S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
amgid said:
Lemme ask. How come there is no NT of Jesus baptizing anyone? Seems this fact does not prove nor disprove anything regarding infant baptism.
- Status
Lemme ask. How come there is no NT of Jesus baptizing anyone? Seems this fact does not prove nor disprove anything regarding infant baptism.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Refresh my memory: is there any evidence from Scripture that the act of circumcising an infant in any way forgave that infant’s sins? That this was in any wise an ‘atonement’? To my knowledge, Original Sin is not something accepted in any branch of Judaism (sorry if I happen to be mistaken about that). In any case, circumcision was performed on boys only in the Jewish faith–which would leave female infants in perennial danger of hellfire. Ergo, parallels between circumcision and baptism ought not to be drawn too strongly, even though baptism IS compared to circumcision in some NT passages.
A
amgid
Guest
Scott Waddell:
amgid
Your flippant and hasty reply only reveals a multitude of ignorance. Jesus did baptise; but he delegated that task mainly to His disciples. He probably baptised his earliest disciples; and after that delegated the task of baptising others to them. That is recorded in the NT.
amgid
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
No it is not. John 3:22 for instance is ambiguous at best and John 4:2 is explicit he did not. is no need to characterize my question as flippant or hasty. They were neither. Just answer the question. “Probably” is not really going to make it when you are trying to persuade others to your side.
F
flameburns623
Guest
Sorry: there is a text of Scripture which explicitly says that Christ did NOT baptise anyone:
John 4:2:
2(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
You probably overlooked this passage.
A
amgid
Guest
Scott Waddell:
John 3:
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
The following suggest that Jesus himself did not baptize, but had delegated that task to His disciples:
John 4:
1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
From these we draw some obvious conclusions.
The following scripture clearly states that Jesus did baptize:
John 3:
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
The following suggest that Jesus himself did not baptize, but had delegated that task to His disciples:
John 4:
1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
3 He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.
From these we draw some obvious conclusions.
- Jesus had delegated the task of baptizing to his disciples, under His own supervision; therefore the baptisms performed by His disciples, under his authority, were as good as those performed by Himself; and therefore they were attributed to Him. Therefore your argument Jesus did not baptize (and the conclusion that you mean to draw from it) is a fundamentally flawed argument, because it makes no difference who did the baptizing. Whether it was done by Jesus Himself, or by His disciples, it is irrelevant. It was all done under the same authority, and therefore had the same validity.
- When it says that Jesus Himself did not baptize, it does not mean that He did not perform a single baptism in His life. It means that in the main He had delegated that task to His disciples. But it is extremely unlikely that He Himself never performed a single baptism in His life. He always led and taught by example. The most likely scenario is that He at first baptized His earliest disciples, and afterwards delegated that task to them to perform that ordinance for others.
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Just for fun, let’s give the argument a fighting chance and grant that John 3: 22 says that Jesus did baptize. Since John 4:2 explicitly says he did not and gives no indication why, the only conclusion possible would be that sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn’t. This shows what I said earlier (which was dismissed as flippant and hasty) that Jesus’ blessing children does not ajudicate one way or another on infant baptism.
Scott
C
Chris-WA
Guest
I agree that baptism is for the remission of sins. I also agree that babies have not sinned. But like it or not, all are born into a condition of origial sin (which I know LDS reject), which means we are not born into this world in the grace of God, but rather have a predisposition to sin. Grace was lost for all humans at the Fall, and it is baptism that gives us this grace and brings us into the family of God. Of course Christ made this all possible. We need this grace in order to overcome sin for the rest of our lives–we cannot do it on our own–it’s impossible.
This is not true, and you should know better than to make such a statement because it has been explained to you and others several times before. The Catholic Church, in its official world-wide Catechism, teaches quite the contrary.
I’m glad you recognize that Israel lived under a different law. Unfortunately, you have your laws mixed up. Circumcision was the sign of the covenant given to Abraham and all his decendants. It had nothing to do with “hardness of hearts.” It had everything to do with Abraham’s faithfulness.
What you are referring to is the Deuterocanical covenant delivered to Moses as a result of the golden calf indicent. This lesser law was given as a consequence for Isreal’s “hardness of heart,” which was their breaking of the Sinai covenant by their pagan worship and other vile practices. In effect, God put Israel on probabtion with the Dueterocanicial covenant, which instituted such things as divorce and remarriage, a complex animal sacrificial system to rid them of their addiction to Egypt’s gods, many dietary restrictions, etc. It also removed the priesthood from every tribe except the faithful Levites, and separated most of Israel from the sacred central sanctuary (precursor to the temple). This lesser law, by the way, is the one which the New Covenant invalidated as described by Paul in his writings.
I’ll go you one further. Baptism existed even before that in pagan cultures. John’s baptism did not really take away sin, nor did that of any pagan culture. Often God takes something ordinary and makes it extraordinary, which is what Christ did with baptism.
Good question. Christ did not need baptism. Not only did He have no sin, He had no original sin. He was baptised to be an example for others to follow, not because He needed it himself.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Actually, scripture says very little about infants in regards to anything. They simply didn’t write about specific children much. That doesn’t mean kids weren’t baptized. What we do have are “entire households” being baptized, and it’s certainly reasonable and logical to conclude that children and infants are part of households.
Again, not an indication of anything other than that John baptized adults.
Again, there is the “households” example. And your quotes in no way mean children weren’t baptized. You are making a conclusion and then interpreting scripture to fit that conclusion rather than reaching a conclusion based on scripture.
Were Jesus and His deciples baptizing at that time and in that area? I don’t know. If anything, these quotes mean little children are included, and not excluded, from any of the blessings that adults enjoy.
M
majick275
Guest
C
Chris-WA
Guest
Great article. I especially liked the St. Paul scripture quote linking baptism and circumcision, something we’ve been trying to demonstrate while others deny.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
For it to be a valid link women would need to have genital mutilation rituals too.
M
majick275
Guest
Why? God never comanded that. Throughout all scripture (very much so in LDS doctrine as well) God has differentiated between men and women in spiritual matters. The practices are not the same. LDS men can not enter into the covenant of marriage (required for exaltation) without holding the melchizadec priesthood. Obviously this is NOT required for LDS women.
Z
Zakuska
Guest
So then why do we Baptize women?
Whats good for the Gander is good for the Goose.
Actually it is… How else are LDS women able to “perform temple ordinances” for women? They have the priesthood by virtue of their husband.
Whats good for the Gander is good for the Goose.
Actually it is… How else are LDS women able to “perform temple ordinances” for women? They have the priesthood by virtue of their husband.
C
Chris-WA
Guest
That’s about the nuttiest thing I’ve read in a while. Why would you say such a thing?
M
majick275
Guest
Please show where THAT is official LDS doctrine.
A
allhers
Guest
Acts 3:37-39
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
M
majick275
Guest
I would submit this very PRO-LDS article as a refutation of that:
fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2004RadA.html
(scroll down to priesthood and patriarchy)
particularly this quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:
*Joseph Fielding Smith gave hopeful promise that "Women do not hold the priesthood, but if they are faithful and true, they will become priestesses and queens in the kingdom of God, and that implies that they will be given authority.
*
Z
Zakuska
Guest
Yes I post at fair.
Since a woman and a man become “one” at marriage. Does she not by vitue of being part of her husband hold the priesthood?
Yes… she is not to usurp authority over the man. But they are equal. But when all the curses are removed and she is enveiled that will change. As JSF intimates. When the world is ready for it (Go Womens Lib! )
1 Tim. 2: 12
Since a woman and a man become “one” at marriage. Does she not by vitue of being part of her husband hold the priesthood?
Yes… she is not to usurp authority over the man. But they are equal. But when all the curses are removed and she is enveiled that will change. As JSF intimates. When the world is ready for it (Go Womens Lib! )
1 Tim. 2: 12
M
majick275
Guest
Then you certainly don’t get the same thing out of the temple ceremony that the General authorities teach. Eve is given to Adam as a helpmeet. Eve doesn’t get a helpmeet. Adam makes his covenant with God, Eve makes her covenant with Adam. Men are anointed priests and kings to God, women are to become queens and priestesses to their husbands. The only “power” JFS refers to is to serve their husbands. Notice Adam is co-creator with Jesus of this world. Eve isn’t involved at all. That should teach you the LDS view of the next step in Etrnal Progression. (BTW the wives who are fully exalted get to share their exalted husband with other worthy women who will be given to him)
My mother is a “cafeteria” Mormon like this who maintains her womens lib view of heaven. I don’t see how she can do this as a temple worker. She just stays in denial and says her and my fathers kingdom will be different.
I look forward to the true kingdom of God where we will all be united and equal in the beatific vision. glorified creations whose existence gives glory to God forever. The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit one God forever.
- Status