Mormons: How do you define a "Sacrament"?

[zerinus]

The scriptures you gave were mainly concerning the baptism by John the Baptist and there is a difference which I have already pointed out. I am happy to accept this as a difference in our beliefs. Now we have a reference point in our discussions. Thank you.

I see the purpose of this discussion as more than just determining where we agree and where we disagree. I see it also as a way of determining who has a stronger theological basis for their respective beliefs. On the subject of baptism, the scriptures make it indisputably clear that all baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins, of John or Jesus alike:

Acts 2:

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.

This is not about the baptism of John, it is about the baptism of Jesus, and it says that repentance must precede that baptism. If that requirement is not fulfilled, it stands to reason that the baptism also will not be efficacious. And as far as the gift of the Holy Ghost is concerned, the scriptures make is abundantly clear that it is a separate sacrament and is not automatically received by baptism:

Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

---

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I really don’t think the above verses need any commentary or explanation. The meaning is clear that the Holy Spirit is received by a separate sacrament of the laying on of hands, not by or at baptism. If this is what Catholic theology teaches (and I am not sure that it does, because other Catholics have disagreed with you on it), then Catholic theology must surely be in error. And if the above scripture was not enough, here is another one:

Acts 19:

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And after their baptism] when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Surely, these verses make it clear beyond any reasonable doubt that baptism and the laying on of hands are two separate ordinances, and that the gift of the Holy Ghost comes by the latter ordinance and not by the former. Hence we can understand the language of Paul when he says:

Hebrews 6:

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

They are listed as two separate sacraments. Remission of sins comes by baptism; gift of the Holy Spirit comes by the laying on of hands; and we don’t get them mixed up. If language means anything, if the scriptures mean anything, that is what the above scriptures mean.

Yes. And newness of life throuh the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.

Not so. See above.

In the Catholic faith, we also receive the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation, but it is a strengthening of the gift we received in baptism. We receive seven specific gifts from the Holy Spirit which help us live out our Christian life.

Maybe that is what the Catholic faith teaches; only too bad it has no scriptural support.

Yes they could. Only God truly knows their hearts.

Exactly; and if they are acting in hypocrisy before God, their baptisms availeth nothing.

Yes, zerinus, you keep repeating this. I understand that this is what you believe and, again, am willing to accept this as a difference in our beliefs. Again, at least we know this difference. As you are aware, we would completely disagree.

And as you would expect, of course so do we.

Well, one thing we would have in common is that fact that we can loose our state of grace and therefore must “persevere to the end” with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you. I am glad there is something we can agree on. I wish we could agree about the rest!

Our view concerning the nature of Eucharist and its entire purpose would be miles apart, . . .

Possibly; I wonder which one is closer to the truth!

 

[SteveVH]

I see the purpose of this discussion as more than just determining where we agree and where we disagree. I see it also as a way of determining who has a stronger theological basis for their respective beliefs. On the subject of baptism, the scriptures make it indisputably clear that all baptism is unto repentance for the remission of sins, of John or Jesus alike:

Acts 2:

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.

I have no issue with one repenting prior to their baptism. It would be a very good thing in the case of an adult. Peter should have been calling them to repentance and to baptism; it makes perfect sense. Take a closer look at the rest of the verse you cited:

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.

This verse ties the gift of the Holy Ghost to baptism as well as for the remission of sins. But this is where the differences will run even deeper. The action of God in the sacraments means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all present in each and every sacrament. Yes, baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than baptism by water, I have done both, but the Holy Spirit is still present and active in the the sacrament of baptism. Yes, we as Catholics believe that we receive the Holy Spirit in a special way through the sacrament of Confirmation, but that does not negate the work nor the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism.

It is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us at baptism, cleansing us of all of our sins and breathing new life into our soul, life which was missing. Yes the Father and the Son are also present; where one is the others are also, but they act through the Holy Spirit. I hope this helps you understand. A sacrament is not just some ritual, it is the very life of God actively working in us to produce something new and beautiful and this all requires the work of the Holy Spirit. The work is from the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is why we are baptized in their Name.

This is not about the baptism of John, it is about the baptism of Jesus, and it says that repentance must precede that baptism. If that requirement is not fulfilled, it stands to reason that the baptism also will not be efficacious. And as far as the gift of the Holy Ghost is concerned, the scriptures make is abundantly clear that it is a separate sacrament and is not automatically received by baptism:

Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

---

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

I really don’t think the above verses need any commentary or explanation. The meaning is clear that the Holy Spirit is received by a separate sacrament of the laying on of hands, not by or at baptism. If this is what Catholic theology teaches (and I am not sure that it does, because other Catholics have disagreed with you on it), then Catholic theology must surely be in error. And if the above scripture was not enough, here is another one:

I would agree that the verses need no explanation. It makes perfect sense in light of the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. The early Catholic Church did what the modern Catholic Church does today. To become a new Christian, they would be required to receive the Sacraments of Initiation; Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist. To lay hands on one who had been baptised in order to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit and be strengthened in their faith is exactly what happens at every single Easter Vigil in nearly every parish in the world. This is why the two seem so closely tied. They are. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Sacraments of Initiation are all three given to infants.

The Holy Spirit is not relegated to function in only one sacrament. Each sacrament has its own special purpose and function, but they all derive their power from one source, the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. It is by the Holy Spirit that the common elements of bread and wine become the body and blood of our Lord. It is the Holy Spirit who annoints a priest or deacon, just as He annointed Jesus at His baptism. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit that binds our marriages. It is the presence of the Holy Spirit that cleanses our souls during Reconciliation. Where God is present, He acts through the Holy Spirit.

 

[zerinus]

I have no issue with one repenting prior to their baptism. It would be a very good thing in the case of an adult. Peter should have been calling them to repentance and to baptism; it makes perfect sense.

It is much more than a “very good thing”. It is a requirement. Forgiveness or remission of sins in fact comes because of repentance. It is the repentance that brings about the forgiveness, not the mere act of baptism by itself. Repentance without baptism can bring forgiveness, but baptism without repentance will not:

Luke 17: 3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Acts 5: 31 Him [Christ] hath God exalted . . . to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8: 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

Take a closer look at the rest of the verse you cited:

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.

This verse ties the gift of the Holy Ghost to baptism as well as for the remission of sins.

It does, but how? You are ignoring one the most elementary rules of scripture exegesis: you do not interpret scripture in isolation. You do not take a verse out of the Bible, isolate it from its context, or indeed from the rest of the biblical text, and then interpret it as thou it exists by itself. You look at the other passages in the Bible that has a bearing on the subject. The gift of the Holy Ghost does indeed follow baptism as Peter says; but not automatically, as the other scriptures I had cited make clear; it comes by the sacrament of the laying on of hands.

But this is where the differences will run even deeper. The action of God in the sacraments means that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all present in each and every sacrament. Yes, baptism in the Holy Spirit is different than baptism by water, I have done both, but the Holy Spirit is still present and active in the the sacrament of baptism. Yes, we as Catholics believe that we receive the Holy Spirit in a special way through the sacrament of Confirmation, but that does not negate the work nor the presence of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism. . . .

I entirely agree that the Holy Spirit is operative and active in all the sacraments, and indeed in all the actions, activities, and aspects of Church life; but that is entirely different thing from the sacrament of the conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. That is when the Holy Ghost itself is given to the individual to be his constant companion for the rest his life in the Church. That is a separate sacrament that is different from, and has nothing to do with baptism of water that precedes it.

 

[KathleenGee]

Repentance…we believe it is an ongoing relationship with Christ…

 

[KathleenGee]

The laying on of heavens is done in both confirmation and Holy Orders. It is also this laying on of hands by the apostles on their appointed bishops and the transmission of faith through the Magesterium of the Church, that we have the tradition of understanding of Christ.

There is no break. And this is the flaw of Mormonism is that it is denying the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit down through the ages.

 

[SteveVH]

It is much more than a “very good thing”. It is a requirement. Forgiveness or remission of sins in fact comes because of repentance. It is the repentance that brings about the forgiveness, not the mere act of baptism by itself. Repentance without baptism can bring forgiveness, but baptism without repentance will not:

Interesting. You claim that repentance without baptism can bring forgiveness, but baptism without repentance will not. May I ask you what you believe is the purpose of baptism? Some posts back you claimed it was for remission of sins, but it doesn’t look like that is really necessary as long as we repent. What does baptism do that repentance cannot do? Thanks.

It does, but how? You are ignoring one the most elementary rules of scripture exegesis: you do not interpret scripture in isolation. You do not take a verse out of the Bible, isolate it from its context, or indeed from the rest of the biblical text, and then interpret it as thou it exists by itself. You look at the other passages in the Bible that has a bearing on the subject. The gift of the Holy Ghost does indeed follow baptism as Peter says; but not automatically, as the other scriptures I had cited make clear; it comes by the sacrament of the laying on of hands.

Thanks for the lesson in exegesis, zerinus. In the immediate context of the verse you cited, the subject is baptism and the Holy Spirit is clearly connected:

"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.",

Now, if there were no other verses in scripture relating the Holy Spirit to baptism I might agree with you. But there are:

“But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:4-7)

"Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit". (John 3:5)

When baptizing adults, we also place requirements of repentance and faith upon those seeking to enter the Church. In fact, the process of initiation into the Church can take several years. The baptism of an adult normally takes place at Easter Vigil which means that they have gone through the season of Lent, an entire season of repentance. The point is, with an adult it makes perfect sense that the person should desire it, should be spiritually disposed to receive it and have faith in the God in which he is to be baptized.

With an infant, obviously, no repentance is necessary. What is necessary is to raise the child in the faith in order for the baptismal graces to bloom, so to speak. They receive the newness of life in Christ, something that was missing due to original sin. Even Christ Himself says that no one can enter the kingdom of God without baptism. Why would we withhold it from our children?

I entirely agree that the Holy Spirit is operative and active in all the sacraments, and indeed in all the actions, activities, and aspects of Church life; but that is entirely different thing from the sacrament of the conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. That is when the Holy Ghost itself is given to the individual to be his constant companion for the rest his life in the Church. That is a separate sacrament that is different from, and has nothing to do with baptism of water that precedes it.

If you are tying to say that there is a difference between the sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation, you will get no argument from me. The focus of the sacrament of Confirmation is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of confirming the faith into which we were baptised. Again, this does not diminish the role or necessity of the Holy Spirit in baptism. It actually completes our baptismal graces.

 

[zerinus]

Interesting. You claim that repentance without baptism can bring forgiveness, but baptism without repentance will not. May I ask you what you believe is the purpose of baptism? Some posts back you claimed it was for remission of sins, but it doesn’t look like that is really necessary as long as we repent. What does baptism do that repentance cannot do? Thanks.

Baptism, apart from effecting a remission of sins (provided it is preceded by faith and repentance), is the gateway by which we enter in or become a member of God’s kingdom (Church) on earth, and is a sign of our willingness to take upon us the name of Christ, and keep all of His commandments.

Thanks for the lesson in exegesis, zerinus. In the immediate context of the verse you cited, the subject is baptism and the Holy Spirit is clearly connected:

"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.",

Now, if there were no other verses in scripture relating the Holy Spirit to baptism I might agree with you. But there are:

Sure; and why are you ignoring the scriptures that I had given, and the strong bearing that they have on the subject?

"But when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:4-7)

"Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit". (John 3:5)

Okay, and how does that prove that the gift of the Holy ghost does not come by the separate sacrament of laying on of hands, and just happens at baptism—especially in the light of the scriptures I had cited?

When baptizing adults, we also place requirements of repentance and faith upon those seeking to enter the Church. In fact, the process of initiation into the Church can take several years. The baptism of an adult normally takes place at Easter Vigil which means that they have gone through the season of Lent, an entire season of repentance. The point is, with an adult it makes perfect sense that the person should desire it, should be spiritually disposed to receive it and have faith in the God in which he is to be baptized.

With an infant, obviously, no repentance is necessary.

Which is why with infants no baptism is necessary either.

What is necessary is to raise the child in the faith in order for the baptismal graces to bloom, so to speak. They receive the newness of life in Christ, something that was missing due to original sin. Even Christ Himself says that no one can enter the kingdom of God without baptism. Why would we withhold it from our children?

“No one” means adults, not infants; because as Jesus said, children are already saved: “for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. There is no record in the New Testament of infants being baptized, or commanded to be baptized.

If you are tying to say that there is a difference between the sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation, you will get no argument from me. The focus of the sacrament of Confirmation is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of confirming the faith into which we were baptized. Again, this does not diminish the role or necessity of the Holy Spirit in baptism. It actually completes our baptismal graces.

I never tried to “diminish the role of the Holy Spirit” in anything. What I am saying is that the sacrament of baptism and that of bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands) are two different things, and you don’t get them mixed up. That is what we believe, and we think that our position is biblical. We also believe repentance before baptism is a requirement, and we reject infant baptisms entirely.

 

[SteveVH]

Baptism, apart from effecting a remission of sins (provided it is preceded by faith and repentance), is the gateway by which we enter in or become a member of God’s kingdom (Church) on earth, and is a sign of our willingness to take upon us the name of Christ, and keep all of His commandments.

So, this is very similar to many Protestant’s approach to baptism. It is more of a proclamation by the person of a desire to belong to God’s Church than it is an action by God that effects an interior change. The focus is on the person’s role and worthiness, as opposed to God’s free gift of new life, regardless of our worthiness.

Sure; and why are you ignoring the scriptures that I had given, and the strong bearing that they have on the subject?

The fact that I did not copy your scripture verses does not mean that I have ignored them. You cited the following verses:

Luke 17: 3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Acts 5: 31 Him [Christ] hath God exalted . . . to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8: 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

I saw no connection between these verses and the sacrament of baptism. Is it your assessment that I am ignorant of the importance and necessity of repentance? Remember, you are speaking to a Catholic here. I am very familiar with repentance and make a regular habit of confessing my sins and doing penance as a part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. This would be something foreign to a Mormon, however it is a very important part of a Catholic life. So if you are trying to convince me that repentance is important, there is no need. The verses you cited, however, are not given in the context of the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no connection to your contention that the necessity of repentance is such that infants cannot, therefore, be baptized.

Okay, and how does that prove that the gift of the Holy ghost does not come by the separate sacrament of laying on of hands, and just happens at baptism—especially in the light of the scriptures I had cited?

And where have I ever said that that the gift of the Holy Spirit “just happens at baptism”? Have you actually read what I have written?

Originally Posted by SteveVH
If you are tying to say that there is a difference between the sacrament of Baptism and the sacrament of Confirmation, you will get no argument from me. The focus of the sacrament of Confirmation is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of confirming the faith into which we were baptised. Again, this does not diminish the role or necessity of the Holy Spirit in baptism. It actually completes our baptismal graces.

Which is why with infants no baptism is necessary either.

If you believe that original sin has no affect then I suppose your logic might work. We believe that each and every one of us is affected by original sin, from the time of our conception. Our human nature, due to the fall, results in us being born without original holiness and justice and without supernatural life, requiring the Holy Spirit to sanctify us and breathe new life into our soul. We have been over this more times then I care to mention and I realize that you do not believe this and that is fine zerinus. I just think that Mormon theology on this subject is lacking in understanding of the true nature of a sacrament. It means something different to you then it does to me which is the purpose of this thread. I am hoping that we will be able to better communicate knowing that the fact that we may use the same words does not mean that we understand or mean the same thing.

“No one” means adults, not infants; because as Jesus said, children are already saved: “for of such is the kingdom of heaven”. There is no record in the New Testament of infants being baptized, or commanded to be baptized.

Your statement that " ‘no one’ means adults ,not infants" is complete speculation on your part. When Jesus, speaking of children, states that “of such is the kingdom of God” he is not saying that they have no need for baptism. He is speaking of their personal innocence, trust and faith and urging us to be like them.

You know very well that there are more than a few verses which certainly imply infant baptism, those that speak of entire households being baptized, not to mention that Paul has said that baptism has replaced circumcision. I will not go to the trouble of quoting those here because I have already seen you reject them out of hand, so there is really no point. If you would like you can look them up yourself. The 16th chapter of Acts is a good place to start, as well as 1 Corinthians.

There is a very good reason, however, that more references are not made to infant baptism in the New Testament. It was a new religion and the majority of those they were converting were, necessarily, adults. As families were incorporated into the Church through the years we can see that infant baptism was going strong as early as the second century, as far as written evidence is concerned, and this was never mentioned as something new, but as the ordinary means of baptizing.

Continued…

 

[SteveVH]

Continued…

I never tried to “diminish the role of the Holy Spirit” in anything. What I am saying is that the sacrament of baptism and that of bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands) are two different things, and you don’t get them mixed up. That is what we believe, and we think that our position is biblical. We also believe repentance before baptism is a requirement, and we reject infant baptisms entirely.

Again, please read what I said. Who is mixing them up? To be a Christian means to be anointed and the One who anoints is the Holy Spirit. If baptism is required in order to be a Christian then the gift of the Holy Spirit must be present in baptism. This has nothing to do with receiving the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, or even Holy Orders, which also requires the laying on of hands. The Holy Spirit is present in each circumstance.

 

[zerinus]

So, this is very similar to many Protestant’s approach to baptism.It is more of a proclamation by the person of a desire to belong to God’s Church than it is an action by God that effects an interior change.The focus is on the person’s role and worthiness, as opposed to God’s free gift of new life, regardless of our worthiness.

Not at all. That is not what I said or implied. You ought to know by now that baptism in Mormonism is a true sacrament that is necessary for salvation. You are distorting what I said or believe in order to promote your own. That suggests that you do not have confidence in the correctness of your own position otherwise you would not need to do that.

The fact that I did not copy your scripture verses does not mean that I have ignored them.You cited the following verses:

Luke 17: 3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Acts 5: 31 Him [Christ] hath God exalted . . . to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 8: 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.

I saw no connection between these verses and the sacrament of baptism.

Firstly, there is a connection. They highlight the necessity of repentance as a prerequisite for forgiveness. You ultimately obtain forgiveness through repentance, and baptism without repentance will not bring forgiveness. Secondly, those were not the verses I had in mind. These were the verses I had in mind:

Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

---

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: ONLY they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Acts 19:

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And after their baptism] when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Hebrews 6:

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Why are you ignoring their relevance to the subject at hand?

Is it your assessment that I am ignorant of the importance and necessity of repentance? Remember, you are speaking to a Catholic here. I am very familiar with repentance . . .

What you appear to be ignorant of is that repentance is a necessary prerequisite for forgiveness, or remission of sins, hence of baptism.

. . . and make a regular habit of confessing my sins and doing penance as a part of the sacrament of Reconciliation. This would be something foreign to a Mormon, however it is a very important part of a Catholic life.

What is foreign to a Mormon? Why are you making unsubstantiated allegations against Mormonism that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion? It suggests that your theological position is coming great strain, and you are running out of valid answers.

So if you are trying to convince me that repentance is important, there is no need. The verses you cited, however, are not given in the context of the sacrament of baptism and therefore have no connection to your contention that the necessity of repentance is such that infants cannot, therefore, be baptized.

I cited them because you seemed to be questioning that repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness.

And where have I ever said that that the gift of the Holy Spirit “just happens at baptism”?Have you actually read what I have written?

Yes, that is what you actually said in another thread. Here is your quote:

In Catholicism, we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at Baptism, and the Spirit is strengthened in us and we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit (knowledge, wisdom, understanding, piety, counsel, fortitude, fear of the Lord), by the laying on of hands by the Bishop, a successor to the Apostles, at Confirmation.

Do you really want to deny it now?

And by the time I reached here I got bored replying to your post, and I am going to leave it at that at least for now.

 

[Ceil-1]

And by the time I reached here I got bored replying to your post, and I am going to leave it at that at least for now.

What a dodge!

You should be a politician, Z.

 

[zerinus]

What a dodge!

You should be a politician, Z.

What I said was the truth, no dodge!

 

[Ceil-1]

Correction. What you said was rude.

Most know the condescendng attitude conveyed in the majority of your posts is neither taught nor encouraged by the LDS church. But some don’t. So…

Don’t stop here. Keep going.

 

[apexviper]

I have noticed that the Mormon posters here have called both baptism and communion a sacrament. As a Catholic, I would call a sacrament an outward sign of an inward reality. The sacrament accomplishes what the symbol signifies. In baptism, for instance, the symbol of “water” signifies washing as well as dying and rising with Christ. In reality, our souls are washed clean from every stain of sin and we die to our old life and receive new life in Christ. Where we were spiritually dead, we become spiritually alive.

This seems to be an impediment in our discussions and I thought it would be good to understand each other’s meaning when speaking of sacraments.

Thanks.

It’s never been taught that baptism is called a sacrament. A sacrament is what it is, the partaking of bread and water as Christ commanded his apostles did in remembrance of his body (bread) and blood (water).

 

[zerinus]

Correction. What you said was rude.

I was actually trying to be as polite as possible.

Most know the condescendng attitude conveyed in the majority of your posts is neither taught nor encouraged by the LDS church. But some don’t. So…

Don’t stop here. Keep going.

So, when you have no answers to someone’s arguments, you resort to personal attacks. Was there anything else you wanted to tell me, while you are at it?

 

[Ceil-1]

I was actually trying to be as polite as possible.

Try a little harder.

I think you could use a little insight on the personal attack arguement. A little “examination of conscience”, as we call it.

People have answered all your “arguements”, ad infinitum, on this forum. You are not interested in understanding.

I have often wondered what the attraction was, for Mormons, and why they always go after the man.

I have figured out that it is because the religion feeds the man’s ego. What, with becoming a god, having one’s own planet, being the big shot, saving the world motif, who wouldn’t want that? I must admit, it makes for many LDS men doing a lot of good things for mankind. Steven Covey comes to mind. But, these are worldly pursuits. That is the number one problem with the LDS spirituality. It’s not truly spiritual in its aim, or goal. It is a false religion from a false prophet.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Zerinus:

“You do not take a verse out of the Bible, isolate it from its context, or indeed from the rest of the biblical text, and then interpret it as thou it exists by itself. You look at the other passages in the Bible that has a bearing on the subject.”

This coming from a Mormon?

 

[KathleenGee]

The Catholic Church is following Christ and His Apostles…

Christ began His ministry at His baptism by St. John the Baptist with his followers and witnesses, who in turn became followers of Christ with His apostles…we do not know if they were continually present with Christ as His chosen apostles were.

A theophany occured at Christ’s baptism – of God meeting us…God spoke at the Lord’s baptism and said, This is my Son for Whom I am well pleased. This confirmed the familial relationship between God the Father – and this is also the first public event in the New Testament akin to Moses and meeting God at Mt Sinai - - that God Himself announces now a familial relationship to us on earth. God the Father. And Jesus His Son.

The other revelation at the baptismal theophany is the presence of the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove over Christ and within the vocal presence of God the Father.

We are seeing a beginning to call of restoration to eventually become God’s sons and daughters through Christ, and with the Holy Spirit, brothers and sisters to each other.

No split up’s, no divisions…we are being all called to enter into this communion of family with the Divine.

We can reasonably assume that the Apostles were baptized at the beginning of their ministry. All except St. John were not present at Christ’s crucifixion, and the ending of His earthly mission when He said, ‘It is finished’. We are also to remain in unity with Christ and the path marked out for us and persevere to the end.

And this perseverance is also calling us to remain united together in Christ, no matter the cost, and to continually seek God’s will. We Catholics remain in our Church in spite of the troubles from within that come time to time. We don’t abandon ship.

The Apostles remained hiding in the Upper Room afraid. Mary and over a hundred other followers were in that room at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit came down and anointed them with tongues of fire to confirm them in Spirit and Truth, and they were able to go out to speak but be understood by also those who spoke foreign tongues.

We follow Christ and the Apostles by being baptized by water united with the mystical blood of Jesus Christ who lived, died and resurrected…Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, not the Church. Baptism incorporates us into the Body of Christ, and Confirmation – like Pentecost – confirms us in Christ and gives us spirit and truth to be faithful to the Lord in all times.

It is Christ Himself Who sustains the Catholic Church and not our carnal, ecclesiastical leadership. The Holy Spirit is always at work to guide the bishops throughout the world, and guide ecclesiastics to continually guide believers into a synchronized and universal pattern of belief that grows and guides, nurtures us as a pilgrim church, where we come to the Lord together.

Our destination as Church is with the Lord in the next life.

And while here on earth, Jesus’ constant prayer was that we would be one.

This past summer I came across a book written by a Protestant whose intent was to fairly and without bias present a basic presentation of all the churches present in the United States…written around 1970. The Catholic Church was placed after several other American churches. But when he came to our church, he did define it as the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. And he said this church did come at the time of the Apostles, and said there was so much history and documents that he fairly could not even present an adequate basic view.

And this is why I just step back at Mormons’ claims-- and you can see their beginning founders and followers directly define the ‘Roman Church’ as an abomination and corrupt to justify their existence. Joseph Smith was no scholar and practiced divination. He wanted to join a Methodist church after his revelations but they refused him.

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all prophets. We as Catholics only follow the directives of Jesus that He gave the apostles and no new doctrines.

 

[zerinus]

Try a little harder.

I think you could use a little insight on the personal attack arguement. A little “examination of conscience”, as we call it.

People have answered all your “arguements”, ad infinitum, on this forum. You are not interested in understanding.

I have often wondered what the attraction was, for Mormons, and why they always go after the man.

I have figured out that it is because the religion feeds the man’s ego. What, with becoming a god, having one’s own planet, being the big shot, saving the world motif, who wouldn’t want that? I must admit, it makes for many LDS men doing a lot of good things for mankind. Steven Covey comes to mind. But, these are worldly pursuits. That is the number one problem with the LDS spirituality. It’s not truly spiritual in its aim, or goal. It is a false religion from a false prophet.

I am here to debate theology, not attack individuals or their religions. But when somebody constantly shifts their positions, or claim they said things they didn’t, or didn’t say things when they did, or go off the beaten track and talk of things unrelated to the topic, it does, to put it mildly, gets to be “boring” after a while.

As for the rest of your comments, as I said, I am interested in discussing religion, theology and the gospel. I am not interested in attacking anyone personally, or their religions for that matter, which is exactly what you are doing. And I am not interested in replying to such attacks either. The assumption must be that you have no valid arguments to bring against Mormonism, otherwise you would.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think that Mormonism really is different and outside the chronological and licit development of Christianity evolved from the Apostolic Church. So different…