Worship is an experience wherein God calls together God's people and God's people respond. God's people open themselves to God, and God, in complete freedom and love, responds. The worship experience is therefore a time in which we are receptive to a sovereign and loving God to whom we direct our prayers and in whom our faith rests. So worship is an experience like no other in that we as a community commune with the divine. But it is also a teaching moment like no other. In worship God reveals God's self. We learn of God because of God's self revelation. In turn, worship is affected by the new revelation. The worship experience is altered to fit that new information about God. This alteration can come in an actual change in the format and delivery of the worship or it can be a change in the individual's perception of what the worship means. Thus, worship includes symbols that point to a deeper meaning about the reality of God and the worship will conform to God's self expressions.
What does this all mean? The topic of today's post revolves around LDS forms of worship. The word ‘worship’ is not common in LDS lingo, but I believe that the highest form of service and veneration to the Lord is performed in the Temple. Specifically I would like to address a personal question concerning the theological justification for vicarious baptism. As I explained above, worship tells us something of God, and as God reveals himself, worship will adjust so that it communicates more fully the revealed truth of God. Therefore, the fundamental question for this post is: What does vicarious baptism say about God?
I believe in a just God. Worship has taught me that. And what I mean by 'just' is that I believe in a God that will one day judge the lives of each individual in a fair manner. By 'fair' I mean God will not impose a requirement on the life of a human being for which that human being had no means to fulfill during their lifetime. For example, God would be unjust to require someone to know of and have gained a deep relationship with Jesus Christ during their lifetime if that person had no access to Jesus or His teachings. God would be unjust to judge that person as a disciple of Christ if that person had no opportunity to learn what 'disciple of Christ' meant to even the most elementary degree. I believe God will judge each person in their life context and God will be just in judging.
Now imagine a man named Eli who happens to live his life in the 4th century CE. Eli yearns to have a deeper relationship with his Creator, learns of Christianity, has a genuine spiritual experience to confirm that he should become a disciple of Christ, and thus seeks after the most available source of enacting that desire. For him, in his context, the available source is the church which is emerging as the Catholic church. He is baptized by a Catholic priest, who is devoted to his station but occasionally drinks too much of the communion wine. That doesn't stop Eli from feeling the Spirit of God confirm his baptism, and he lives a life dictated by the confession, ‘Jesus is Lord.'
When Eli dies, he meets his Maker. Can you imagine? You have led a life following Christ as best you can and according to what was available to you in your context. You are now before your Creator. God, who knows the context of Eli's life better than Eli himself, will make a just judgment.
So here is my question: What would a just God do? Would God look on the devotion of this man, see how the atoning sacrifice of Christ has purified him of all sin and unrighteousness, and say, "enter, thou good and faithful servant"? Or, Would Eli be denied access to God's kingdom unless he received a baptism that was unavailable to him during his lifetime?
It might be said that Eli was baptized by an unworthy priest and therefore his baptism, although done with good intentions, is invalid in the sight of God. What does such a claim say about God? Isn't this more of a judgment on the one who performed the baptism and not on the one who was baptized? Eli sought after the appropriate manner to embrace Christianity in his context. He can't help it if his priest liked to drink too much and was therefore considered unworthy by God. How would Eli know that God had removed the priest's authority to perform baptism? Most importantly, why would God the Father discredit a man's genuine effort to follow Christ over the sins of a completely different person?
What does that say about God?
God is not weak. God conquers sin. In fact, that is the good news of this thing we call the Gospel: that God has overcome death and sin through Christ. God sends Jesus Christ who dies on a cross for the sins of all humanity and overcomes death through resurrection. God then empowers the remaining apostles and disciples to go as lights in the world. The world, who has already crucified God's Son, rejects the apostles (which really should be no surprise). At this point we must ask ourselves, does God endure with God's people after the apostles are all gone? These are people who are still searching, pondering and praying to God; these are people being killed, even slaughtered because they profess Jesus is Lord; these are people waiting anxiously for the Coming of Christ; these are people that believe whole heartedly that not even the gates of hell can stop the kingdom of God (Matt. 16:18). Does God take away his authority to perform legitimate baptisms for these people simply because the rest of the world is rejecting the Gospel (once again, rejection really shouldn't be that surprising, especially for a God who knows everything)?
What does that say about God?
Of course, persecution is an outside pressure. Let us hold to the idea that by the 4th century the Catholic Church in its entirety was so corrupt that the authority to perform baptisms was removed by God from the entire Church, even world (since only God could remove God's authority to do something). Is it just for God to judge Eli unworthy to enter the kingdom of God because of an inaccessible authority which is controlled by the very God making the judgment? In other words, what are we saying about a God that deems souls unworthy to be with God for eternity because they were not baptized by someone with the very authority that God controls? Does God reject one's baptism because of the internal corruption within a Church? Salvation, according to the Bible, is a free gift (Eph. 2:8-10). If we go back to Eli, here is a man who is functioning as best he can in his context. The only thing available to him is the Catholic Church, and therefore he seeks out what seems to him to be the correct institution in which to devote one's life to Christ. He is baptized by water sprinkled on his head. This is the only form of baptism Eli knows and he doesn't think twice about it. He feels God's confirmation and lives a life devoted to Christ. Does God reject Eli's baptism because the only institution available to him in which to be baptized was corrupt (keeping in mind that Eli doesn't know that according to God the Catholic Church is corrupt)?
What does that say about God?
If we declare that indeed God rejects Eli's baptism, than what was the whole point of God's Holy Spirit touching his life? The Spirit of God will testify of truth, so why did it send Eli to a corrupt church? Why did it confirm in Eli's heart that what he was doing was right, if in fact, it was not? It seems sadistic for God to send his Holy Spirit to direct humanity to truth, but when they adhere to the Holy Spirit in their given context, genuinely seeking after truth as you and I do, God deems them unworthy to enter His presence because they were sent by the Holy Spirit to a church that performs a baptism God rejects. That's kinda scary to me.
Would God really remove his authority to perform legitimate baptisms because of external persecution and internal corruption? I know of a story that may illustrate my perspective. God comes to Abraham to let him know that Sodom and Gomorrah are on the chopping block. Abraham asks God, "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" God declares that if there are fifty righteous, He will forgive the whole place. This conversation continues, each time Abraham reducing the number of hypothetical righteous people in the city to see what God will do (50? 45? 40? 30? 20? 10?). Each time God states that he will not destroy the city if He finds within it any number of righteous. Lucky for Lot, the angels of God direct him and his family out of the city before it is destroyed. It seems that besides Lot and his family, no one else was worth saving (Gen. 18-19; Note: Lot and family are saved because they are considered righteous by God even though Lot is willing to give his daughters to the mob that wants to get to 'know' the angels of God and even though after the ordeal these daughters get to 'know' their own father. Interesting difference in understanding of 'righteous' than what we would consider today).
To summarize, I really have a hard time believing that God - the same God who calls us to be long-suffering, if not even more (1 Cor. 13; Gal. 5:22-23) - would not be long-suffering with all of his children on earth (Psalm 86, one of my favorites. Exodus 34:6-7, also awesome). It is so easy for us to think of history in a neat summary: They killed Jesus and the apostles, corruption ensued and so God took away his authority. But there were thousands of people, devout followers of Christ that saw the apostles die and probably cried out even more for God's direction and mercy and authority. Is God going to remove the authority for these people to access their Savior because of the wickedness of others? God is so much more powerful than our feeble attempts at destroying his work, and his mercy is something needed every day, not simply in the afterlife. Eli of the 4th century needed it just as much as you and I (remember, Christians actually died for their faith back then and it was not pretty). Here I am faced with the perplexing question of, do I continue to extract names from the Catholic baptismal records so that another baptism can be performed on their behalf in the Temple? A baptism that they accepted already in their lifetime within their context? A baptism they value as much as I value mine? Do I continue to pray and in asking God for wisdom "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things [the Book of Mormon]", but believe that God took away the ability for close to 2,000 years worth of people to legitimately take on Christ (Moroni 10:3)? I don't see how that is mercy.
What if I accept that God will judge them in their context, appreciate the life they lived with what they had, cleanse them of all unrighteousness through the Atonement of Christ and let them enter in His abode? For myself, I can't ask for anymore.
I won't presume to know the NT like you do, but when Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born of the water and the spirit, it seems to me both unambiguous and absolute. But God is just and will not punish people for failing to accept a baptism that was unavailable. Proxy baptisms are supposed to reconcile these principles. But what of people who live and die without the gospel and outside the (impressive, but miniscule relative to cumulative world population) reach of family history databases. I think that your example of "Eli" from the 4th century is a little narrow. What about Ping from 2nd century China? What about Ahmed from 7th century Iraq? Unlike Eli, these people did not have the opportunity to accept baptism (from valid authority or otherwise) nor (like Eli, presumably) the good fortune to have had their names recorded in the genealogies of LD Saints. As a matter of fact, they exist only as fictional archetypes of the vast majority of God's children who have been sent to earth.
ReplyDeleteSo the practice of proxy baptism, as we know and understand it, is insufficient to reconcile those principles discussed earlier: God is just and salvation requires baptism. If we continue to hold such principles as true, we must accept that God has another mechanism in place besides or in addition to record searching and proxy baptism about which we know nothing. This alternative must necessarily be exponentially more powerful and far reaching than familysearch.com. This brings up some questions in addition to yours. In requiring us to search our family histories and perform proxy ordinances, is God simply giving us a lot of busy work? But then again, whenever God asks us to do something, isn't it a kind of busy work since he could do it better and faster himself? What does this say about God?
Maybe God thought that proxy ordinances would be a benefit for us spiritually as it serves to 1) introduce us to our ancestors who are also God's children and 2) remind us regularly (like the sacrament) and explicitly (unlike the sacrament) of the promises and covenants that we have made to God ourselves.
Like most of the answers to life's difficult questions, this one boils down to "do what God asks and trust that He'll take care of the rest."
I agree with Ben's comment about the benefits to the person conducting the work. I wish I had direct quotes to put in here, but suffice it to say that at least one church leader has commented about the need to do family history for our own sakes. Just as Adam performed sacrifices without knowing why (why on earth would you kill a perfectly good animal that God created? It would seem much more logical to not kill an animal for no reason), perhaps so must we perform vicarious baptisms without a full understanding.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the Lord also expects us to ask questions and seek understanding. So what could be the reason why the Lord would pull His authority off of the earth? What I find interesting is that although the church at the time of Alma the elder was very wicked (i.e. King Noah), his authority was still present in the church (evidenced by Alma already having the authority to baptize when he went off and preached on his own). At what point, then, does wickedness increase to a point in which the authority is no longer "valid." I do not know the answer to this, and perhaps this is one I won't learn in this life. Perhaps Alma received his authority from someone who wasn't as wicked as King Noah. Who knows? However, you mention that God is somewhat going against what he says in telling us to be long-suffering by Himself not being so. Doesn't God also tell us to forgive all, despite the fact that He isn't going to? Thus, we are held to a different standard than He is, because we have a much more limited understanding.
Just some thoughts. Thanks for the thought provoking insights.
Will
Ben,
ReplyDeleteYou begin your comment by referring to the text of John 3:1-15. I would invite you to read this passage and explore some alternative interpretations other than the literalistic interpretation so often employed by ours and other faith denominations, mostly Catholic.
We, the LDS people, need that one verse - John 3:5 - to be taken literally for our theology to work. We can disregard the surrounding verses and even the entire premise of the Gospel of John in order to make this one verse support our theology of baptism, despite the obvious complications that you and I bring up. Instead of recognizing these obvious complications we instead insist that the Bible is to be used as a law book in order to sustain our case. After all, the chapter and verse references do make it sound rather legalistic.
But John did not write in verse and chapter, which should always remind us that the author of any sacred text never intended for his audience to comb his book looking for that one sentence or phrase to support a particular theology. John is painting. It is artistry we read, not a dry legal book. This periscope is a portion of a larger story that invites us to ask, who is the Subject? Who is the Object? Is Jesus really making such a bombastic statement or can I allow Jesus to speak in hyperbole? Which interpretation really supports both the passage and the thesis of the larger narrative? These are the critical questions that we must ask ourselves when dissecting any text.
Biblical interpretation could be a whole new post, but I submit to you that the Gospel of John's majesty is not found in summarizing its message to what we have to do to receive eternal life, but in what the Word of God has done for us, without our consent, even as the wind moves without us knowing when or from where.
As to your final statement ("do what God asks and He will take care of the rest"), I request that you do the same with your own research. Stop wondering about life, cells, chemistry, methodology, and all science in general and instead just do what God asks and let him take care of the rest. Stop questioning how it all works and how to make it better. Well, I don't actually want you to do that because I know the same drive I feel for theology you feel for your respective field of science. Your passion comes from the same source as mine. And so, respectfully I say, No. Especially when I seriously wonder and question if this came from God.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a beauty to genealogy and I love to read about the history of my family and that of my wife's. But I am not questioning this benefit. If genealogy was the fundamental premise to vicarious works than I would imagine it would be more of a requirement. But we can run names through the temple like a herd of cows through the slaughterhouse. We've got assembly line precision to the point that I don't remember even one name of anyone I have done work for and I know I'm not alone. I don't feel any closer to my ancestors and when I get to the other side of the vale and receive hugs from complete strangers, it is going to be awkward. "Thank you so much, Travis for doing my work for me." My reply? ".....No problem, ... you."
I don't have a relationship with these people and I really don't think my experience is uncommon. Why? Because most people go to the Temple for themselves not for the dead. The name of a dead person is needed to get me to the Celestial room so that I can feel good and have a sweet place to say a prayer and think in silence (so welcomed with children). Sure, I feel warm about John Doe getting his work done, but I really don't give him a second thought when I'm in the Celestial Room. If you are more mindful, props to you, but I am pretty sure my experience and selfish reason for going to the Temple is the norm. Here I am talking about orthopraxy not orthodoxy; I know what the General Authorities say, but I also know that most people have different motives and rightfully so. I hope my twisted humor comes out more in this reply than anything, although what makes it funny is that it is probably true.
I would take it that just like the Sadducees asked regarding the Baptism of the Dead, that the question you pose is really not even about baptism, but about something else, thus looking at the value/merit of vicarious baptism in and of itself, is inadequate and misses the mark. The question the Sadducees asked was really about Resurrection and the after-life (or lack thereof), not vicarious baptism. In the same vein, I take that your questions surrounding vicarious baptism (and other topics aforementioned and yet to be brought up in this blog) are not so much questioning its particular merits, values, or even validity, but really the real questions are: "Who is God to me (and others)?" "What is the true nature of God?" "Can we understand the infinite through the lens of the finite?" However, in order to submit scripture to you for ponderance on the topic, let me submit the infamous 1 Peter 4:6. Vicarious Baptism is part of, "the gospel [being] preached also to them that are dead". The "Gospel" completely taught includes both doctrines and ordinances, and the acceptance of them as well by those who are dead, "that they might be judged according to men in the flesh [the required ordinances to be done in the flesh], but live according to God in the spirit." ["becoming like Christ"]. Also, remember the connection between ordinances and judgement, "that they shall be judged out of the books...", thus the need for a physical recording, etc. Also, that which is "sealed on earth, shall be sealed in heaven; that which shall be loosed on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. The sealing power, performed by the authority to act in the name of God, is given unto man for a purpose. Yes, authority does matter (flesh), just as living according to God in the Spirit (Spirit, True Intent, Discipleship, Understanding, etc.). All will be taken into account in the Judgement, which Christ will perform. Yes, I know that Christ can do all things and is all powerful, and all things which he shall justify, shall be made true. However, going down that street of illogical thought would come to the dead end that nothing is necessary for man to do because Christ can make it all right in the end regardless. That mental gymnastics exercise doesn't lead to greater faith in Christ, but leads one to "become" more of the antithesis, defeating the necessity to do anything for "righteousness sake", as the Savior himself did. Was it necessary for him to be baptized for the remission of sins? No. So, the question is why did he then? Why did he go to John? What does it teach us about Christ? About His Father? About Ordinances in general? Truth is Truth irrespective of where it is found. Some have some. Some have none. The real questions for all are: Who is Christ? Does Christ have a church (organization, chosen people) on earth? Does he reveal truth in its purity to a Presiding Authority on earth? Does He reveal truth (both capital T and lowercase t) in its purity to individuals, line upon line, precept upon precept? I have appreciated the writings of CS Lewis and John Taylor in their logical search for truth. Each came to a different conclusion in their search, which begs the question as to whether "truth" (both capital and lower case, again) can be found in just performing a scholarly review of Christ. I appreciate your approach in taking both a spiritual (heart) and scholarly (mind) approach in your quest toward discipleship. Be careful though, because many scholars do not use terms interchangably which can convalude the quest for logic and scholarly findings. Language, Context, and Terms tends to be everything in "studying it out in your mind". I'm always careful in which voices I am hearing. Keep the posts coming. I enjoy reading them, pondering them, and praying on them. Best Wishes!
ReplyDeleteTravis, you are patronising me. I'm not ignoring the context of John 3; I feel the context supports the baptismal interpretation. And it is certainly not the only passage that supports the "theology of baptism." Jesus also says, in the absence of literary device, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
ReplyDeleteBut, more to the point, you think that my main conclusion is in error and draw a comparison between my research and yours to point out a supposed deficiency in my assertion that we should “do what God asks and trust that He’ll take care of the rest.” What, exactly, is wrong with my statement? Do you take offense that I suggest we should “do what God asks”? No? Then perhaps you find the part about trusting Him objectionable? I know you don’t feel this way, but you seem to have taken a pretty passionate, contrary position to a very uncontroversial sentence. I never suggested that you stop studying scripture and praying. I never suggested that you stop studying theology, yet you assign these strawmen to me.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteI have no intention to be patronizing in any way, and since reading your post during the lunch hour the thought that you feel I would be patronizing has been eating me up. I enjoy your replies and thoughts and respect your perspective too much to do that. This dialogue we are creating will include miscommunication and I apologize for my disrespectful tone, but please know it was not intended to be that way. I am genuinely sorry.
Your final statement stuck out so poignantly to me not because I disagree with it but because I felt you were using it as a way to stop the discussion. I may have been reading into it too much but it stems from too many conversations with other LDS people that, when they get into this conversation and see my point of view, can't reply and therefore shut off by saying something similar to your final statement. It's a defence mechanism so that their belief in vicarious work can remain protected and force the conversation to stop. In all respect, I feel you did the same thing. I could be wrong but while your statement is true that doesn't mean we should ignore the obvious problems you raised as well as the unintended implications we are making about God. And if there is a significant variance between the revealed God and how we worship said God, then why continue in that form of incongruent worship? I do not mean to assign you these strawmen. I was trying to make the point that I refuse to accept that answer and discontinue the search for a valid justification for this LDS specific practice. I should have just said it. Again, I apologize.
Finally, Mark 16:16 is again a verse that stems from a specific context just like John 3. Jesus is not talking to his disciples about a universal law that necessitates an authorized baptism for every soul that will ever live on the planet. Jesus is telling a specific group of people to go out into a context and within that context do your best to make people believe and respond in a certain way. Those disciples will know that they have found believers through specific signs (vss 17-18), signs that I hope no missionary waits for or demands from converts today. WE make that command universal (despite our inability to actually perform it universally), but not the signs? IF baptism is indeed mandatory for salvation, then let the righteous unbaptized of the human race get baptized during the millenium when they get their bodies back after the resurrection.
Alan,
ReplyDeleteI get the impression that you find this post to be illogical. Can you explain that or am I misunderstanding?
Travis,
ReplyDeleteNot necesasrily illogical, but just missing the mark (by some of the responses as well). The only references/questions regarding vicarious baptism in the ancient church were not really even questions about vicarious baptism but about some doctrine associated with the ordinance. The discussion doesn't really seem to address the questions related to the doctrines associated with the ordinance of vicarious baptism. The ordinance itself was not really the real debate in the ancient church. The reference/question was not so singular in focus as to concentrate on a single ordinance of the Gospel, but was focused on the doctrine. I propose that the same to be done herein, that is, we focus the "real" questions on the doctrines. For when the doctrines are understood, the ordinances make more sense. I think that is why the Brethren always talk about how after 40, 60, 70 years of temple attendance, they speak of gaining a greater understanding of the ordinance, because the constant searching, pondering, and praying leads them to a greater understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel, thus a greater understanding of the associated ordinances they are performing/participating in. We can't look at questions about ordinances in such an isolated fashion (I'm not saying that you have done so, but I know of many theologians/professors, or so-called or self professed, of Divinity that I have studied, or discussed with, that have done just that). They analyze the ordinance and the historicity of the ordinance to "understand" its validity, rather than studying the validity (not through logic and reasoning, man's way of gaining knowledge) through the Lord's way of gaining eternal wisdom, through searching, pondering, and praying, and living the Gospel. That is all I am saying. Those who argue the validity/invalidity of the ordinance through a myopic singular lens, rather than through a more simplistic lens of a doctrinal approach, never find the answers they seek. Understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel leads to a greater understanding of the ordinances of the Gospel. The study of one cannot and should not be done without the study of the other. Separating the two in ones Gospel search will lead to a limited knowledge of both, and an eventual erosion of the Faith in both. Such is the case when the philosophy of men are mingle with scripture. While I do like to study varying viewpoints and opinions of various scriptural and Gospel matters, I do not necessarily like to take unauthorized men speaking as to Christ or God's intent, or what he was really saying in such and such verse. I would rather take the interpretation of the word of the Lord from those whom I believe the Lord has chosen to be His representative and mouthpiece here upon the earth. Of course, that cannot be taken on face value in and of itself through blind obedience, but must be obtained through the process of attainment outlined in the title of your blog. Very appropo title for the blog, because much of what is discussed keeps coming back to it. Thank you for the great forum for respectful dialogue. I enjoy it.
Likewise. Thanks for the clarification. It really helps me understand where you are coming from and your approach to studying the Gospel. Allow me to take some time with your comment; chew on it, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteTravis, I really didn't mean to sound so charged in these comments. I stayed up late reading lots of stuff and your blog was the last thing. It was 1:30 in the morning and I was just trying to get my arguments out before I went to sleep and forgot them. As well, I meant to post them here instead of Facebook, but for some reason this website wasn't responding. So I just put them there, again, so that my thoughts wouldn't be lost. Anyway, when I engage in an argument, I do it many times simply for argument's sake. In fact, if you weren't here and someone else was arguing my side, I probably would take your side here just to see how well reasoned each side could be. So please don't take it personally if I vehemently disagree with you. I am just trying to see how much substance exists on either side of the debate. Sometimes the typed word can seem to carry a coldness and bitter emotion which certainly wouldn't be felt if we were having this discussion in person. This all being said, I'll repost my comments from facebook:
ReplyDeleteYour question strikes at a more fundamental issue than you may realize. A common thread throughout your blog posts seems to be a burning desire to unite and equate various groups or sects of the religious world. This issue seems to have become a perceived impediment to the unity that you seek, but in truth it is the key to the "Unity of the faith." Your question springs from the fountain of protestantism. Protestantism is a reaction to a perceived lack of the individual relationship with God. Catholicism had indeed become overly "intercessory." Intercession was needed by saints and priests. But protestantism carried to its extreme would indeed render much of God's sayings useless. Can't you see vicarious baptism (and indeed all of the Restored Gospel) for what it is? It is the Great Compromise. It leaves the individual free to a direct relationship with God, yet it leaves intact his very clear commandments like priesthood & baptism.
And to insist that very simple verses be read in a more nuanced fashion, to insist that the scripture as an art must be read more like a painting, is to simply erect another barrier. It's like saying that you need a priest, only in this case a very educated priest who has invested the time to understand the more subtle and nuanced emphases in the scripture to help the lay person really grasp the essence of the words. Is this not yet creating another cult of the Pharisee? Or, perhaps the cult of the Professor? Jesus did not quibble with Nicodemus, whether read in context or out. And God is rendered a contradiction if baptism is optional.
John 3:3 could not be more clear, it is very evident that Christ is talking of a physical birth (born of water) and spiritual re-birth (born of the spirit) commonly referred to as "born again". Nicodemus even asks if Christ means for him to climb back into his mother's womb to which Christ answers you must be born of the flesh (water) and spirit. I don't see how this could be taken to mean you "must" be baptized to be saved. The physical act of being submerged under water has no saving power, it is an act of submission and obedience to God (which is the example Christ was giving. God is not a contradiction if Baptism is optional, God is merciful and Just. He desires obedience, but since we can never be fully obedient, he has given a way for us to reach salvation, thru Christ Jesus and Christ only. We should be baptized, but it is not a requiment for salvation any more than not lying is a requirement.
ReplyDeleteIn Him:
Jay
I rather like this post Jay. I'm surprised that none of our fellow responders has anything or any desire to respond to it.
DeleteThis is a proper place to start - whether baptism is really required for salvation or a command of the Lord Jesus Christ that we follow because we are saved and being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. We won't agree, but we should state our grounds and then move together from one, the other, both, or neither.
Of course, it's easier to stay away from interpretation issues, as they bog down instantly among the feint of heart - all of us eventually. Perhaps, for ease of dialogue, it is better to simply assume the LDS interpretation and discuss the implications - with a reminder here and there that the interpretation is what is causing all the mess in the first place.
Consider this my first reminder.
Your comments on FB took issue with that last paragraph there. You said it was a "straw man" to say that your advocation of a more narrative-based reading of John is, in itself, a sort of barrier.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that I have constructed a straw man. I was trying to demonstrate, through argument, that you seem to me (just a person who is reading your blog) to insinuate that a larger more holistic reading of the text would somehow seem to contradict the, as Ben put it, "unambiguous and absolute" text in verses 3-5.
You also said to Ben, again what seems to me, a very troubling phrase: "We can disregard the surrounding verses and even the entire premise of the Gospel of John in order to make this one verse support our theology of baptism"
That's a very loaded statement. Do you really think LDS theology disregards every other verse in John's gospel but these?
You have really got to clarify statements like this. I have read the book of John several times, often in a single sitting (Admittedly, I got the idea from reading about the scripture study habits of Gordon Hinckley). I've read commentaries from various Protestant and Catholic authors. As well, I've read the best commentary, that of James Talmage. They all seem to support a baptismal requirement consistently. You insinuate that Mormons and Catholics only have this narrow ledge of scripture to justify a baptismal requirement. However, the vast consensus over the centuries (even by many protestants) was that indeed baptism was a necessary saving ordinance.
Yet, during the last 2-3 centuries, many people, many good, believing people, cannot accept that baptism is a requirement BECAUSE of the injustice that it seems to inflict. Only vicarious baptism can solve this problem.
It's why I'm so puzzled at this post to begin with. Vicarious baptism is perhaps the hinge on which billions of souls hang in the balance. Yet, with your example of Eli, you seem to think it would be somehow unjust for God to require that he accept another baptism rather than the one he accepted in his life.
You write: "Would Eli be denied access to God's kingdom unless he received a baptism that was unavailable to him during his lifetime?
It might be said that Eli was baptized by an unworthy priest and therefore his baptism, although done with good intentions, is invalid in the sight of God. What does such a claim say about God?"
Vicarious baptism is the solution not the problem! Presumably, as Eli is standing in front of the Lord, he will be offered right then and there to accept an ordinance that had been performed on his behalf. He could ask, "Why is this necessary?" but it's totally irrelevant. God is asking you to accept something. Wouldn't you accept?
What if, perchance, as we stand in front of God, he says it is a requirement of heaven that we dye our hair white before entering into his kingdom? (being absurd here, but bear with me) Would we refuse?
Or, to make it a little more applicable... What if as we meet God he informs us that in fact, Confucius was his chosen prophet of the earth. Yet, as followers of Jesus Christ we had come very close to the ideal virtues that Confucius had revealed to humanity. We only lacked at that moment the need to accept Confucius as God's prophet and submit to various ordinances and then we could enter his kingdom. How would we feel? I would feel really surprised at how I could've missed it. But much more so, I would be grateful that the Lord and some very devout disciple of Confucius had afforded me this opportunity.
You ask, "What if I accept that God will judge them in their context, appreciate the life they lived with what they had, cleanse them of all unrighteousness through the Atonement of Christ and let them enter in His abode?"
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Gospel, if the individual was valiant to all of the truth that he had access to, this is essentially what is going to happen. Yet God must be a consistent, integral, perfect being, or else he wouldn't be God. Vicarious baptism maintains God's integrity. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." These words reflect the fulfillment of the law of Moses, a law which was filled with many small and many big requirements. Look at the amount of time Jesus spends explaining to the Jews how the law would be maintained, not destroyed by the mercy of His Atonement. Does it not follow then, that God would also make sure that every jot and tittle of the Higher Law, Jesus's law would also be fulfilled? Even if we accept that the entire baptismal requirement was limited only to John 3:3-5, would it not behoove the Lord to accomodate it to remain integral and faithful to all of his words and commandments?
To me, Vicarious Baptism is one of those doctrines, that when fully pondered shows the true genius of God's plan. Imagine having to design a test where billions of people would have complete freedom to make their own choices, to love each other, or to kill each other. Naturally, the freedom of some would seemingly restrict the freedom of others. (If someone kill me at age 5, then I really didn't get a fair shake at the test!) But through genius and wisdom, provisions would be made so that the rules of the test would be consistently followed from the beginning until the end. In fact, the test would be so fair that every test subject in the end would willingly confess that the test was perfectly just, even those who would fail it. That to me is the perfection that is God's plan.
Adam,
ReplyDeleteI am not going to attempt to address every point you make. I would like to simply point out that while Catholic and Protestant alike can agree that John 3:5 teaches the necessity of baptism neither will agree with the LDS practice of vicarious works. Why? I propose it is because they recognize nothing in the text to suggest that the author of John was even familiar with the practice. So while I agree with you that both groups find baptism to be important, neither interpret this particular text as if it were stating baptism to be a universal law necessitating vicarious works. They would say that the text has limitations, a context in which it functions and a context void of any conception of vicarious works.
The history of interpretation of this text has justified many a Christian to damn those that do not receive baptism to hell, as if that were a just recompense for Confucius. If we join in with such Christians and understand this demand for baptism to be universal then I do see the great mercy extended to many that otherwise would be lost through the practice of vicarious works. But I do not see this command for baptism to be universal and it seems this is the premise on which both our arguments ride - the level of importance we place on this work (and how we interpret scripture). I accept a God that is willing to judge people in their own contexts, knowing the limitations of us all and willing to accept us, not because of our merits or work performed, but because of Jesus Christ. We will all stand before God lacking something, and if it be an ordinance or a flaw in character the work of Christ is the fountain on which you, I and Confucius can rely. This is yet another reason why other faith denominations do not practice vicarious works. It places the emphasis on the work performed by us and not on the work performed on the cross.
While Eli is a hypothetical example, I want to point out that even with the priesthood restored there are children even today that are baptized by unworthy holders of the priesthood. There are men posing as worthy but lying through their teeth. They baptize their children and so perpetrate an injustice to a child that had no idea or control of the worthiness of the baptizer. Why in the world would God not see the situation and still accept the child's baptism? It wasn't the kid's fault and the kid did everything in his/her power to seek out a worthy holder of the priesthood. I have a hard time with how this system of belief is placing the penalty of injustice on the victim, not on the perpetrator.
I want to make public that I do understand the perspective you voice. I understand the great feeling experienced through vicarious works when mercy has been extended to a man or woman that has passed on. It is done in love and there is a great level of beauty to that love. I think this exercise of discussion has helped me see where we differ and for that it has been helpful. But I don't know if you can restate your argument that you make so clearly in another way that will change anything. I see your perspective but I disagree with the exegesis and hermeneutical implications.
Travis said, "while Catholic and Protestant alike can agree that John 3:5 teaches the necessity of baptism neither will agree with the LDS practice of vicarious works. Why? I propose it is because they recognize nothing in the text to suggest that the author of John was even familiar with the practice."
DeleteI would say that is derived more from tradition than exegesis:
"Two of the early church fathers, Epiphanius (A.D. 315-403), in Heresies 8.7, and Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), in Against Marcion 5.10, note that the Marcionites, a Christian group outside mainstream Christianity (like the Latter-day Saints) baptized others in the name of the dead.
St. Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) tells how the Marcionites, when one of their catechumens died without baptism, would place a living person under the dead man’s bed and ask whether he desired to be baptized. The living person would respond in the affirmative and was then baptized as a proxy for the deceased (Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians 15). Some dismiss this evidence on the grounds that the Marcionites were heretics."
Below I'll give links to 3 articles that are very thorough and on point to this discussion. It is clear from Corinthians and several other early Christian texts that the practice existed among a significant minority of church members, beginning with the Apostles (see the articles below). It was roundly condemned and purged from Catholic practice by church fathers over the first few centuries, and that explains why Catholics and Protestants today know nearly nothing of the practice.
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=19&num=2&id=530
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=67
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=297
The totality of all of the historical examples in these articles at the very least should convince all of us that the doctrine vicarious ordinances has presented a significant theological question from the beginning of Christianity, not to be summarily dismissed without prolonged contemplation.
Adam, I look forward to reading the links you posted. Thank you for the resources.
ReplyDeleteI would simply make the point, before having the chance to read the articles, that although a religious ritual for the dead may have been practiced in the past, that does not automatically necessitate its practice now. For example, we would not advocate that non-members of the church leave the sacrament meeting when the sacrament is served even though all evidence of early Church liturgy shows that they indeed did dismiss non-Christians during the sacrament (eucharist). There are some denominations that do continue this practice, but for the sake of this argument we can see that not all religious practices of the past are worth adopting now. The list goes on: women as deacons (found in Acts); wine used in the sacrament (practiced in the early LDS church and changed later). The list goes on, which should indicate that just because the early Christians did it, does not mean that it is worth repeating. If they did bring back the Holy Kiss though I am sure we would have some very excited deacons.
Please note as well that although Joseph Smith felt comfortable in comparing vicarious works with that of the Marcionites, this is a comparison that will actually turn away any Christian that has learned about the Marcionites from the LDS faith. Marcion is considered a Gnostic, a categorical group that the LDS people do not want to join. In fact, the description given by Tertullian et al. of the Marcionite practice of vicarious works should also serve as an indication that the practice then is very much different than now, not only in form but in theology. It should also be noted that Tertullian et al. are not speaking highly of the Marcionites when mentioning these practices, so we need to put the reference in the context of an apology.
So, how do we know what practices of the past are worth retaining or reviving? The LDS response I imagine is to ask the modern prophet. But of course we as individual members must come to understand the practice, not only in our hearts but also our minds. For that reason, I wrote my original post. While many members of the LDS church feel that vicarious works manifests the love of God, I argue that a just God will judge all people in their context, aware of the limitations of each person and merciful to those that were incapable of knowing Jesus or performing a baptism. God is unjust to require an ordinance of all humanity without providing a way for that individual to accomplish it in their life (1 Nephi 3:7). IF God does require baptism to be performed by all, let the unbaptized dead perform that work in the millenium for themselves. But better yet, let the dead rely on their Savior who performed the work for us all on the cross.
The early church established by the Savior was especially interested in the "teaching and salvation" of those that had since died. In 1 Peter 4:6 it describes that: "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit..." Early Christians understood that: "Christ went down to Hades for no other purpose than to preach the gospel" (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI, 6). And then we have Paul's statement that has continued to confuse Christian theologians for hundreds if not thousands of years... 1 Corinthians 15:29: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? Catholics and Protestants have done their level best to dismiss the practice of vicarious baptism. By the 17th century, religious leaders had more than a dozen different major interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:29 (1656, Henri Muller, Bapteme des morts, 380).
DeleteMore recent findings have demonstrated, if nothing else, that vicarious baptism was being practiced by the early church. "...these Apostles and teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching. The accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God." (Shepard of Hermes, Similitudes III, 9, 16)
Later writers acknowledged the practice... "Now if some of them are baptized for the dead, can we not assume that they have reason for it? (Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 5, 10). In the fourth century, St. Ambrose recounts the practice: "Fearing that a dead person who has never been baptized would be resurrected badly or not at all, a living person would be baptized in the name of the dead one." (Ambrose, Commentaria in Epistolam ad Corinthios, PL 17:280) St. Ambrose did not approve of the practice, but merely testifies that the practice was in existence in the early church.
It appears that as one investigates the known Christian writings, acknowledgement of the practice dissolves the farther we get away from Christ's original church. "Yet it is in these fragments of the earliest church writings that virtually all our references are to be found: the earlier the work is, the more it has to say about baptism for the dead. After the third century no one wants to touch the subject, all commentators confining themselves to repeating the same arguments against baptism for the dead and supplying the same far-fetched and hair-splitting explanation of what Paul really meant." (Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity). Today, even the most ardent opposition to the vicarious practice of baptism has to concede that it was in fact performed in the early church.
An important question remains... where did Joseph Smith get his knowledge of this practice? Most references to baptism for the dead were not known until much later. How did he imagine and introduce a practice that by any measure would have been impossible for him to know. Other than one verse from Paul (1 Corinthians 15:29) making a simple argument for the resurrection, Joseph Smith could not have made this important connection to the early church on his own? Another testament to his status as prophet? I am afraid so.
Vicarious activities should not be a foreign activity to any true Christian. Jesus gave us the most important vicarious gift of all. He lived in such a way as to make himself "the sacrifice", which in turn vicariously applies the cleansing effect to all mankind giving us the opportunity to return to God. Do we reject that? I choose not to...
The question of what God would do if someone did not have the opportunity to receive baptism in this life is not a question LDS people have to ask. Baptism for the dead solves that problem thus maintaining the "justness and fairness" of God. Within LDS doctrine, no one is denied opportunity for entry into God's kingdom, a benefit given to us for "keeping our first estate". This doctrine and concern for those that have passed makes "the context in which we live" less relevant.
ReplyDeleteIt is Catholics and Protestants that have to deal with this issue and decide whether one is to accept a "weak law that allows the unbaptized to enter heaven, or a cruel God who condemns the innocent". Since "condemning the innocent" is patently unpopular, most of Christianity has responded in its usually expected manner, making things like baptism optional. The turns and twists that attempt to explain away John 3:5 should make any reader of Christian scripture dizzy at best.
The notion that "God take(s) away his authority to perform legitimate baptism" is erroneous. God does not need to take away from those that reject true doctrines. He merely restores in His own time. The early apostles did not write about a flourishing church, but lamented the coming "falling away". A careful reading of scripture would demonstrate this dim realization and perspective. Again, the doctrine of vicarious ordinance restores the just interaction between God and each individual man and woman. It also restores our responsibilities as heavenly siblings, serving each other's needs beyond this mortal time period. In addition, it allows us to continue our consideration of God as "long-suffering". The scriptures are full of examples of "restoration" and should come to no surprise to the careful reader. (Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Isaiah, and dare we include the Savior?)
Shall we argue from the other side and suggest that even a pagan ritual done by any random person on the Earth can be considered fulfillment of John 3:5, as long as it was properly intended by the recipient as valid? Where is the dividing line? Where does the drunk, corrupt Catholic priest fit within this "dividing line"? The only answer seems to be to dismiss such requirements, making practices like baptism optional and concern ourselves only with the "intent" of the person attempting to receive said ordinance. My head is getting dizzier as I try to accommodate gospel principles with the imaginations of man. Who can deny apostasy now?
RHA
I'm not so sure "baptism for the dead solves that problem thus maintaining the "justness and fairness" of God. When I first heard about the LDS docrtine of baptism for the the dead I immediately wondered, "How is that fair to the living who didn't have the benefit of dying and seeing with their own eyes that any afterlife existed at all?" Baptism for the dead gets rid of the ball of injustice that is judgement without fair opportunity by simply throwing it back onto the living's side of the court. Knowledge of an afterlife, and the very offer of a (divinely fair not simply) fair presentation of the restored gospel after Ghengis Khan died is a whole other field of play than that which I am offered here living and now with only humans and institutions to attempt a "fair" offer of the gospel.
DeleteAnd one would have the same problem with 1Peter 4:6, "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh,... Why preach at all to those that have died if they do not have the opportunity to accept? I accept the same challenge... How do I feel about people that have knowledge of the after-life (advanced perspective) accepting the Gospel then? I can only offer three ideas: 1) The parable of the laborers (Mathew 20:1-16) when the householder states, "whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive". 2) The actions of those living and their willingness to aid those that have died without opportunity creates a desirable bond between the siblings of our Heavenly Father, 3) I believe that what one would accept here in this life creates habits that are extended into the next life. If one were to hear the "good news" and accept it in the this life, they would be inclined to accept it in the next... no guile allowed. If this is true, then fairness and justice is maintained... from my perspective. RHA
DeleteI would agree with you about 1Peter 4:6, except that it is a single verse in all the Bible. The rest of the Bible, and the Book of Mormon for that matter, either implies or directly states that humans have only this life to repent and be saved. But for clarification, I was stating a personal historical event (which was before me familiarity with 1 Peter) for the purpose of refuting the idea that vicarious baptism makes things equal for all humans of all history.
DeleteAs for your three ideas: 1) I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like you are saying that you trust God to be just. I do the same, by what the Bible says to that end, without knowing completely or for sure how He will facilitate that. So I would think idea 1 actually supports the view of baptism for the dead as superfluous. Idea 2) I suppose you are right if BaptftDead is true. One thing though: I have read some about how this relationship is described, that we can be "saviors" to our ancestors - disconcerting language to say the least. Oh, and second, sorry, I would argue that the nature of the process of efficiently baptizing as many of the dead as possible (as it is done by the LDS church) does not do much at all for creating bonds (with those that are part of your family history maybe, but then the "savior" thing comes up again.) Idea 3): obviously if one would have if they'd received the chance is ok justice wise, but this isn't the issue. It's about people who refused all that God did do to show that they needed Him to save them because they were completely unable but that, it is assumed, would suddenly be more willing upon finding out that God/Heaven/Hell/Judgement really do exist and are given a divinely perfect (as opposed to fallible human) presentation of the gospel. If we assume that one's development in life determines one's choice in the afterlife, then again, the post-life offer is simply ceremony.
Again I was just responding to the idea that BftD did something to make things fair.
But RHA, I would really like to hear your thoughts on my "other pieces" post starting on Jan. 28th 12:49a. Thanks
RHA
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your perspective and thank you for giving me something to think on for this morning. Hear are my initial thoughts in reply.
As I understand the LDS belief in the Great Apostasy, God's authority was removed from the earth because of the rejection of God's Son and apostles. This authority is not controlled by man but by God, so if it left the earth than it seems reasonable that God controlled that removal. As I have begun reading early Christian sources I find people writing in great devotion to God. They pray as strongly as we do for salvation, and since I know God has answered my prayers in this life by giving me an avenue to accept His gospel, I believe he would give the early Christians that same avenue. We should be able to agree that God answers our prayers, and since salvation is not just for the life after it seems a loving response from God to answer the prayers of the early Christians with a reasonable request. They weren't pagans, they were doing the best with what they had, which is all anyone can ask. I just can't believe God would reject a devout Christian's baptism because it wasn't done by an authority which that person had no access to in their life. It is an unfair judgment and if anyone is at fault for making that baptism invaild, it is God.
Nor do I think we can rip baptism out of the context of life and say it is an act of mercy. Milliions if not more Christians have been feeling the Spirit of confirmation in their baptisms. I don't believe God would send these people the Spirit to confirm what they are doing is right to only tell them it is invalid in the next life. The Spirit is to lead us to truth, so it seems that if the Spirit was active in the Apostasy, then it would be telling people to wait until the authority is restored. It does the opposite and I believe it is not deception by God but a real confirmation of God's Spirit.
Finally, just because God can accept people in their given context doesn't mean that baptism some how loses its importance in ours. We may need to reshape our concept of baptism so that it conforms more to a just and merciful God, but it remains important nonetheless. It is the way by which we accept Christ in our given context, knowing full well that no matter how much we try we will still have to rely on a merciful and loving Father in Heaven. To understand baptism as a law above the sovereignty of God is to make an idol out of the law. It's missed directed worship and obedience.
I disagree with your dispensationalism of history but that's for another post.
It seems to me that if one is required baptism and unable to receive that baptism in this life, then they will be afforded the opportunity to do so in the millenium when they have their bodies back. That is, if baptism is indeed that essential.
Thanks RHA and I hope that we can continue our dialogue.
If we are to assume God is responsible for all man's ills and bad acts, then sure... God removed the authority. However, I do not hold God responsible for the "removal" of said authority. Again, why remove something that is being rejected? A careful understanding of LDS belief is that the authority is removed through the actions of man and predicted by the Savior, not as intended acts of God. We can only blame God for giving man his agency to make choices.
DeleteIf the Spirit was active during the apostasy, then there would have been no attempt to alter the doctrines of the Church of Christ. Then we should all be Catholics... game over. But history, in spite of our internal desires to have everyone "get along", has shown us huge doctrinal shifts and dissensions to the point that I would defy anyone to make sense of the current Christian position on almost anything. Since the Spirit would not be the author of such confusion... it stands to reason that the Spirit is withdrawn in spite of your sympathies for the victims of the apostasy. Can we not make the same arguments for Muslims (I only choose Muslims as one of many non-Christian religions)
Does not God send to the Muslim the same confirmation about their beliefs and practices?... and yet as a Christian, do I not understand that the benefits of Christ will not be theirs in this life? Do not their devoted prayers, their moments of confirmation count? I do not presume to make judgments for God concerning His children, but is not there a reason to becoming Christian? Or is there? Baptism for the dead is one answer to the question of devotion without "access" and provides the answer to your initial question concerning the mercies of God. The alternative is to spend the next thousand years making up doctrine equipped with the imaginations of man; similar to Catholic history.
Be careful that we do NOT adjust our "concept of baptism" merely because it does not fit into our concept of a merciful God. We can no more suggest baptism can violate the sovereignty of God any more than one of the commandments that were handed down through Moses. Allowing us to "accept Christ in our given context" could just as easily be construed to suggest that the sovereignty of God comes second to our "context".
Before we commit all those people to a baptism during the millennium, we must again remember that many people will not be resurrected until after the millennium (Rev. 20:5).
I leave the "dispensationalism of history" to those who read ancient documents... Not to those trying to fit history into their own belief systems.
RHA
RHA,
DeleteI know I am responding to your comments backwards, so you may not have seen my previous/following response to you. But it seems like you are quick to make conclusions. Not to say that is different than myself or any other finite scared human. But this just leads me to dealing with your too-quick conclusions again.
I'm not quite sure what scenario you are even dealing with in your statement about "If the Holy Spirit were active during the apostasy..." If the Spirit were active during the "attempt" at apostasy then you would have a continuing (none complete apostasy) that attempts to correct the waywards and fight the corrupts. If the Spirit is active after the fulness of the apostasy has taken place then all we would have is attempts to alter.
It is imporatant in any religion, but even more so in the True religion (whichever you believe that to be) to understand that there will always be false-believers. These people's, unregenerate/unrepentant, actions will always tend to lead the believers away from the revealed Truth. If these people gain influence/power, then apostasy to some extent is inevitable. Perhaps this is why the Bible never speaks of a total apostasy, but instead speaks of wolves in sheep's clothing, and "some" or "many" falling away, etc.
Also, I attempt to say this with all due respect, it is peculiar to hear LDS speak of "the Spirit would not be the author of such confusion" or "I would defy anyone to make sense of the Christian position on almost anything" when LDS theology is constantly changing/"progressing" line overwriting line/line upon line and how difficult it is to ascertain things like prophet authority, authoritative doctrine, authority at all.
I certainly do not mean to be offensive. I just want to counsel you, RHA, to tone down the anti-Christian sentiment. We can discuss issues without broad sweeps of melodrama.
My apparent " quick conclusions" have two sources: 1) My own inability to write. 2) Limited space/time/intellect to express a whole host of background information developing to the conclusion. My apologies...
DeleteI am afraid the Bible does specifically talk about of "total apostasy". In 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-3, "... as the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall comes, except there come a falling away first,..." This verse does not confine this "falling away" to just "many". In fact, the future as described by the Apostles throughout the Bible could not be dimmer. In addition, what is not ever mentioned in the Bible is the Church's (or what is left of it!) total domination as an institution only a few hundred years later. Would not the Apostles encourage its members just to hold out until then? However, by the third century, even Origin admits that the Church was hopelessly "divided into sects, each of which claimed that it was the depository of the pure old original form of Christianity passed down from the beginning, while the others were upstarts and innovators". Why such a dismal perspective? In a related topic, why no more Apostles? The addition of Paul and others is important evidence that the institution would have continued.
I am afraid the description of LDS doctrine "constantly changing" is a broad sweep of melodrama. Things do change, no doubt. But what I was referring to is the conflicting doctrines and the differing opinions that come from almost every church that call themselves Christian. Surely you are not comparing the conflicting beliefs of all these doctrines, even more the opinions of specific preachers, to the "line upon line" progression of the LDS Church? It was to that particular "confusion" I was describing.
I find it interesting that while people can take broad swipes at the LDS doctrines/history/culture, a statement regarding the confusion created by Christian theologies would be taken as "anti-Christian sentiment". I thought this was a conversation to unearth "unchallenged assumptions"? Over the years, I have received the same response from this group that assumes their own monopoly over the label "Christian" and openly criticizes LDS doctrine as anything but Christian. Let's not forget the most recent episode down in Dallas.
2nd Thess 2:2-3 does not confine to just "many", but then neither does it loose to "all".
DeleteIn fact, in context, it is clear that Paul is talking to believers who were concerned that the day of Christ was any minute. He tells them they should know it's not so near b/c there must come a "falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, [listing of his actions]". Now, first, this shows that Paul believes that, and assumedly God does too if He meant it to be read in the Bible by future generations, these men or other believers would be alive when these things happen. Paul could have just said, don't worry, there will be no believers before the 2nd Coming. Or he could have said, the total apostasy and/or the total apostasy and the Restoration. Instead, he implies that these believers or future believers will be around to recognize the coming of Christ by these events.
Another way to see how the context shows that this falling away has not occurred yet is that "the man of sin" must be revealed along with the falling away. You could argue about the word "first" implying this comes second, but "second" is not used, "and" is, implying simultaneity. If you think this a weak point, how about verse 8 that says the 2nd coming will destroy the man of sin/lawless one?
So unless you think he has been revealed & done the list of actions described & been destroyed by Christ's 2nd coming already, then this verse does nothing whatever to show the "falling away" has happened, let alone that it was "total".
I'm not sure what you are generally referring to by "throughout the Bible" but the Apostles' future description COULD have been dimmer- they could have said "total apostasy".[Only as something funny I just thought of: I could argue, as some LDS do about the Trinity doctrine, that the total apostasy never happened nor was ever prophesied because "total apostasy" never shows up in the Bible. ;)]
As for the coming institution's domination, it's absence means nothing. In fact there is no talk of an institution in the Bible at all, only true beleivers, false, and wolves. But I'll leave it to Travis to give us a proper post to discuss the LDS preoccupation with one true institutions vs. false denominations to the ignoring of the Body of Christ.
To the point here, the great apostasy doesn't really rely on the believers dying too soon (to which I believe you are referring & implying that the institution would safeguard against) but to the refusal of the next generation to accept. Otherwise, as I say in my "other pieces" post below, it was God's ineffectiveness to keep believers alive long enough to get to those that would believe-say those who were valiant in the 1st Estate who He could have sent conveniently (ooh, didn't think of that tidbit for my "pieces" post).
Again, the dismal perspective of Origin is what you would expect to happen with the presence of non-true believers and wolves, dissension is inevitable - Look at the LDS church. (I already said this in "it is important in any religion" part of Jan 29 12:09 above)
No more Apostles b/c Apostles are at least ones who are "sent" and, more, ACTUAL witnesses of Christ, because they lived with him or had a vision of Him and was taught by Him (e.g.-Paul). The addition of "the others" was from those who had actually witnessed the life of Christ.
Perhaps "constantly changing" could be an exaggeration, but its just a matter of how often change has to occur to be called "constant".
RHA I could and was referring back to you about the conflicting doctrines and differing opinions that come from every church that call themselves Mormon. I am not comparing "the conflicting beliefs of all these doctrines, even more the opinions of specific preachers" to the "line upon line" because I don't know of "all these [conflicting] doctrines" of which you accuse the Christian churches. Instead, I do know of the conflicting doctrines of LDS past and present, even more the "opinions" of specific prophets, and both doctrines and opinions of the many LDS denominations.
DeleteAs for "'line upon line' progression of the LDS Church", I'll continue to attempt to be brief by simply saying I know too much about deleted lines, edited lines, and contradictory lines to be anything but quite sure.
My "broad swipe" against LDS was to counter your broad swipe against Christianity - a sort of shock to help you be more respectful. The "anti-Christian" terminology was not serious (do you ever hear people say that term anywhere) but rather a sort of tongue-in-cheek reversal of the ubiquitous "anti-mormon" accusation - again to get your attention about your "broad swipes".
So, again, I was using your own "broad swipes" against you in the hopes of showing why you shouldn't do it. Your response to it shows that you do agree with me - "broad swipes" shouldn't be used without specifics. I suspect Travis will come up with a topic in the future that will give us a more appropriate venue to deal with the changes, claimed and actual, in both LDS and Christianity.
As for melodrama, in my opinion "constantly changing" is not melodramatic at all (maybe exaggeration but not melodrama), but certainly not as much as your "I defy anyone...on almost anything" or "the Spirit" talk. That is obviously over the top. As I indicated before, when Travis gives us the topic, then we can talk specifics and I will remind you of your logic about confusion and the Spirit being withdrawn, but it won't be about Christianity.
Finally, I do not know to what you are referring about Dallas.
Oh, and I forgot to say at the very beginning that I appreciate what you said about the two sources for your apparent "quick conclusions".
Hope you're having a good day, take it easy!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the great dive into early Christian records concerning baptism. I am making a great resource list and I thank you and promise to look at these sources.
I hope that we aren't gettinng too off topic with the historical research. I just want to point out that my post is not in opposition to the idea that some Christians of the first century may have practiced vicarious baptism. My post is more about what this practice says about God. So while the historical references are great they don't necessarily answer the question. Remember, just because some early Christians may have practiced it, doesn't mean we should continue to do so today. While history is certainly important I don't believe we should be dictacted today by former practices. Of course, I wouldn't mind wine coming back in the sacrament ;)
Classifying practices as "former", I hope was in no way an effort to trivialize them. If you notice the historical effort was merely an attempt to arrive closer to the Church and teachings of Jesus Christ... and in this context, former practice DO dictate that which we should practice today. Who are we to merely decide what is needed/commanded/directed, with little regard to that practiced by Christ's church? Of course... I often forget that contemporary Protestants do it all the time.
DeleteWe have so little knowledge of the teachings and organization set up by the Savior, especially existing as a resurrected Being for forty days with the apostles. (Acts 1:3) Church practices in the first century is the closest I can get. I cannot accept such a whimsical view of early Christian practices. But again...the question remains... How could a simple farm boy of the 1800's know of such a practice when we are just recently learning of its existence? The odds against him identifying this one practice is overwhelming... and this is just one instance. RHA
Anonymous,
DeleteYou may want to dial back on whatever is behind the "Of course... I often forget that contemporary Protestants do it all the time." For one, all forms of LDS is Protestant or at least Protestational. If you meant to include all mormon denominations in this comment, then I have nothing more to say. LDS of all kinds have their buffets from which they choose and a behavior that is more or less concerned with history.
But I really wanted to address your last statement about Joseph Smith. This "simple farm boy" line is thrown out a lot, and often inaccurately. JS was not a boy, nor uneducated when he "restored" baptism for the dead.
Also, there is no real evidence that JS "knew of such a practice" as has been described here as that of the early church. Really, all we know is that JS eventually taught a baptism for the dead and we have documentation that describes vicarious baptisms by the early church, but these two are significantly different in their process. So the question becomes, why the similarity and why the difference? The similarity could be divine restoral, but the differences in ritual don't support this conclusion.
The similarity, if we are not going to entertain the idea that God "restored" baptism for the dead only in name but changed the ritual, is most easily accounted for in the Bible's reference to "baptized for the dead". Anyone seriously thinking about religion, and salvation by individual participation, is confronted with the issue of those who were supposedly without a satisfactory opportunity to participate. Thus all JS had to do was read that verse and run with it.
Now, if the rituals were identical, then and only then, would we have something of importance, and logical consistency, to consider about the "odds against him identifying this one practice". Again, it's identified in name (which is the only similarity between the two) in the Bible.
Outside of historical interpretations, I have avoided taking upon myself, as a member of the LDS church, any labels that would describe Mormons as Protestants. I have learned my lesson as this loose group has made every effort to NOT label Mormons as Christians? The real issue and what should be addressed is the "picking and choosing" of doctrines and practices that make up this body of Protestants without any regard to those practices of the first century Church. Not much has really changed since the third century when Origin admits that the Church was hopelessly "divided into sects, each of which claimed that it was the depository of the pure old original form of Christianity passed down from the beginning, while the others were upstarts and innovators".
DeleteMuch of the "documentation" that describes baptism for the dead has been discovered only recently and Joseph Smith would have little to no knowledge of this as a practice of those in the early church. Only a few years ago, the religious community described this practice as "heretics only". This has changed. 1 Corinthians only mentions it incidentally as argument for the resurrection... and you are right, anyone including Joseph Smith could have started the practice on their own. But consider what has transpired. We have a practice/ordinance that has gone from "heretics only" to evidence that it was practiced by a larger group of the first century saints. That is quite a step. RHA
I suppose I understand the avoidance you mention, though I disagree that the two issues are identical-quite different in degree and kind. But I understand where you are coming from.
DeleteAs for what you identify as the "real issue" - I do think it is historically incorrect to claim that the denominations coming about from the protestant movement (which LDS is a part of) were uninterested in original Christianity - that was their goal, at least in part(just as it supposedly was for Joseph Smith, initially). I also know that Christians would lay a similar accusation against the mormon denominations - not that they don't care about original Christian doctrine and practice per se, instead that they claim to have such restored, but it resembles nothing in the Bible or (just about) anything we know from history. They would say this is evidence more of a concern for believing the claims of Joseph Smith than of seeking out 1st century history. Insofar as this is true it would be synonymous with not being interested in "real" 1st century Christianity. Obviously vicarious baptism is a candidate as far as this evidence is concerned. But there's so much more to LDS than baptism for the dead.
I recognize that you did say "contemporary Protestants" (as opposed to original Protestants) but again 1) this is a mass lumping that is unfair, 2) the same could be leveled against "contemporary LDS" by Christians or any other non-LDS. In fact, RLDS and FLDS do it all the time against LDS as far as the original Restoration is concerned.
I also appreciate that you agree with me about the answer to "But again...the question remains... How could a simple farm boy of the 1800's know of such a practice when we are just recently learning of its existence? The odds against him identifying this one practice is overwhelming... and this is just one instance." when you say "you are right, anyone including Joseph Smith could have started the practice on their own." However, I'm not sure what significance you are going for in the last part of your response about going from "heretics only" to larger group. Unless you are implying that we'll eventually find out that it was a truly essential original Christian practice and that it was done in the same form as the restored ordinance of Joseph Smith, then it is just history being discovered, intepreted/misinterpreted, further studied, hopefully to a accurate and full understanding-like any other history. In other words it would be nothing supportive of Joseph Smith or LDS baptism for the dead.
Sorry for all of the typos.
ReplyDeleteTravis et. al, greetings. I thought I would give a response to this one.
ReplyDelete(Part 1)
So far, all comments here have been only dealing with half the question - vicarious baptism and how it reflects on God. However, vicarious baptism is only one uniquely shaped piece in the all-uniquely-shaped-piece puzzle of (LDS) theology. In order to really answer the question "What does vicarious baptism say about God?" we must not only look at the piece that is vicarious baptism but all the pieces that are directly connected to it or directly affected by its unique shape in the puzzle. This will be my focus. But first I would like to give a few comments on vicarious baptism's piece.
It is, of course, right to treat the actual theological piece of vicarious baptism. And when one does, from an LDS perspective, of course, it will reflect well on God. It is the solution to the problem of people who never received a fair chance to accept Christ. Now that's not all. Because, it seems obvious that God could give a fair shot without worrying about baptism at all. No, vicarious baptism is not the solution to fair chance but a fair chance that must also include a proper baptism. And this is where this topic should really get us thinking. Again, vicarious baptism isn't the solution to fair chance hearing of the gospel but to the requirement of authoritative baptism in the LDS plan of salvation. If baptism is not really a "saving" ordinance, if it is not required for someone to be saved, then vicarious baptism is superfluous. If it is required then it is a pretty direct solution, despite being vicarious;)
However (this is where we should not only think harder but take pause)... If it is required, then we have a distinct example of how Jesus' sacrifice is not sufficient, despite the Bible's claim that it is. Despite Jesus BEING the Way (as opposed to offering the requirements that make up the way), in LDS theology there is no way for people to be saved through Jesus Christ without baptism. The sufficiency and greatness of Jesus work is thus shrunk by that much- baptism. But His work is shrunk even more by the fact that not only do you need to be simply dunked, but done so with additional personal preparations before the ritual and, of course, with the added power of the authority of the baptizer. With each addition to Christ, Christ's part in salvation shrinks.
With that, I will continue to the associated pieces of the puzzle.
(Part 2 of 3 (my apologies))
ReplyDeleteVicarious baptism, then, is a solution to the need for authoritative baptism for salvation. The other pieces of the puzzle set up why there is this need. That is, vicarious baptism reflects on God by the way it is the solution to a problem that He has either allowed to happen or has directly set up Himself. We'll use Travis' unfortunate friend Eli to guide us through the pieces. Eli has received a witness from the Holy Ghost to the truth of Jesus. He has also got the idea that he is supposed to be baptized; whether he believes it is to be done by an authoritative priest or not, we do not know. He gets baptized by a priest, but the priest is a sinner. And it's post-apostacy, so it wouldn't matter anyway. Specifically, God has already removed the proper authority, according to LDS belief, because all the true believers were killed in persecution; there was no one who had the true gospel available to them to be able to accept it and, thus, even be eligible for God's renewing of the priesthood authority. Let's treat these in series.
1) The Holy Ghost has, according to Travis, led Eli to a knowledge and faith in Christ. Now, if this is accurate to the real historical situation of these post-apostacy Christians, then we see another poor reflection on God. He apparently knowingly led Eli to a knowledge of Christ and a desire to do something he could not do-get meaningfully baptized. Why would God do such a thing? Is it not a sort of malicious manipulation and dishonesty?
The LDS response may be to say that there was, in fact, no working by the Holy Spirit during this time, just for this reason- it would be cruel. But the evidence does not seem to support this claim. Even in Eli's time, many are martyred time and time again for their faith in a man named Jesus Christ, and all receive social persecution. This seems strong evidence of Eli and his generation's and previous generations' willingness to accept Christ and live, and die, for Him. Can this be anything but the work of the Holy Ghost? The LDS may unwisely respond that Eli and friends did not accept the True Gospel and the True Christ and so their faith does not make any demands upon God nor any proof of the Holy Ghost's work in them. But this indeed would be unwise for it is exactly the point of concern of so many Christians who believe the same about the LDS church and most LDS believers- that they have mistakenly or willfully chosen to believe in a false Christ that cannot save them.
So we'll assume that the LDS will concede that the Holy Ghost really did work in post-apostacy Christians. But then we are back to the problem of God's cruelty. He leads them to a great desire to live in a way that is completely impossible for them to live. This isn't just about proper baptism and final judgement. This is about the entire earthly life of the individual following his testimony experience. We must remember that properly authoritative baptism is also a prerequisite to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If Eli can't get properly baptized, then he can't live with the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Comforter that was sent can't possibly comfort; He, in fact, leads to the greatest of agonies - knowledge of the beauty of Christ and His work to bring us into communion with God, but the denial of the opportunity to ever live that life of Holy communion. How does this reflect on God, if true?
(Part 3 of 3(finally))
ReplyDelete2) The priest is a sinner - Now this is actually completely superfluous to the LDS apostacy doctrine. If apostacy has occurred: A) it doesn't matter how righteous a person is, they don't have the chance of getting the authority anyway (this would show very negatively upon God), B) (given A it must be that) it is even doubtful that any post-apostacy person is righteous enough for the priesthood, assuming the true Gospel and guiding of the Holy Ghost is required for such righteousness. Given the points made in 1) this seems far fetched and a rather pernicious view of worthiness (willing to live w/ persecution and die by it but your lack of tithing disqualifies you).
However, this issue is applicable to today, post-restoration. How many officially LDS Church recognized baptisms were done by men that were actually unable to use the priesthood authority because of addiction to pornography alone, or not following the Word of Wisdom enough, or any other sin that humans (all humans) commit more or less intentionally everyday? Where does this leave the puzzle piece of "worthiness"?
3) It was post-apostacy - Historically speaking, it was either the wicked generation that would not accept the Gospel or accept it fast enough and/or the wicked generation that killed all the believers too fast for new believers to be made that led to the situation that Eli, through no fault of his own, found himself - with or without his awareness, assumedly without until he dies and learns of and accepts his vicarious baptism. Either is an extraordinary claim, either of the lack of power of God (who brings to the Son whom He will-but apparently not fast enough or not enough to continue His Church) or of the great power of men (to thwart the plans of God). Now, even if the LDS belief in agency does not allow for that verse about the Father bringing to Christ whom He will to be true, we can still say that God wasn't able to or chose not to lead His Church more efficiently to produce followers faster than the persecution. Either way God is too weak, not so great, or men are just stronger and better at being evil then God is at being good. I don't know of anyone that wants to believe any of this. But, then, where does that leave this puzzle piece called "total apostacy"?
It would seem that even in the best case scenario for LDS doctrine (the apostacy did happen [assumedly not reflecting bad on God somehow], no priesthood authority allowed/the lack of quality of living of the claimed priests) we still have a Spirit led believer being left alone by God. Eli is given a testimony and then left utterly alone.
What kind of God is the God of vicarious baptism?
P.S. - sorry about the "c"'s in apostasy. My up-too-late, already sleep deprived mind seems to like c's in apostasy. It's happened before.
ReplyDeletespartacus wrote, "If it is required, then we have a distinct example of how Jesus' sacrifice is not sufficient, despite the Bible's claim that it is."
ReplyDeleteThis line of reasoning is difficult for me to accept. So, did it weaken Jesus's sacrifice when he commanded the pharisees not to be hypocrites? Or when he tells us to love our neighbor? What commandment doesn't "weaken" Jesus's Atonement? If you are wary of weakening the atonement by living the commandments, then ultimately personal actions are meaningless. But speaking of claims, what do you make of this one?
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matt 7:21
Is Jesus "shrinking" his sacrifice with this requirement? And if so, is it not his prerogative to do so? The fact is when we say "Jesus is Lord" we should actually believe it. We should believe that we should be subject to his every commandment. Simply calling him Lord, but not treating him with obedience will avail us nothing.
I could go on and on repeating the plain and simple requirements that Jesus places on us as his followers, but at the end of this whole question there is a very personal decision to be made: We are all making choices that will affect our lives forever. In addition to the profession of faith and acceptance of Jesus as the Christ and our Savior, we are required to receive ordinances and continually repent and improve our behavior throughout our entire lives in order to have any hope at all of a heavenly reception when we die. We believe this mainly because Jesus simply tells us so.
If another Christian believes that profession and belief is all that is required and chooses to live his life that way, he is opting for a less-demanding standard of personal behavior, but he is perhaps taking a risk:
"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." Matt 7:24-27
Adam,
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised this line of reasoning is hard for you to accept. In every line of your post you assume that our actions are required for our salvation. I could mention dirty rags, thief on the cross, Jesus IS the way vs. gave the way, Jesus is sufficient vs. Jesus and works is sufficient. But instead:
1) Matt 7:21 is making an obvious comparison between those who simply talk & those who (talk) and act and how the former won't necessarily go to heaven. This last part is implied by "not everyone" vs. saying "no one who simply says...". There is here, in fact, no statement that we must act in order to get to heaven. It says only what it says "just b/c you say Lord doesn't mean you will make it, but those who (also) act according to "Lord" will." This is at least description, not necessarily prescription.
2) the house on a rock verses is even less direct, more vague and mostly dependent on your presuppositions. (unless we really want to dig into the text.) I could also mirror your mentioned "risk" by quoting Ephesians 2- "8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; & that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast." Here it is strongly implied that you are not saved by works to any extent. But this may lead us toward a Intrachristian Pascal Wager about which "risk" risks the most; and I won't get into that until Travis gives us an appropriate topic or I lose my resolve.
Lastly, you say "if another Christian believes that profession & belief is all that is required and chooses to live his life that way, he is opting for a less demanding standard of personal behavior". The conclusion does not follow the premise. Simply b/c a Christian believes that profession & belief is all that is required does not mean that he is opting for a less demanding standard of personal behavior. This is probably the nicest way I have heard the LDS strawman of licentiousness be expressed. I do not know any Christian that thinks you can believe but act however you want. Belief is more than intellectual ascent ("even the devils believe").
The history of the word "believe" is highly enlightening. It has more to do with mind & heart, & trusting. This is why James wasn't talking about works being a requirement as LDS like to say so often. Rather, if you truly believe/trust, then actions follow. But where there is not fruit of trust (action) the tree is of a different kind. Again, this is descriptive. Christians believe that personal behavior does change, but not by our power, but by that of the Holy Spirit. And it is a life-long process, but it is not "required". If this were so, then vicarious baptism would not be enough. Vicarious acts or post-death acts would be as well-tithing, word of wisdom, pure thoughts, marriage, etc.,etc. This would leave less & less for Jesus' sacrifice.
But then, it isn't up for argument whether Jesus' sacrifice is deminished in LDS thought vs. Christian. In Christianity, "being in" Jesus gets you back to the Father. In LDS, Jesus' sacrifice gets us all resurrected only. It is Jesus' plan of salvation (post-sacrifice) that gives us a way to get to the Father ourselves. The Holy Ghost only guides/inspires, He does not change. Somewhere in there Jesus' sacrifice helps us with our failings, but this has never been clarified in all my experience with LDS believers, meetings, books, conference talks, etc. But then, I guess, your point was talking about which belief represents the Bible truly. It would be hard to go through the whole Bible so...
I followed you, for a bit, off topic. You said nothing about my response to "What does vicarious baptism say about God?"- more specifically, my approach from the connected pieces & not just the one called "vicarious baptism" which you remained with here.
spartacus said "This is probably the nicest way I have heard the LDS strawman of licentiousness be expressed." "I do not know any Christian that thinks you can believe but act however you want."
DeleteWell, perhaps in your case it is a strawman. But in my personal experience with all but one of my good friends who happen to be evangelical, or protestant Christians, their (perhaps flawed) understanding of Christ's grace as taught by their churches was a de facto license to excuse reckless behavior, especially during their youth. Deep down, they knew what they were doing was wrong, but in the struggle to choose what was right, they (perhaps again only because of human weakness) have admitted to me that their belief that they had previously been "saved" lessened their perception of the significance of their indulgence. And today they have to live with the results of their actions: teenage pregnancies, DUIs, increased college dropout rate, poverty, etc. Now, I believe God has forgiven them, and that they have since sincerely repented. But one reason why I argue this point so strongly is because it pains me to see so much potential wasted because of a few fleeting moments of pleasure. If they had read and heard preached more of Paul when he said, "work our your own salvation with fear and trembling" perhaps they would've chosen better.
But, you really should see that we are just arguing semantics because your understanding of grace very closely approximates the LDS doctrine as well. As you said, good works will follow a true faith, with the change in behavior being a gift from God because of the exercised faith. That is the LDS belief as well. The works are not in any sense what saves you, but by your works you demonstrate a true faith. Therefore, works do matter because without them there is no faith.
The only area of disagreement that this thread seems to involve is that of ordinances. I guess, it is also a "work," but we believe that the Savior puts special emphasis on ordinances. Directly on that point, I don't think there's anything else that I could say that hasn't been articulated by others in previous posts.
I would say in the case of truly Bible-believing, preaching congregations and believers, this is a strawman. Just as your desire for Paul's teachings about "working out your salvation" intimate - people who truly believe, and study the Word of God would not believe as the accusation depicts and so it is a strawman for such congregations and believers.
DeleteAs for your Christians friends, I understand where they are coming from. But it is the same place of fallenness from which any rebellious "young" believer of any religion acts. Or, sinful humans will use what they "know" (what they have absorbed more or less accurately from what they were given) to justify their sins. Those raised in Christian environments may use grace as license. Those raised with rules may use "the gaps" or word-twisting to justify their sins. So, as with my first statements in this response, again your example of your Christian friends adds nothing to the appropriateness of claiming that Christian teachings of grace and works is teaching licentiousness.
You say "one reason I argue this point". What point do you mean? That Christian churches do teach licentious grace? Or what? I was referring to your statement that "if another Christian believes that profession & belief is all that is required and chooses to live his life that way, he is opting for a less demanding standard of personal behavior" is false because the conclusion does not follow the premise. Just because you believe you are saved upon trusting in Christ does not mean you plan on sinning freely. In fact, as I suspect you know from the way you spoke of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior, truly "trusting in" Christ means trusting Him for salvation and about how we should live.
I will treat your last statements very succinctly. I am glad to hear that you believe as you do about works and grace. If so, then you are truly relying solely upon Christ for salvation. However, I completely disagree that your rendition is representative of LDS doctrine. I will wait for a more appropriate thread to get into this further. For now, suffice it to say that "saving" ordinances and "worthiness" for baptism and the temple imply that the works of ordinances and the regular works of qualifying for participation in those ordinances, are required for salvation and part of what truly saves you (besides Christ's sacrifice)-that is, fully reconciling you to the Father (what would be the uppermost level of the Celestial Kingdom in LDS soteriology).
Until then, I have enjoyed our discussion, Adam. Thank you.
ps-did you have no thoughts about my last post-Vincenzo? or about the other pieces surrounding vicarious baptism?
I just noticed that this will be the 46th comment on this thread. As I've been one of the main reasons for us getting off topic, I'll refer to an excellent article by Jeff Lindsay for any who wish to read about Grace in LDS doctrine: jefflindsay.com/faith_works.html
DeleteI have seen the movie about Vincenzo Di Francesca who waited 30 years to get baptized. According to many in this discussion, Vincenzo shouldn't really have worried too much about it, because if his heart was in the right place, the Lord would take care of him... And that's RIGHT! Either way you see it, God's love and mercy is shown. No one has convinced me that vicarious baptism detracts from this.
I actually think you are right Adam - vicarious baptism is not shown, in itself, to be a problem. Though we could talk about the effectiveness of it as a work of the LDS Church. But it in itself does not seem problematic.
DeleteI looked over Travis' post again and what I see is not a show of VB as problematic, but the surrounding "pieces", as I have referred to them, being so.
The parts of Travis' post that include the following quotes speak to different pieces of theology related to VB:
"over the sins of a completely different person?" - seems to do with the "bottleneck" God has put on His influence by relying on men.
"does God endure with God's people after the apostles are all gone?" - seems to do with the Great Apostasy's legitimacy.
"what was the whole point of God's Holy Spirit touching his life?" - seems to do with my more developed point about a believer being cruelly called by the Holy Spirit but left waiting at a closed door - alone - his whole life, until he dies and "gets it right".
"appreciate the life they lived with what they had" - seems to be about the requirement for, at least, authoritative actions in order to be saved.
So, I found that my post, while more explicit about these parts connected to VB, is completely superfluous otherwise in light of Travis' post. I also think that Travis is speaking more about these issues in the way they came to him while pondering VB rather than a particular issue with VB itself. All of these issues are troublesome, and they are all connected to and justify VB.
So, while no one may have convinced you about vicarious baptism, the real question is "'Bottleneck', 'great apostasy', 'great abandonment', 'saving ordinances': What are we saying about God?"
ps-I hope it is obvious that I am not trying to put words into Travis' mouth. All the "seems to"'s were my attempt at humility.
And here's a bit for thought: Anyone heard of Vincenzo di Francesca (hint: LDS dvd)? He was a type of modern-day Eli & speaks to the practical side of all this theology.
ReplyDelete