3 Nephi 12:1 [Book of Mormon]
“And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words unto Nephi, and to those who had been called, (now the number of them who had been called, and received power and authority to baptize was twelve) and behold, he stretched forth his hand unto the multitude and cried unto them, saying: Blessed are ye if ye shall give heed unto the words of these twelve whom I have chosen from among you to minister unto you, and unto them I have given power that they may baptize you with water; and after that ye are baptized with water behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost; therefore blessed are ye if ye shall believe in me and be baptized aft that ye have seen me and know that I am. “
12 huh? So altogether, and totally screwing up the symbology of the first twelve disciples reinstating the kingdom of Israel, the kingdom of God comprised of 12 tribes from 12 sons of Jacob or Israel, now instead we have 24? But God gives them the authority to baptize, then who has the authority today? In Christian theology It is the pastoral office that has its genesis from the apostolic offices. But this is all really beside the point.
The real point is that contrary to the Paul in Ephesians 4 where it is confessed that there is one baptism, this verse confesses 2, that of Water, and that of Spirit. Jesus makes no such distinction in the New Testament, in fact he links water baptism to the transference of the Holy Spirit in John 3:5 and then again in Acts 2:38-39, Not to mention Ephesians 5:26, or 1 Cor. 6:11, Titus 3:5-7.
Well, most Baptists and American evangelicals have problems with that one two. Again kissing cousins.
11 comments:
Growing up baptist, I sort of felt like mormons and baptists were moral equivalents and really all I knew was they were a cult but never really knew why.
When God is not in the Sacraments, maybe 3 baptisms would do it.
I guess if you are a Mormon or a Baptist climbing your way up, you might just consider yourselves Ladder Day Saints.
Robin,
Very minimal differences. Though baptists tend at least to teach the trinity. (That might actually be debated these days) But Mormons are against teaching the triune God. And where that is not taught the gospel is not possible, because if God didn't die for your sins, no one did.
Jesus said to be born again you had to be born "of the water and of the spirit." He himself experienced both in that sequence. Your disagreement here isn't with anything specific to the Book of Mormon; this is well within the range of perfectly ordinary orthodox Christian doctrine. If you want to say that baptism of water and baptism of the spirit are really together one baptism, the Book of Mormon won't argue with you.
I once stayed in Marriott hotel and I picked up a book of Mormon that was in my room and opened at random and started reading.
I only had to get through a couple of paragraphs to discover that they are against baptizing babies (that was a bad sign), and then I found out that you can work towards your own perfection. (Ha!)
I said to my wife right then and there that this book was antithetical to the Bible.
It was just a 'how to book' for people who like being religious.
Benjamin,
Firs I'd like to welcome you to this conversation. Thank you for coming over. I buzzed on your name, and see that you have some back ground with RLDS?
I don't know much about them. I'm in Utah, where we have LDS and FLDS, and an assortment of other quirks, I suppose even a few RLDS.
In any case. I'd caution you, Baptist theology is not in anyway in the realm of orthodoxy.
Second if one is to read "The Didache" one of the earliest extra biblical documents of the early church, you will see that the immersion non immersion issue was settled quite early on if it even was an issue to begin with. It was dead until the 16th century when it was revived by the ana-baptists.
> "I only had to get through a couple of paragraphs to discover that they are against baptizing babies (that was a bad sign),"
Why is it a bad sign? The arguments the Book of Mormon makes against baptizing babies are valid in that their premises follow logically from their conclusions and their premises are all true as far as I can tell, and their terms are clear. There are three things that can go wrong with a logical argument: 1. Invalid logical form, 2. Ambiguous terms or 3. False premises. Which of these three fallacies is it falling prey to?
> "and then I found out that you can work towards your own perfection. (Ha!)"
If you cannot then it could not be your own perfection. Becoming perfect would be impossible for if God was to "poof" you into perfection, the thing perfected would not be "you" it would be something else; something without free moral agency.
Mr. Brian, if you consider the ana-baptists to be heretics, why then of course we are going to be much more extreme heretics.
Who is Mr. Brian?
By the way, you are on a Lutheran's blog. So yes, baptists are considered heretical around these parts.
The arguments against baptizing babies in The Book of Mormon are bad because they stem from premises that are antithetical to what the New Testament teaches.
Whoops I meant Bror not Brian.
Aren't there ecumenical Lutherans out there?
If you all are going to back yourselves into such a tight little corner over the divide between yourselves and everything descended from the ana-baptists I don't know if there's much point in your trying to somehow bridge the gap between yourselves and Latter Day Saints.
Benjamin,
True unity can only be found in God's word which is truth. Where people stray from God's word there cannot be unity, there can only be a call to repent.
Post a Comment