Mormonism: Restoration of Ancient Christian Church?

[kimg901]

Where does it say one must be submerged? Now if you have a river next to your church, sure, lets go swimming. But like most churches, a river is not an option. So are people not going to be baptized because there is no flowing water near by? Sprinklng and pouring is the next best thing.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Where does it say one must be submerged? Now if you have a river next to your church, sure, lets go swimming. But like most churches, a river is not an option. So are people not going to be baptized because there is no flowing water near by? Sprinklng and pouring is the next best thing.

Well in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox minds, if there is no river (i.e. “living water” in the Didache) near the church, then immersion (including for infants) in a baptismal font in the church is the next best thing.

 

[kimg901]

Well in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox minds, if there is no river (i.e. “living water” in the Didache) near the church, then immersion (including for infants) in a baptismal font in the church is the next best thing.

That is true. Some Western Churches do have a font for this too.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The problem I see with the LDS argument against pouring is that it can be applied to the LDS Church itself. As I’ve mentioned before, LDS practice a washing and anointing ordinance, called the Initiatory, in the temple. The form or mode of this ordinance has gone through changes, where it is not performed as it was, and is now a “symbolic” washing and anointing. In the same way that Catholics are accused of “changing the ordinance”, the LDS Church itself has done the same thing. So really, the argument from the LDS side cannot be the mere changing of how an ordinance is performed (since they have changed how various ordinances are performed, such as the Initiatory), but whether such changes were authorized, i.e., whether the Church doing the changing had such things revealed to them by God, and/or the binding/loosing power.

They have also changed the ordinance of the sacrament (as someone else pointed out) and they changed the sacrament of marriage to allow a bishop to have more than one wife. So yes they have changed things.

 

[KathleenGee]

The rite of baptism requires the correct form: holy water and Trinitarian indwelling through the Holy Spirit.

There are translations that say Christ was immersed and others saying He was anointed…over Him. Whether immersion or sprinkling or pouring water over forehead above a basin are secondary.

 

[Miriam1947]

The rite of baptism requires the correct form: holy water and Trinitarian indwelling through the Holy Spirit.

There are translations that say Christ was immersed and others saying He was anointed…over Him. Whether immersion or sprinkling or pouring water over forehead above a basin are secondary.

My understanding is that any water can be used for baptism, not holy water.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Miriam,

I am referring to confirmation. Yes, both oil and water used at Baptism; a special sealing or confirming – for confirmation. A pastor can minister confirmation to adults and not have the bishop present.

There is a movement to return baptism, penance, and confirmation to be given at the same time…like they used to, according to our teacher. I personally am neutral on this.

Finally, the Sacrament of Confirmation – when we in full conscience receive the Holy Spirit – gives us the strength of the Holy Spirit ----- NOT to APOSTASIZE!!!

 

[lax16]

Hey lax16,

I don’t know much about the Didache and whether the RCC considers it binding and/or authoritative. But it seems that neither the LDS Church nor the RCC follows it to the letter. The LDS Church insists on immersion alone. From what little I know about the RCC, it generally goes the pouring route. There’s a very large river very close to where I live and I never hear of RCC baptisms being done there. Everything seems to take place at the parish and I assume by pouring, but I don’t know for sure. Anyway pouring seems to be a common first choice in the RCC whereas the Didache indicates it should be a last resort.

Hi gazelam - The Didache was written as early as 50 A.D. and was an “instructional manual” that explained basic practices of the early church.
By offering different baptism options, it proves that *several methods were in use at that time. * Therefore, immersion was not the only option. And it would seem that one is to use that which is most convenient and practical.

When I lived in Nevada, our parish did both full immersion and sprinkling method baptisms.

I have attended a Mormon baptism and it did not take place in a river so I am not sure why you are mentioning that as a method of baptism?

Regarding Paul’s baptism scripture seems silent on the mode (see Acts 9:18, Acts 22:16) I’m unaware of other references to Paul’s baptism in the Bible.

He was baptized in the house of Judas. Very possibly by pouring since there was no running water in houses back then. However, we do not know for sure. Therefore, to claim he was immersed is pure speculation.

Regarding Peter baptizing the 3000 believers (Acts 2:41), Acts 2:5 indicates that the location was Jerusalem. The Pool of Siloam is very close to the old city today and may have been inside the old city anciently (the current wall is in a different location than the old wall) and would be a water resource for such a large baptism. In fact I believe that the Pool of Siloam was intended to be the water supply of Jerusalem when the city was being attacked from the outside. The Pool of Siloam is fed by Hezekiah’s tunnels.

from Catholic.com:

*After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling. *

That’s my $0.02 worth…

And mine too!

 

[lax16]

and just because they “came up out of the water” does not mean they were immersed. I can stand knee deep in a river and need to “come up out of the water” in order to leave the river.

Exactly. And, was Jesus ankle deep, knee deep or waist deep in the water? Was water poured over his head?

To say we know for sure is pure speculation.

 

[lax16]

Well I think that the LDS perspective is the common Protestant-immersion-only perspective (recognizing that there are Protestants that do pouring and sprinkling) on this. They believe that immersion was the original way baptism was performed, and the way Christ was baptized. They believe that Catholics then changed the mode of baptism to pouring, which was wrong (and a sign of apostasy). So, LDS make a big deal about this because they see this as “tampering” with God’s ordinances, and that LDS practice the original way of performing the ordinance of baptism (which goes along with the belief in being a restoration of the primitive/New Testament Church), while pouring is seen as a post-biblical innovation. LDS will sometimes quote Isaiah 24:5 in reference to this change-
**
“5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance**, broken the everlasting covenant.”

Well, they think Jesus was fully immersed, but we do not know for sure.

Funny, when I attended an LDS baptism, I thought it unusual that one had to be 7 (or 8, I don’t remember), wearing a white robe, and giggling. Not sure that is biblical.

LDS missionaries will teach investigators that because Christ was immersed, that is how they perform baptisms, along with proper authority, since Christ specifically sought out John the Baptist, who had authority to baptize.

Certainly, it is a nice method of baptism.

But yes, pouring was accepted very early on, as we see in the Didache. It is also clear that Catholics do not only practice pouring baptism. Eastern Catholics (in communion with Rome) and Eastern Orthodox practice triple immersion baptisms, including immersion baptisms for infants. They view immersion as the norm, and pouring is less done. In contrast, immersion does happen in the Roman Catholic church, however less frequently than pouring.

I am sure the Didache outlined the options for practical reasons.
The most important thing is to be baptized - the method should not hold one back if there is not enough water for immersion.

The problem I see with the LDS argument against pouring is that it can be applied to the LDS Church itself. As I’ve mentioned before, LDS practice a washing and anointing ordinance, called the Initiatory, in the temple. The form or mode of this ordinance has gone through changes, where it is not performed as it was, and is now a “symbolic” washing and anointing. In the same way that Catholics are accused of “changing the ordinance”, the LDS Church itself has done the same thing. So really, the argument from the LDS side cannot be the mere changing of how an ordinance is performed (since they have changed how various ordinances are performed, such as the Initiatory), but whether such changes were authorized, i.e., whether the Church doing the changing had such things revealed to them by God, and/or the binding/loosing power.

Very good points.
Also, LDS do not baptize in rivers only and they do not wait until 30 years old as Jesus did.

 

[Stephen168]

Concerning what I believe about deification:
I believe that whatever Christ is, we are to become. He became what we are so that we could become what He is. Past necessity will not be changed however. Christ was divine before incarnation (indeed I believe Christ has eternally been divine through His union with the Father who has also eternally been divine), and I was not and am not currently divine.
What I believe the ECF before Athanasius believed concerning the final state of deified man:
The ECF taught that whatever Christ is, we are to become. He became what we are so that we could become what He is. They regularly said that we are to become gods. It was so accepted that our destiny was divinity that Athanasius argued that Christ must be God else He could not make us gods. I think the ECF generally believed that past necessity will not be changed however (Irenaeus may be an exception). The Fathers who wrote after Basilides (a 2nd century gnostic who was the first to espouse Creation ex Nihilo), believed or likely believed in some form of Creation ex Nihilo (Fathers before this who explicitly wrote passages that deny creation ex nihilo are Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Clement of Rome). So for many ECF, Christ was included in that which was not created ex nihilo (though not all ECF even taught this by my recollection). So whatever Christ is (in many instances what He is/was eternally), we were to become, but Christ will have been this eternally and we will become this.

The ECF believed there was only one God, and God is uncreated. The ECF believed only God is the creator, and there was nothing before God; which reason tells us is ‘creation ex nihilio.’ Because the ECF believed in one God, they knew they would never become God.

In my research I have NEVER found an ECF before Athanasius who denied that we were to become what Christ is/was. Thus if Christ is fully divine, we are to become fully divine. One could argue that Christ was so clearly subordinate to the Father before Nicea that us becoming what those folks believed Christ to be is not problematic. I think Greg Stafford would make such an argument if he has not already, but I doubt a Catholic would. The truth IMO is that Christ is subordinated to the Father, pre-Nicea in ways He is not after the first 4 councils, but I would not argue that the ECF before Nicea believed that Christ was not fully divine

Because the ECF knew they could not become God, because there is only one God; reason would dictate they either believed Christ was not God and we could become exactly what he was; or Christ was God and we could not become exactly what he was.

I will offer the most clear statement of what this limitation is. Deification and Grace by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating boldly declares that we are to become gods. He goes farther than all Catholics I have met on or off-line save one (who is not Catholic any longer, and not a LDS). But, he will not let the ECF’s say what I think they actually say. The passage that best illustrates the gymnastics necessary to do this is here:
I believe Keating well represents one way of reading of Athanasius in light of other passages where Athanasius does limit the final state of deified man. When Athanasius say, that Christ became man so that men can become gods, perhaps he means it in the STILTED way Keating thinks he does.
But to read the “graced exchange” offered in Irenaeus and many previous ECF with the idea of becoming (or participating) in two separate and distinct ways across a clearly parallel statement is IMO doing violence to the witness of the ECF.
So, you asked what I meant by “limited deification” being the Catholic view verses “full deification” being my view. I hope I have answered well.

Using your terms, limited deification is what the early Church taught and continues to teach through the Catholic and other Orthodox Churches. Full deification could only exist in a polytheistic religion which Christianity is not. Full deification is an invention of Mormonism and not a restoration of the Church started by Jesus Christ.

As a LDS, I do not believe Christ’s divinity is a product of his substance. I do not embrace a dual natured Christ that I do not fine illustrated in the Bible. So, men becoming gods because we are lifted to divinity through God, Father(union/fount), Son(atonement), Spirit(witness…) does not need to result in some dual natured thing

Being God is a product of his substance and Christ is of that one divine substance. Man is not of that substance. The dual nature of Christ is illustrated in the Bible.

Let me restate:
If anybody can find a place where and ECF before Athanasius limits the final state of deified man, I will be surprised and I will read. NOBODY EVER DOES!

There is only one God and we can never become him (we are created). This is clearly taught before Athanasius.

 

[Stephen168]

I think that many LDS focus on attempting to find various “restored” or uniquely LDS beliefs and practices in the ancient Judeo-Christian world to prove that these beliefs were indeed lost and Joseph Smith and others restored them. ** There is absolutely no evidence of a unified Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints, no evidence of a group of Christians that possessed these beliefs that LDS apologists attempt to find anciently. ** This has been my issue with LDS apologetics lately. I also find that many of the things that LDS view as being “restored”, such as revelation, prophets, etc, are actually found in Catholicism/Orthodoxy, and were never lost, or claimed to have been lost or ended.

 

[KathleenGee]

We are to follow the Apostles who were chosen by Christ to found His Church and to follow their Traditions of practice.

To wait until 30 to baptize because that is more Christ like is placing someone at the same plane and mission as Christ.

Christ began His ministry at 30. People do not start serving and being followers of Christ until they are 30.

The water of baptism was used signifying Christ’s mission was to wash us of Original Sin and its power over us, Christ becoming the only atonement or appeasement of God’s justice for sin, and water that nurtures life, to symbolize for us the coming new life in Christ.

When Christ entered into heaven at His ascension, the Holy Spirit was released and empowered the Apostles and their followers at Pentecost…the beginning of the Church.

Subsequently the life of the Church is not men, but Jesus Christ Himself in union with the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit as One God. Our Church is administered by Ecclesiastics, but the life, spirit, strength of the Church does not come from them but from God alone.

You look too much at man, including clerics, you will find a sinner in need of Christ.

 

[andrewstx]

That is true. Some Western Churches do have a font for this too.

Mormons as usual have a different meaning for font. In Mormon chapels and temples a “font” is more like an indoor Jacuzzi for submersion style baptisms.

AFAIK all Mormon chapels have them and don’t actually use rivers or ponds.

 

[SpeSalvi]

^not all, but a fair amount do. All stake centers do, and a few regular church buildings as well, but as far as I’m aware not all of them have fonts.

 

[andrewstx]

^not all, but a fair amount do. All stake centers do, and a few regular church buildings as well, but as far as I’m aware not all of them have fonts.

I think you are correct and come to think of it I have only been in stake centers in medium sized cities. They have one stake center, but all the wards use that stake center.

 

[Transalosania]

Why do woman want to be priests???
So the church is under such heavy attacks from every angle Feminism, Same sex marriage, Euthanasia, Abortion and now women priests.
it really is sad.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Why do woman want to be priests???
So the church is under such heavy attacks from every angle Feminism, Same sex marriage, Euthanasia, Abortion and now women priests.
it really is sad.

Did you mean to post on the Mormonism Restoration thread?

 

[Transalosania]

Did you mean to post on the Mormonism Restoration thread?

No sorry

 

[Porknpie]

We are to follow the Apostles who were chosen by Christ to found His Church and to follow their Traditions of practice.

To wait until 30 to baptize because that is more Christ like is placing someone at the same plane and mission as Christ.

Christ began His ministry at 30. People do not start serving and being followers of Christ until they are 30.

The water of baptism was used signifying Christ’s mission was to wash us of Original Sin and its power over us, Christ becoming the only atonement or appeasement of God’s justice for sin, and water that nurtures life, to symbolize for us the coming new life in Christ.

When Christ entered into heaven at His ascension, the Holy Spirit was released and empowered the Apostles and their followers at Pentecost…the beginning of the Church.

Subsequently the life of the Church is not men, but Jesus Christ Himself in union with the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit as One God. Our Church is administered by Ecclesiastics, but the life, spirit, strength of the Church does not come from them but from God alone.

You look too much at man, including clerics, you will find a sinner in need of Christ.

And what is really interesting is that the average age in the time of Christ was 28 years old.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy