdom to the Terrestrial or from the Terrestrial to the Celestial. Those in the Celestial Kingdom, however, are promised that they will be able to progress eternally. There will be virtually no limit to the potential they may attain.

I think I'm still confused. Are the soul and the spirit two completely different things? You seem to speak of body, soul and spirit. The body and the soul exist together, whereas the spirit exists independently of both? And it is the spirit which has free will? What then is the soul, and what happens to it upon death?

We believe in a spirit and a physical body. The spirit is eternal. It will never cease to exist and, in a sense, always has existed. We believe that God created our spirits from the essence of truth and light which is coeternal with Him, and that we existed in spirit form for billions of years before being born, living in His presence (but without a physical body). Genesis 2 describes God as having breathed life into Adam, causing him to be "a living soul." In other words, when the spirit of man enters into the physical body, the result is "a living soul." We believe that the spirit leaves the physical body at death, but does continue to exist as it did pre-mortally. It continues to have the same qualities it always had and is capable of learning, reasoning, feeling, thinking and making choices. (I suppose you could say that, when the spirit leaves the body at death, the soul temporarily ceases to exist. Just as two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen together make water, water can only exist when the hydrogen and the oxygen are combined and not when they are separated.) At the time of the resurrection of all mankind, each spirit re-enters the body where it resided during mortality, although the body, through the process of resurrection, becomes perfected, renewed and immortal. The result is once again "a living soul." This time, though, the living soul is no longer subject to death. The spirit will reside eternally in this new body, and will live forever in one of the three heavenly kingdoms I previously mentioned.

You say that an incorporeal entity cannot be baptized, so I would assume it is the soul then that is being baptized in a baptism-by-proxy? So... the spirit (which has free will) chooses baptism and the soul is baptized? And the soul is able to be baptized despite the person's body being dead because ANOTHER body is standing in for the original body? So.... baptism involves the conferrance of divine grace to the soul only through the flesh???? *somehow made herself even more confused*

Did my last paragraph help?

This isn't a matter of one person being smart and another being stupid. We come from completely different backgrounds and worldviews. I'm seriously trying to understand. This is very alien to me, because I'm not a believer and I've never felt anything remotely like the kind of faith or sense of connection with the divine that believers seem to have. Although I can understand---to a limited degree and in a very academic sense---notions such as God, baptism, and other such things, they are not a part of my worldview and are foreign enough to me that I'm fascinated by them. It seems silly to me at times because I don't share the views you have and can't understand, ultimately, how it is that you possess them without them seeming to you the way they seem from my eyes, but that doesn't mean that your views are wrong, or stupid, or actually silly. It just means that they ring hollow to me personally. I'm trying to understand, not convert you to my view or demonstrate my intellectual superiority or something.

That's good to know. I'm getting the distinct impression that you are, in fact, making the effort to understand. I don't mean to be touchy, either. How about if you avoid references to the "tooth fairy" in the future, and I try to be less sensitive.