quote:Are the dead taught about the LDS religion before their are baptized? How are they supposed to make an educated decision?
There is a space between death and the resurrection/judgement. There is teaching and some choices that still go on then. The decision would be made (in some cases, remade) there.
quote:Is there a way that you can ensure that your name is on the never-ever-to-be-baptized list?
I've never heard of it, but I'll bet if you wrote to Salt Lake City and asked for it, that would be accomodated.
posted
It isn't that I wouldn't believe in the god. I'm saying that If that particular god is the one that existed, and that I found that out after I died, I don't think I would even worship that god.
This is part of my own tautalogy. There are three possibilities:
1. God doesn't exist.
2. God exists but doesn't care or is capricious.
3. God exists and cares.
If 1 or 2, then it doesn't matter what I do.
If 3, then it does matter.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe. Write science fiction and science fiction book club are part of the google ad here at this point of the page.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question for Mormons.... going from very dim memory....is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suneun, I have to ask, if someone believes an act can have consequences that those performing it do not believe, that isn't even concievable, how do you protect against it happening all over the place?
I mean, we use names constantly. What if...writing a book detailing someone's sins (Bloody Mary, for instance) meant those sins could NEVER be forgiven? I mean, there's no record that Mary believed that, and the writers of the book don't intend it, but I guess it is concievable that someone could believe that. Does that mean no books about historical figures?
Or, what about giving someone their great-grandfather's name. What if giving someone their name means...the great-grandfather's soul is in now his great-grandson's, which messes up the life that he was going to go to otherwise. No one that I'm aware of believes that, but does that mean no naming a baby after anyone, in case it may be true?
quote:is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.
The work done for the dead in temples are the following: baptism, confirmation (gift of Holy Ghost), ordination to the priesthood, endowment, and, for couples who were married at time of death, sealing. So, all of them.
posted
Why should Mormons even care what others think? We should be more worried about what God thinks than some PC "warm fuzzies" for our nieghbors. That is, if we truely do believe in God and his Revelations. Let others be annoyed, angry, and offended. Its part of the religious life.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, because we aren't jerks and like our neighbors? I'm sure the leaders prayed about it before making the agreement. If the Lord's okay with it, I don't see a problem.
quote: Question for Mormons.... going from very dim memory....is it true that baptism is not the only ceremony done for the dead? I read somewhere that men are ordained to the priesthood by proxy, and that even marriages can be conducted. That part I don't remember, though the "ordained to the priesthood" by proxy sounds familiar.
All essential ordinances are done for the dead. Baptism just happens to be the one over which this particular battle is fought, since if that's bad, so are the rest, and if it's not, neither are they.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
well in your first example, the person who believes that would be following their beliefs by requesting that their sins not be mentioned. And they might be able to follow up legally on that to some extent.
It's not that all beliefs have to be taken into account at all times. It's that an individual's beliefs have to be taken into account when involved. Now for prayer, I'm certainly willing to make an exception since it's transient and generally private. But for written text, I think it's within someone's rights to insist on their name's removal.
In this case, a segment of the Jewish community is doing what they can to preserve the assumed right of their ancestors. And the LDS agreed. But now they don't seem to be working very hard to keep their end.
It's less that people want the LDS to stop all baptism for the dead. We just never want it done to us, and would prefer that it never get done for someone who most likely didn't want it.
posted
Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. This might be a case of them not, or maybe are. Its a hard call.
As I don't think that Polygamy is an essential principal, as much as part of one, than no problems. However, Temple work IS an essential principal that was proclaimed as almost the first Revelation.
quote: Yank, thanks for answering. What's the Biblical basis for such ordinances by proxy?
There is none. The LDS church is not a Bible-based religion. It is defined by revelation, of which the Bible constitutes only a part. That's why I always think it so silly when people try to Bible-bash Mormons. Some Mormons are game, but it's still a pointless exercise.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pat, I don’t believe I know who is going where. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if I get to heaven, the people I least expected to see there are going to be seated next to me at the banquet.
Edit: not to imply that Mormons are the people I least expect to see there. Didn't notice that possible interpretation until after I posted.
posted
"That's what so weird. If we're wrong, nothing happened!"
That's why, in my old Armageddon comic, the Mormons are in fact unknowingly performing baptisms with irresistible coercive power on behalf of Satan, and come close -- through their exhaustive efforts -- to actually giving him enough souls to "win." *wry laugh* Like I said, it's equally offensive to all sects and creeds.
--------
Seriously, though, I don't think posthumous baptism does any actual soul-stealing harm. It's clearly offensive and in remarkably poor taste, but it's like somebody who believes his religion compels him to dress up funny and stand on a streetcorner yelling about the end of the world; the rest of us don't want to think about how weird and improper it is, and it might tick us off if we're living too close, but it's not something that's actually going to do any DAMAGE.
It's just a more concrete version of the insult inherent in ALL Christianity: the idea that you know better, and will help us despite ourselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: see that no one has given a real answer to my question: What do most Christians believe will happen to those who lived and died without a knowledge of Christ? (Cop-outs don't count)
If you consider the "We don't know" answer to be a cop-out, then I think that's being hypocritical when it comes to many tenents of LDS doctrine. There are many points where the only official answer is that it's "just not known/revealed". I think non-LDS Christians deserve to be able to give the same answer, neh?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeniwren, if there is any Biblical reference for those ordinances, it is very much indirect. But as indirect goes, they exist. Keep in mind, in the LDS faith Biblical proof is not necessary with all the other scripture taken into account.
I see that no one has given a real answer to my question: What do most Christians believe will happen to those who lived and died without a knowledge of Christ? (Cop-outs don't count)
We hold 1 Peter 3:18-21 important also to the doctrine of baptism for the dead and in connection with 1 Cor 15:29
1 Peter 3:18-21
18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a prepareing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the ressurrection of Jesus Christ:
So, here we have information that Christ preached the gospel to spirits. Specifically, to those who died in the flood. Noah's family being "saved by water" is being compared to the effects of baptism.
We have received further scripture specifying that while Christ was dead, he was quite busy. He was organizing the righteous spirits of the dead who believed in Him years before to preach the gospel to those who had no knowledge of the gospel. We believe that work is going on until now and that when we die, we will join the missionary efforts. Those who accept the gospel, will still need baptism. This ordinance is to be provided by the faithful still living on the earth.
Just some more insight on our perspective. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this might be new information on this thread, I apologize if it is not:
quote: Why should Mormons even care what others think? We should be more worried about what God thinks than some PC "warm fuzzies" for our nieghbors.
I believe the agreement that created all this contention (not baptizing Shoah victims) was a concession granted in order to get the right to build the BYU Jerusalem center. Which has not been operating for a while due to instability. Also, while a Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon was made, it is not printed and as far as I know and can't be obtained. And believe me, if it were reasonably possible my husband would have one. Odd that I think I've posted on nearly every page of this thread and just now recalled this. Someone just needed to ask the question in the right way. My opinion of post-a-minute threads is temporarily redeemed. And Tom!
P.S. And I think our baptizing of the dead, generally without qualification, simply shows that we are serious about forgiving everyone. It's not a completely self aggrandizing exercise.
Though Tom's caveat that he doesn't need forgiving would stand.
Do you think the ad at the bottom of this page will soon be offering a Cliff Notes edition of this thread?
posted
I wish a mormon member here would address my example about the deathbed conversion without a baptism being possible.
Is that person going to hell? I can't wrap my beliefs around a God that requires a certain type of ceremony before that person is acceptable for heaven.
John 3:16 - mentions nothing of baptism. I can go and pull out dozens of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of baptism.
The Bible can be ambiguous in places, and much is left for us to interpret. But I think it's pretty clear on the important stuff. The ten commandments aren't hard to understand. And, I think that salvation is also very clear.
Some samples:
Jn 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...
In response to the question "What must we do? Jesus responds The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. Jn 6:29
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Jn 6:40
Jesus sole purpose in coming down to Earth was salvation. That being the case, I would expect him to be very clear as to the requirements of it. In John chapter 6 he mentions salvation and eternal life numerous times, and not once does he say baptism MUST accompany it.
I trust God. I don't think Jesus would mislead us. If baptism were necessary for eternal life, in other words if he required something other than belief in Him, he would have stated so, and clearly.
I don't find that statement clearly found in the Bible, and references to the Book of Mormon of course cannot convince me, since I don't accept it as scripture.
However, I respect that people like Beverly do accept those writings as scripture, so I understand where you are coming from - you think it's necessary. So do many of my friends and relatives. I respect that you feel that way, and I get upset when that respect is not reciprocal.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:have yet to admit that they hold an extremely insulting and practically hateful view of the Jewish faith....The hateful act comes in the form of behaving actively according to this arrogance and religious bigotry,... t's the religious equivalent of me going to the graves of your parents and urinating and defacating on their graves... After all, that's all the Nazis were doing—making "right" the lives of these Jews by removing their flawed and subhuman beliefs....You're backpedaling to cover your ignorance....It's insulting, arrogant, and hateful....Dammit people, "bigot" does not equal "racist." Stop reacting like it does. Bigotry is an attitude of intolerance, and this qualifies completely. Seriously, you people need to get over your misconceptions of the word....I think your direct ignoring of that is rather disingenuous.... It's not just arrogant, it's demanding the dead make a choice they should not have to...once again showing that you are incorrect and assuming shit about me or my words without accurately weighing what is said....It makes you look like an ass. I was addressing Berg's ignorance on Gandhi's views. Get off your high horse.
God I got tired, I had to stop after a few pages. But I write this to make a point. JohnL I have to dismiss you from my thoughts. You have lost any credibility to me. I try not to make it personal, but I have re-read the entire thread, and I can't ignore your personal tone. I find you to be intentionally hateful and not seeking dialog.
Not only have people made valid points in contradiction to you, but you have failed to adequately defend your position in a manner consistent with your arrogant belief that the debate is over and won by you.
IE...
quote: Whole separations from religious institutions have occurred over such distinctions, so I find your dismissal of the agitation a bit insulting.
That is my point, people do separate, but the act of separation does not make the separator correct and those who hold onto their beliefs wrong. The debate about Corinthians is a debate with no clear winner. There are valid arguments on both sides, and to dismiss my conclusion from the evidence I have seen is insulting.
quote: Considering the known inconsistencies of KJV
Once again you are right...there are known inconsistencies--you chose one side, I chose another. My act of disagreeing with you does not make me less informed or wrong.
quote: Every newer translation of that text shows it clearly that Paul was speaking out against it...
That is a pretty bold statement, others have posted the newer translations, it does not appear to be as clear as you make it.
quote:You mean personally for you
I am glad you understand what personally means. Kudos.
quote:cheating for personal gain
Most temple workers I have talked to are not getting personal gain. What gain are you talking about? Wait don't answer for me, I lost interest in your personal defense of your position. I am sure there are others who will do a better job.
quote: I would equate it to identity theft
What is being stolen? What is being changed? The only thing I do agree is that if the church broke a promise they should take public responsibility.
I have thought some about the "VIOLATIONS" mentioned, I was particularly fascinated by the rape analogy. Rape, identity theft, and defecating on graves all involve emotional abuse and overpowering someone against their will. However, names are a part of public record. I can keep a list of any public name and say anything I want to around those names and I have not violated a law or person. The church should be more respectful of wishes, we certainly have enough names to keep us busy, but I am prone to think there are no violations. I would love someone to tell me what/how reputation is being hurt or what/how emotional abuse is resulting from proxy work.
[edit] I am only disregarding your discussion on this thread as I am sure you have other insights I will find valuable.
posted
Belle, I think your question was addressed. There were two options given:
1. The man indeed had been baptized. He "fell away", sinned, and suffered for it. In his heart he repented and his faith was acceptable to God as enough to enter him into heaven.
2. The term "paradise" refers to the state of the spirit after death but not to the "heaven" after resurrection. He would still need to be properly baptized (by proxy in his case) to enter the Celestial Kingdom. But, hey, the Terrestrial Kingdom is not a bad place to be in LDS theology. It is pretty much exactly what most Christians believe heaven to be.
Do you have any other questions on this particular topic? Let me know and if I have an answer I would gladly share it.
Edit: We believe baptism is not a requirement of the Terrestrial Kingdom, but a belief in Christ is.
Second Edit: Actually, I could be wrong at that. I'm not sure a belief in Christ is necesary for the TerrK.
quote:I can go and pull out dozens of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of baptism.
But if you take that approach, couldn't you find lots of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of [insert commandment here]?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
deathbed conversion: I don't know. I prefer to think that the majority of people will repent shortly after, if not imediately before, death. I still have hope that people would recognize the reality of divinity before their spiritual eyes. I remember the dwarves in The Last Battle who refused to see that they were in paradise, but felt justified in believing they were still in a dirty, dark stable.
Alexa- I think you might be ascribing a quote by Kayla to John L. Part of his posting style is to include long quotes from other people in replies. So your overall impression of him may be skewed.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, Belle isn't there refering to the man on the cross. She's refering to current day 'deathbed conversions'.
Just remember, Belle, that the LDS concept of the afterlife isn't Black & White/Heaven & Hell. Their purpose and view of proxy baptisms are EXACTLY for cases such as this - those who would have accepted it in this life if they had the chance.
So no, in the LDS view, that man would not be 'burning for eternity', but he would be sitting happily in 'paradise' waiting for someone to do his work for him so he can accept it, and enter into the highest glory come the Resurrection.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeniwren (as I promised) The most common scripture Christians reference when talking about the necessity of baptism is John 3:5
quote: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven
But I have always felt that the important things to Jesus were our attitudes, heart, and desires--how we treat others and the intents of our hearts. I always hate having to defend Mormons because my qualm with Mormonism is the increasing importance of ordinances the further you go in the church. My lack of testimony on the necassity of rituals is something I am in the midst of working out on a personal level. Has anyone (Mormon or non-Mormon) resolved this?
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if you take that approach, couldn't you find lots of scriptures where Jesus spoke about salvation without mentioning the necessity of [insert commandment here]?
Jon Boy, in Belle's belief system there is no [insert commandment here] That's why you won't find Jesus mentioning them.
In Belle's belief system it's all about belief in Christ. Accepting that he died for our sins. Belle doesn't think any thing is required beyond that.
I believe there will be thieves, murderers, prostitutes, and all kinds of people in heaven - there will be people who lived horrible lives, and did despicable things but accepted Christ on their deathbed. That's what grace is - we don't have to DO anything but believe, He does all the rest.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
About the Dead and Prison and Paradise....I think everyone should read 1Peter 3:18-19
quote:19.By which he (Christ during his three days of death according to Mormon Doctrine) went and preached unto the spirits in prison.
D&C138 is a great perspective on those who die without knowing Christ. One thing I want to clear up is those who were good but still did not/could not accept saving ordinances will go to Spirit Prison---Not Paradise. D&C138:32. Just wanted to clarify....those in Prison (according to Mormonism) will have the chance to accept proxy work--from Christ's atonement to proxy baptism
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm (finally) leaving the library, and I'd like to say one last thing. I just finished an LDS mission in the American South. I had this kind of discussion almost every day. They were pointless. When the discussion gets to this point, the people involved have already taken positions, and have absolutely no intention of changing them. When that's happened, what's the point of continuing? To hear yourself talk? I admit to greatly enjoying such discussions at times, so perhaps I do like the sound of my own voice a bit too much. But, to use an overused phrase about overuse, I think we are quite simply beating a dead horse here.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And a common interpretation of John 3:5 for those who don't believe in the necessity of baptism is that born of water refers only to physical birth, to flesh, and born of the spirit doesn't refer necessarily to baptism by water, but to baptism by the Holy Spirit. (baptism by the Holy Spirit is accomplished when someone accepts Christ, it does not require an outward baptism of the body by water)
The very next sentence is "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but spirit gives birth to spirit." Jn 3:7
I think Jesus was clearly delineating the world of the flesh from the world of the spirit to Nicodemus, and so to me, accepting "born of water" as meaning physical birth makes the most sense.
Several verses down, Jesus is speaking again after rebuking Nicodemus for not understanding him, and he again restates what is necessary for salvation:
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only son." Jn 3:17-18
So, he restates the position for Nicodemus but fails to mention baptism? I don't buy it. I think he would have been much, much clearer about it than just leaving us the one verse that can be interpreted several different ways, and as I see it - the interpretation that doesn't require baptism for salvation makes the most sense.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the Book of Mormon addresses the idea of "deathbed" repentance in two different places:
Alma 34:35 35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected• to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal• you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.
Helaman 13:38
38 But behold, your days• of probation are past; ye have procrastinated• the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness• in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary• to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.
*BUT* these are both cases where the person clearly "procrastinated" following what they already knew was right and good. I think the man on the cross is an excellent example that in some circumstances deathbed repentance is acceptable before God. This is between the person and God, and I could never speak for individual circumstances.
I am thinking there is a parable in the Doctrine & Covenants that talks about laborers coming to work in the fields of God at different times of day, one coming in the morning, one the afternoon, one the evening, and they all receive the same wage at the end of the day. I can't seem to find the passage though.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue really stems from a difference in believe in the afterlife. To a Evangelical Christian death is the final moment. From there you are sent to Heaven or Hell. From that perspective a posthumous baptism would be rather superflous.
Beyond that I think it's somewhat insensitive of the LDS church not to respect the other systems of belief.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know it is a dead horse. I have never looked at John 3:5 that way before, and as my testimony in modern day prophets is fragil at best, I love Belle's explanation. I am by no means opposed to change. When I read what Belle just said, I must admit, there was a calming feeling I felt that put some of my agitation at ease.
[EDIT] Yeah, I have said what I feel I needed to say and I have read what I have needed to read. What a great thread it's been. Thanks to everyone for their support in my religious issues. I do love God and and try to love people and so religious issues are very significant to me. Thank you.
posted
Thanks for that response, Yank. That was helpful. With that, I'm bowing out of the conversation, as it could not possibly be fruitful.
(Thanks also, Alexa. Best of luck with resolving your ceremony importance issues -- I mean that genuinely.)
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: don't know it is a dead horse. I have never looked at John 3:5 that way before, and as my testimony in modern day prophets is fragil at best, I love Belle's explanation. I am by no means opposed to change. When I read what Belle just said, I must admit, there was a calming feeling I felt that put some of my agitation at ease.
I'm sorry, I seem to have Patrick's same bad-communication bug today. I intended to direct that post towards the nastier argumentative side of this thread, not Belle's very insightful posts.
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And speaking of having an excessive fondness for the sound of my own typing, I'm now late for dinner. ¡Adios!
Posts: 1631 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as there is an air of mutual respect, I enjoy these discussions greatly. It's not about "converting" someone to our way of thinking, it is about mutual understanding. I want to understand how other's view things and I want to be understood by others. If I were discussing this topic with someone who had no interest in understanding me (resisting the tempation to name names) the conversation would cease to be fruitful.
Edit: Whoops, the word "our" was meant to be general, but it sounds like I am talking about "me and those of like-mind".
posted
Yank, I hope that when you have a chance to read the whole thread, and maybe read some of the religion threads that you missed while you were gone (or at least participate in some more of them now that you’re back), you’ll agree that this is not in fact, like the hundreds of discussions you’ve had over the last two years. Hatrack is different.
It’s true that people don’t change what they believe very often as a result of threads (though it has happened), but we do learn more about one another’s beliefs, which is a good thing on it’s own. And we become better at articulating our own beliefs, and avoiding misconceptions and miscommunications.
And, I think we’re learning how to talk about our differences. I think of Hatrack partially as a living laboratory for inter-religious discussion. It bodes well for the world. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I should say that I have had this argument many times like Yank, because I have friends and relatives that are southern baptist. After my babies were baptized my grandmother asked me how old they would be when they were baptized again, because infant baptisms didn't "take". I told her they would never be baptized again, unless they personally chose to, and that if they did I would hope it wasn't because they felt like the one they had was no good.
And, for those of you that believe baptism is necessary and you get baptized - great! I mean, as long as the belief accompanies the baptism, then we are on the same page.
Where we go on different pages is when you say my husband and children aren't saved - because they weren't baptized as adults. I disagree with that view, because I don't think it's necessary.
Unfortunately, people have said very hateful things to me, one person even wanted to know why I was willing to damn my kids to hell. I think that attitude is decidedly un-Christian and certainly isn't in the spirit of love that Christ wants us to demonstrate.
So to those that disagree with me, let me say my disagreement with you is offered with love, and as a way of all of us possibly examining our own beiefs. It's not so much about converting people to your point of view, as it is clarifying your own beliefs. That's why I don't think discussions like this are pointless. They're pointless only if your intention is to convert. I'm not expecting any mormons to say "You know, Belle, you're right! I'm leaving the LDS faith today, thanks for showing me the light!"
So long as we agree on who Christ was and the sacrifice he made for us, we are in harmony on the greater issue, after all. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jon Boy, in Belle's belief system there is no [insert commandment here] That's why you won't find Jesus mentioning them.
In Belle's belief system it's all about belief in Christ. Accepting that he died for our sins. Belle doesn't think any thing is required beyond that.
Then how about times when the Savior talked about salvation without mentioning belief in him? (I haven't checked, so I don't even know if there are any scriptures that fit such a description.)
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I look at the John 3:5 passage and don't understand interpreting it the other way. He says a man must be born of water and the spirit to be saved. Are you saying that Christ means that being born is requisite to being saved?
John 16:16 mentions belief and baptism together. Still not terribly clear, but it came from Christ's own mouth.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that Baptists - at least those in the SBC - didn't view Baptism as a 'saving ordinance', but rather as just an outward symbol of the faith - like their view on Communion.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
No one else can make the call for you.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Tom!
