Mormon baptism validity

[Vico]

…

Q. So, what logic entails going from “I AM” to consubstantiality? and Where does the Bible state that Jesus has (or had during his mortal life) two natures?
A. Because Jesus states that he was before Abraham (John 8: 58 “Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.” ), and we know that he was born of Mary, a human, and we know that creatures only have one life with the body before the resurrection. Also he is the Word made flesh and the Word is God and present at creation (John 1).

Also see: John 1:1-3,10; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2,10.

Q. So by your interpretation of John 14, are followers of Jesus referred to by Paul in this verse [2 Cor 13:5 “Try your own selves if you be in the faith; prove ye yourselves. Know you not your own selves, that Christ Jesus is in you, unless perhaps you be reprobates?”] also consubstantial with Jesus?
A. No, the nature of those adopted sons is still human. Ephesians 1

3 Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ: 4 As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity. 5 Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:

 

[TOmNossor]

lilypadrees:

Therefore, Jesus was born with two natures, one fully Divine, the other fully human.

That’s what I was always taught when I was a Mormon.

You were taught when you were a LDS that Christ had two natures?
Do you have any documentation for this teaching?
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Vico:

Consubstantiality is used for the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ said he was “I AM” same as Moses was told in Exodus 3:14.

So, what logic entails going from “I AM” to consubstantiality?

The person, the Son of God (divine nature), assumed human nature in the created Jesus Christ. Thus tehre are two natures in Jesus Christ.

Where does the Bible state that Jesus has (or had during his mortal life) two natures?

John 14 7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. 8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. 9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless, of course, you fail the test

So by your interpretation of John 14, are followers of Jesus referred to by Paul in this verse also consubstantial with Jesus?

Gazelam,
It is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial with with Jesus Christ.
I have seen Catholics deny it, but that is because they do not know their history (or their current dogma for that matter).
This issue much more complex than most folks (Catholic and non-Catholic) know.
Charity, TOm

 

[fredystairs]

@TOmNossor

Do you have a Catholic document that shows that the Church teaches that we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ?

Blessings

 

[Spyridon]

is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial

That’s incorrect.

The Church does not teach we are One in Being (consubstantial) with the Father.

The Church does teach theosis/divinization, but that is different from being consubstantial with the Father.

Not even Mary, the most blessed of all creatures, is consubstantial with the Father.

Only the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam,
It is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial with with Jesus Christ.
I have seen Catholics deny it, but that is because they do not know their history (or their current dogma for that matter).
This issue much more complex than most folks (Catholic and non-Catholic) know.
Charity, TOm

Wow Tom!! You just blew my mind! (And I’m a pretty low key person.) This is almost as interesting as my Sunday School class today on Abraham 3…

Look here at CCC 467: Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 467

The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. _
_ We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

PS What’s the world coming to when Mormons are learning Catholic doctrine from other Mormons on CAF?!?! Take care.

 

[Lemuel]

You were taught when you were a LDS that Christ had two natures?

Do you have any documentation for this teaching?

Charity, TOm

ETB taught this in general conference:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and powers of His Eternal Father.

 

[gazelam]

gazelam

Where does the Bible state that Jesus has (or had during his mortal life) two natures?

Where does it say He didn’t?

Who is His Father?
Who is His mother?

His Father is Divine (God).
His mother is human (not deity).

I’m with you this far.

Therefore, Jesus was born with two natures, one fully Divine, the other fully human.

If two colors like, say, blue and yellow are mixed together, the result is green. We don’t say the result fully blue and fully yellow.

Jesus did receive His human attributes from His mother and His divine attributes from God the Father. But He wasn’t fully human because He had power over death, which power mere mortals don’t have. And He wasn’t fully divine because He could die, which fully divine beings cannot do. So, during His mortal life He had a partially divine nature unique to Him alone.

 

[gazelam]

TOmNossor:

You were taught when you were a LDS that Christ had two natures?

Do you have any documentation for this teaching?

Charity, TOm

ETB taught this in general conference:

Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and powers of His Eternal Father.

This is my understand, but I would consider this a single nature of mixed mortal and divine attributes.

Or D&C 93:12-14 says thing a bit differently:

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

 

[runningdude]

In order for a baptism to be valid, both parties have to believe it to be a Christian baptism.

If a Christian baptized a Muslim in a theatrical production, it would not be a baptism because neither party intended it to be. If a Muslim baptized a Christian Catechumen in danger of death, all the Muslim has to do is intend to comfort the Christian.

Arianism arose organically so to speak. It was a Christian community practicing baptism constantly, while an incorrect understanding of Christ arose. They simply never did any thing differently with regard to baptism, and it never stopped being valid.

Mormonism, in contrast, was an entirely new religion. It took the bare the ceremony of the baptism, but they intended it to mean something different than conventional Christianity understood. Like the theatrical production, without the proper intent, it is not valid (although done sincerely).

However, there are enough poorly trained converts to the Mormon religion that may still possess proper intend both in giving and receiving baptism. I would imagine Mormons converting to Catholicism would receive a conditional baptism due to this uncertainty.

 

[Horton]

Look here at CCC 467: Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 467

The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”. He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. _

_ We confess that

gazelam:

we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”.

one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis

@TOmNossor and @Gazelam - This is because you have read the passage incorrectly. The passage is speaking to the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ not man. No trophy for either of you this time.

 

[Horton]

You’re understanding is incorrect. It’s not really your fault, you read everything through an LDS lens.

If two colors like, say, blue and yellow are mixed together, the result is green. We don’t say the result fully blue and fully yellow.

We don’t say Jesus Christ was a “mix” of anything. He was fully divine AND fully human. The CCC states it clearly in the paragraph 467 which you quoted with an incorrect understanding.

 

[gazelam]

@TOmNossor and @Gazelam - This is because you have read the passage incorrectly. The passage is speaking to the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ not man. No trophy for either of you this time.

I quoted CCC 467 to confirm that Tom was correct regarding the Catholic belief that Jesus is consubstantial with man in His humanity. (And that just blew my normally low-key mind!) I did not quote it to refute the Catholic belief of Christ’s dual natures. Do I still get a trophy then? If not, I’ll try harder next time. Take care!

 

[Horton]

Gazelam,

It is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial with with Jesus Christ.

_I have seen Catholics deny it, but that is because they do not know their history (or their current dogma for that matter)._

This issue much more complex than most folks (Catholic and non-Catholic) know.

@gazelam This is what TOm wrote: ^^^ We have never taught we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ and it has never been dogma. You may not agree with Catholics on this issue, but it doesn’t make your opinion fact, only your opinion.

 

[twf]

Father,
Do you have any thoughts on why Arian baptism was valid? They had a very defective understanding of the Trinity.
As far as I know Jehovah Witness baptisms are considered invalid. Isn’t their understanding of Christ’s divinity comparable to Arianism?

 

[gazelam]

@gazelam This is what TOm wrote: ^^^ We have never taught we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ and it has never been dogma. You may not agree with Catholics on this issue, but it doesn’t make your opinion fact, only your opinion.

So, just confirming, when CCC 467 states:

"our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; “like us in all things but sin”.

you’re saying that the RCC teaches that Jesus is NOT consubstantial with man in any way. Am I correct?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,
Do you have any thoughts on why Arian baptism was valid? They had a very defective understanding of the Trinity.
As far as I know Jehovah Witness baptisms are considered invalid. Isn’t their understanding of Christ’s divinity comparable to Arianism?

I’m not so sure we should compare the two, given that they’re separated by so many centuries. Yes, the Arians had a defective view of the Trinity, but the dogma of the Trinity would not be settled until afterwards (and in many ways, ‘because of’ Arianism).

The conclusion of the early Church (especially Pope Stephen I d. 257, 3/4 of a century before the Council of Nicaea) was that heretics not be re-baptized. Although the question would re-present itself over and over again, the final conclusion would always be not to re-baptize.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor:

is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial

That’s incorrect.

The Church does not teach we are One in Being (consubstantial) with the Father.

The Church does teach theosis/divinization, but that is different from being consubstantial with the Father.

Not even Mary, the most blessed of all creatures, is consubstantial with the Father.

Only the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.

Spyridon,
I am not sure if you are not reading my words or you do not understand Catholicism.
My words were that Jesus Christ was consubstantial with Gazelem and me according to Catholic history and dogma.
I didn’t say that it was Catholic Dogma that Gazelem and I were consubstantial with God the Father.
You may be confused because it is common for Catholics to KNOW that God the Father and God the Son are consubstantial. You then might reason that mankind cannot be consubstantial with the Father so therefore man is not consubstantial with a person (Jesus Christ) who is consubstantial with the Father. That would be an error.
Or perhaps you just didn’t read what I said.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

@TOmNossor

Do you have a Catholic document that shows that the Church teaches that we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ?

Blessings

In addition to what Gazelam already produced, the Council of Chalcedon is where this truth was made Dogma.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

gazelam:

Gazelam,

It is Catholic dogma that you and I are consubstantial with with Jesus Christ.

_I have seen Catholics deny it, but that is because they do not know their history (or their current dogma for that matter)._

This issue much more complex than most folks (Catholic and non-Catholic) know.

@gazelam This is what TOm wrote: ^^^ We have never taught we are consubstantial with Jesus Christ and it has never been dogma. You may not agree with Catholics on this issue, but it doesn’t make your opinion fact, only your opinion.

The Council of Chalcedon taught EXACTLY that!
You are mistaken.
Charity, TOm