Mormonism; there are many ways of proving it wrong.

[ricko]

That is why it is good to have ex-Mormons around. Thanks.
Now we are back to the Mormon understanding of Baptism being irrational, and another Mormon caught with their ‘truth’ around their ankles.

I’m shocked! The understanding of the effects of baptism is basic to any religion. I can’t believe that Parker got that wrong. How many other things has he got wrong that has slipped by us?

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is why it is good to have ex-Mormons around. Thanks.
Now we are back to the Mormon understanding of Baptism being irrational, and another Mormon caught with their ‘truth’ around their ankles.

What PakerD said is also mormon teaching. That is, at baptism they believe covenants with God are made. Though, I always understood this covenant to be with God the Father, not Jesus.

There should be an ‘and’ in there, mormons believe baptism is a covenant and remits sins.

I don’t know why ParkerD would not believe this. Every child is taught it before they are baptized. I can only think the word “remission” has been redefined.

 

[dianaiad]

I noticed you made no attempt to refute it.

I don’t need to. You made the claim, you support it. My observation that it was an unsupported, bald, statement is simply noting the logical fallacy you were commiting.

Nope, you made the claim. You prove it.

The Mormon understanding of baptism is irrational.
Mormonism wants baptism to forgive sin, but not believe in the sin it is removing. Taking one from column A and one from column B gets an irrational mess, which is Mormon theology.

Stephen, your method of discourse is such that I’m going to fall back on absolute rhetorical debate rules, with all the rules of logic intact.

One of those is, he who makes the claim is responsible for providing the evidence.

 

[dianaiad]

Good for you. Obviously you raised them right. Congrats!

Thank you. I raised them Mormon. (ducking…)

 

[ParkerD]

That is why it is good to have ex-Mormons around. Thanks.
Now we are back to the Mormon understanding of Baptism being irrational, and another Mormon caught with their ‘truth’ around their ankles.

Steven,
I had already posted a reply much earlier, from which this discussion has ensued.

My earlier reply:

Stephen,
…We might as well take a look at Acts 2:37-38, “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

The word “remission” is used here rather than the word “forgiveness”. “Remission” means that a penalty that would otherwise be applicable, has been paid or is no longer required. The “forgiving” was done after a person has repented. People forgive each other, and God forgives the person who had done a wrong thing.

The “remission” was done by Christ through His atoning sacrifice. A person is baptized unto the “remission” of sins, meaning to have the penalty of their sins remitted (paid by someone else–Christ–and no longer required of that person).

So four steps have happened. The person has felt inclined toward repentance, they have repented, they have received forgiveness, and the fourth step is that they receive a “remission” of their sins by being baptized. They also make important covenants by being baptized.

Of course baptism is essential after belief and after repentance by the person who wants to receive the great joy and peace of the gift of the Holy Ghost in their life.

Your reply was that the words “forgiveness” and “remission” are synonymous. I disagree that they are completely “like” words, meaning that they can be used interchangeably at any point and still give exactly the same meaning.

When one repents, who does the forgiving?

Answer: God the Father, and also the person must forgive themselves and if they harmed others with their sin then hopefully they have asked forgiveness from those others and been forgiven by them also.

When one repents, who does the remitting?

Answer: Christ, through his infinite sacrifice for humankinds’ sins on condition of their repentance.

When one is baptized, their sins are not remitted into the future unless they continue to repent. They obtain no forgiveness for future sins at the point of baptism. They have accessed Christ’s grace and atonement by repenting of whatever sins they needed to repent of before being baptized, and been forgiven because of their repentance. Then, having been forgiven, they also would want to bring the Savior’s atonement into their lives on a continuing basis for their future, to have His power and grace of “remitting” their sins continue to be available as they continue to repent when they make mistakes. They show a willingness to enter into a covenant to do this very thing, and they make that covenant by being baptized.

If you make “forgiveness” into the same word as the word “remission”, then I am left to ask, “In your mind, why does the New Testament use both words?”

 

[ParkerD]

Stephen,
I think I should add a follow up comment.

When a person makes the covenant of baptism, they are covenanting with Christ and receive a promise from Him that He will guide them in their steps toward becoming “like Him.” They clearly will need a great deal of repentance during their life, a great deal of changing, a sanctification process that make them into a different person than when they started out in that process. Baptism says they have put their heart and their willingness into the “hands” of Christ so that He can guide them in continuing to change for the better throughout their life. They have made a complete, firm, demonstrated commitment, and have done that by being baptized.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m shocked! The understanding of the effects of baptism is basic to any religion. I can’t believe that Parker got that wrong. How many other things has he got wrong that has slipped by us?

Rick,
Please let me know if it has not been made clear as to my beliefs (corresponding to Mormon beliefs) about the reasons and the effects of baptism, and the difference between the word “forgiveness” and the word “remission”, which I have attempted to explain a couple of times now in this particular thread. I didn’t “get it wrong.” I had already talked about baptism for the remission of sins. It is a clear concept, taught repeatedly in the New Testament. Baptism enters into a covenant, as also taught repeatedly in the New Testament. I think baptism by submersion in the water is much more meaningful than baptism by sprinkling, so I was glad when Zaffiroborant said that some do that as their basic approach, but the commitment part of it is also very important–a great blessing to humankind.

 

[Religio71]

Rick,
Please let me know if it has not been made clear as to my beliefs (corresponding to Mormon beliefs) about the reasons and the effects of baptism, and the difference between the word “forgiveness” and the word “remission”, which I have attempted to explain a couple of times now in this particular thread. I didn’t “get it wrong.” I had already talked about baptism for the remission of sins. It is a clear concept, taught repeatedly in the New Testament. Baptism enters into a covenant, as also taught repeatedly in the New Testament. I think baptism by submersion in the water is much more meaningful than baptism by sprinkling, so I was glad when Zaffiroborant said that some do that as their basic approach, but the commitment part of it is also very important–a great blessing to humankind.

So Parker, baptism does not obtain any forgiveness from God? It is just that the penalty of sin is gone?

Also fyi, we do not baptize by “sprinkling”. We baptize by pouring and immersion.

 

[Religio71]

also, what does the Greek “aphesis” mean?

 

[Religio71]

searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=859

 

[ParkerD]

So Parker, baptism does not obtain any forgiveness from God? It is just that the penalty of sin is gone?

Also fyi, we do not baptize by “sprinkling”. We baptize by pouring and immersion.

Religio71,
No–the forgiveness comes because the person has repented. A person who does not repent but is baptized, is not forgiven. Their baptism was to no avail if they did not repent.

The remission of sins, the taking of the penalty of sin upon His own Person by Jesus Christ, comes through repentance and baptism, because He knows that a commitment is necessary on the part of the person who has repented, so that their repentance is complete and will be lasting. Receiving baptism shows that commitment, and shows a life-long and eternal covenant with Jesus Christ to keep repenting. Christ keeps remitting the penalties as the person keeps repenting of their sins, and keeps seeking to do better in their lives as a person who has really taken upon themselves the name of Christ and committed to keep His commandments.

 

[Stephen168]

If you make “forgiveness” into the same word as the word “remission”, then I am left to ask, “In your mind, why does the New Testament use both words?”

Forgiveness is an English word while remission is from Latin. It depends on which version of the Bible you are using. The English Standard Version New Testament doesn’t use remission at all. The words are synonymous.

 

[ParkerD]

Forgiveness is an English word while remission is from Latin. It depends on which version of the Bible you are using. The English Standard Version New Testament doesn’t use remission at all. The words are synonymous.

Stephen,
You get to choose which translation you want to use, I suppose, which implies trusting the translators and their judgement. I have explained why I think the words have different connotations as used in the New Testament. I doubt that in the originally transcribed forms, each word was the same word when it was translated to mean “forgiveness” versus when the original was translated to mean “remission.” (We could demonstrate the “yes” or “no” of that, using resources available on the internet.) I have not the slightest question about it. You can choose to believe however you want. I hope I have clarified that there can be a different approach than yours to the question. I personally think it is an important difference, but I can see why you and the translators you trust would make no distinction because they would see no distinction, and it would teach what they wanted to teach to offer no distinction in their translation.

 

[Stephen168]

When a person makes the covenant of baptism, they are covenanting with Christ …

As a Catholic I believe this, too. Baptism is the new circumcision into the New Covenant for the forgiveness of the sin of Adam. Therefore, infant baptism is rational (We want them to be in the covenant as soon as possible and the old circumcision was at 8 days old) We baptize in living water.

The Believer’s Baptism Protestants see baptism as a profession of faith in Christ, so baptizing when one is old enough to make a profession of faith is rational.

Mormons believe baptism is for the forgiveness/remission of sin and entering into a Covenant with Christ.

I can now see why a Mormon would get baptized so they can enter a covenant, but why wait until eight years old?

 

[ParkerD]

As a Catholic I believe this, too. Baptism is the new circumcision into the New Covenant for the forgiveness of the sin of Adam. Therefore, infant baptism is rational (We want them to be in the covenant as soon as possible and the old circumcision was at 8 days old) We baptize in living water.

The Believer’s Baptism Protestants see baptism as a profession of faith in Christ, so baptizing when one is old enough to make a profession of faith is rational.

Mormons believe baptism is for the forgiveness/remission of sin and entering into a Covenant with Christ.

I can now see why a Mormon would get baptized so they can enter a covenant, but why wait until eight years old?

Stephen,
In my mind, eight years old is a pretty young age for someone to make a commitment of belief and of a determination to be faithful to the end of their life, but yet when I was eight years old, I remember feeling that I was sincerely making that kind of commitment and covenant, and I didn’t think I was too young to do it. When my youngest daughter was baptized, it didn’t seem like she was too young to make that kind of a commitment, and so it has been with each of my children. Eight years old seems like a “right age” for someone to be making a knowing, believing, self-chosen decision to be baptized. The parents may urge the child to be baptized, but they shouldn’t force it on them and the bishop interviews the child to see whether they are making a knowing, informed and self-chosen decision to be baptized. It seems like a “right age” for this kind of decision, in my way of thinking and in my experience.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
In my mind, eight years old is a pretty young age for someone to make a commitment of belief and of a determination to be faithful to the end of their life, but yet when I was eight years old, I remember feeling that I was sincerely making that kind of commitment and covenant, and I didn’t think I was too young to do it. When my youngest daughter was baptized, it didn’t seem like she was too young to make that kind of a commitment, and so it has been with each of my children. Eight years old seems like a “right age” for someone to be making a knowing, believing, self-chosen decision to be baptized. The parents may urge the child to be baptized, but they shouldn’t force it on them and the bishop interviews the child to see whether they are making a knowing, informed and self-chosen decision to be baptized. It seems like a “right age” for this kind of decision, in my way of thinking and in my experience.

Baptizing at eight years old seems to be arbitrary. It there a biblical reference for this?

 

[Religio71]

Baptizing at eight years old seems to be arbitrary. It there a biblical reference for this?

it’s a latter day revelation.

 

[Jerusha]

It is not arbitrary.

We all know that every eight-year old is identical to every other eight-year old. Therefore, eight is the proper age.

Developmental psychology proves that intellectual, spiritual, moral, emotional and social development in all children is identical at the age of eight. I know this to be true, the spirit has told me so. The Mormon God stamps them out with his cookie cutter, from the unformed stuff of preconceived spirit-children. Any data which does not support this was collected by biased data-hunters, and will be ignored.

 

[ParkerD]

Baptizing at eight years old seems to be arbitrary. It there a biblical reference for this?

Stephen,
Although Religio has answered, I think it would be well to consider context and normal child development for answering your question.

There is not a Biblical reference, but I think it is logical that God would expect humankind to be able to determine at what age a child has cognitive development and independent thinking to the extent of being able to make independent choices and be held accountable to a certain extent for those choices. If you research child development, I think you will find that this happens at about age eight, normally, for children whose parents have played an active role in helping them become self-assured and able to trust their own decision making skills.

Obviously, parents have a responsibility in this regard, and because parents are different as to whether they do this or not, and because children do develop these kinds of skills at different rates of development, child development literature would say that age eight is an average age for this to occur and not the definitive age for each and every child.

 

[ParkerD]

It is not arbitrary.

We all know that every eight-year old is identical to every other eight-year old. Therefore, eight is the proper age.

Developmental psychology proves that intellectual, spiritual, moral, emotional and social development in all children is identical at the age of eight. I know this to be true, the spirit has told me so. The Mormon God stamps them out with his cookie cutter, from the unformed stuff of preconceived spirit-children. Any data which does not support this was collected by biased data-hunters, and will be ignored.

Now there’s some irony for us. Two people typing at the same time, thinking rationally and reasonably and coming to different conclusions.

Jerusha, maybe you could explain what you would do if you were presented with the opportunity of figuring out when each child reaches an age of “intellectual, spiritual, moral, emotional and social development” such that they are ready to make independent choices in their life and be held accountable (whether by their parents or by others) for those choices. It need not be a slam. Really think about it, and explain in your opinion how you would administer the “figuring out” process for each and every child, since you apparently don’t think their age has anything to do with it.