Why not baptize children?

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

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.

Everything in scripture suggests that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of our own sins. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that baptism is for the removal of Adam’s “original sin”. Show me one scripture that supports that doctrine. There is not one scripture that says that baptism is for the removal of the “original sin”. There are plenty that say that it is for the remission of our own sins.

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.

Regardless of what is in the catechism, that would be the logical conclusion of that theological position. You have to make up your mind which side you want to jump. You can’t have it both ways.

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.

What I was referring to is that the law of circumcision was done away by the Atonement, just as the rest of the Mosaic law was done away. That is made clear enough in the NT.

I’ll go you one further. Baptism existed even before that in pagan cultures.

I have no idea what you are implying here, except that it is a red herring to divert the discussion into irrelevance. I gave you that as evidence that baptism did not replace circumcision, as you had stated, because it had existed among the Jews prior to that. It was an ordinance that the Jews recognized. It cannot be a replacement for the law of circumcision because it existed among the Jews before circumcision was done away.

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.

Unfortunately the scriptures disagree with you about that:

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judæa, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.Either John did preach (and perform) baptisms “for the remission of sins,” or he didn’t. You can’t have it both ways.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

If John’s baptism was nothing special, why did Jesus tell the scribes and Pharisees that the baptism of John came from God? Why did he tell the Jews that those who were baptize of him justified God?

Matthew 21:

24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

Mark 11:

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

Luke 7:

29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

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.

I bet you got that out of LDS scripture! The Book of Mormon says that. Does it say that in the Catholic catechism?

Actually, scripture says very little about infants in regards to anything. They simply didn’t write about specific children much.

They were “specific enough” to tell us that Jesus had special love for them, took them in His arms and bless them, rebuked His disciples who turned them away from Him, and told everyone that “of such is the kingdom of heaven” (without baptism). If He had commanded them to be baptized, it is very unlikely that no reference to it would have existed. On the other hand, there are plenty of references to the effect that baptism was unto repentance for the remission of sins, to be preceded by confession of sins. Show me what two month old infant ever did any of these.

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.

That has been discussed before. No need to comment.

John the Baptist only baptized adults—after they had “repented” and “confessed”. He never baptized infants. Said he to them: “… therefore bring forth fruit meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8). How can an infant "bring froth fruit meet for repentance "?

Again, not an indication of anything other than that John baptized adults.

Yea. You said it, and I believed it. That is an “indication” of far more. It is an indication that the prerequisite of baptism was “repentance,” “confession,” and “bringing forth fruit meet for repentance”. And everyone knows that an infant cannot do any of these things.

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.

Not true. See above.

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.

And that does not mean baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins:

Acts 22:

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.What two day old infant ever sinned that needed to be baptized?

amgid

 

[majick275]

The scriptures (the real ones) fully support the doctrine of original sin. Read it and see:

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#III

As previously posted they also make it clear that baptism is the NEW covenant that replaces circumcision. Jesus enabled that and John was specifically sent to prepare for Jesus. This baptism is not to be confused with jewish ritual washings that have been mistakenly touted as “proof” that baptism was practiced long before Christ came to Earth. Read the pentateuch for a detailed explanation of this. (This would also show the BoM fallacy of claiming pre-christian baptisms

That baptism is a special once in a lifetime occurence shows a difference between it and “ordinary” repentance which can absolve sins is indisputable. some early Christians had a hard time with this and tried to wait until close to death to be baptized thinking that was the only way to be sure they died free from sin. Obviously that heresy isn’t taught by either RCC or LDS.

I can think of quite a few 8 year olds who are just as sin free as an infant. Surely you don’t take the evangelical position that “sin is sin” and crying about not getting your way is no different than frand larceny. Baptism DOES wash away sin, original AND personal but it ALSO serves as entry into the covenant of God’s people. This is why it is done once even though most humans sin many times in their lives. We obviously need a process to repent and be forgiven of personal sin AFTER baptism. The RCC has the sacrament of reconciliation, The LDS has it’s own repentance process.

The truth is obvious here and does NOT involve JS or any other self proclaimed restorationist “prophet”. We have it from Christ himself.

 

[Zakuska]

Actually I have to disagree right here:

As previously posted they also make it clear that baptism is the NEW covenant that replaces circumcision. Jesus enabled that and John was specifically sent to prepare for Jesus. This baptism is not to be confused with jewish ritual washings that have been mistakenly touted as “proof” that baptism was practiced long before Christ came to Earth. Read the pentateuch for a detailed explanation of this. (This would also show the BoM fallacy of claiming pre-christian baptisms

Other wise Peter and Pauls statements make no sense.

1 Cor. 10: 2
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1 Pet 3
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even abaptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Not to mention the Catholic Church it’s self…

Archbishop MacEvilly in his exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, holds a different opinion. He paraphrases St. Paul’s text as follows: “Another argument in favor of the resurrection. If the dead will not arise, what means the profession of faith in the resurrection of the dead, made at baptism? Why are we all baptized with a profession of our faith in their resurrection?” The archbishop comments, as follows: “It is almost impossible to glean anything like certainty as to the meaning of these very abstruse words, from the host of interpretations that have been hazarded regarding them (see Calmet’s Dissertation on the matter). In the first place, every interpretation referring the words ‘baptized’, or ‘dead’ to either erroneous or evil practices, which men might have employed to express their belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, should be rejected; as it appears by no means likely that the Apostle would ground an argument, even though it were what the logicians call an argumentum ad hominem, on either a vicious or erroneous practice. Besides, such a system of reasoning would be quite inconclusive. Hence, the words should not be referred to either the Clinics, baptized at the hour of death, or to the vicarious baptisms in use among the Jews, for their departed friends who departed without baptism. The interpretation adopted in the paraphrase makes the words refer to the Sacrament of Baptism, which all were obliged to approach with faith in the resurrection of the dead as a necessary condition. ‘Credo in resurrectionem mortuorum’. This interpretation – the one adopted by St. Chrysostom–has the advantage of giving the words ‘baptized’ and ‘dead’ their literal signification. The only inconvenience in it is that the word resurrection is introduced. But, it is understood from the entire context, and is warranted by a reference to other passages of Scripture. For, from the Epistle of the Hebrews (vi, 2) it appears that a knowledge of the faith of the resurrection was one of the elementary points of instruction required for adult baptism; and hence the Scriptures themselves furnish the ground for the introduction of the word. There is another probable interpretation, which understands the words ‘baptism’ and ‘dead’ in a metaphorical sense, and refers them to the sufferings which the Apostles and heralds of salvation underwent to preach the Gospel to the infidels, dead to grace and spiritual life, with the hope of making them sharers in the glory of a happy resurrection. The word ‘baptism’ is employed in this sense in Scripture, even by our divine Redeemer Himself – ‘I have a baptism wherewith to be baptized’, etc. And the word ‘dead’ is employed in several parts of the New Testament to designate those spiritually dead to grace and justice. In the Greek, the words ‘for the dead’, uper ton nekron that is, on account of or, in behalf of the dead, would serve to confirm, in some degree, this latter interpretation. These appear to be the most probable of the interpretations of this passage; each, no doubt, has its difficulties. The meaning of the words was known to the Corinthians at the time of the Apostle. All that can be known of their meaning at this remote period, can not exceed the bounds of probable conjecture” (loc. cit., chap. xv; cf. also Cornely in Ep. I Cor.).

newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

 

[majick275]

Well with all due respect to the good archbishop, he does NOT speak for the RCC. In any case an analysis of his words that you quoted as well as your refenced scripture clearly shows a backward looking analagous approach being used to teach the benefits of baptism. The vicarious baptisms are strictly NT and refer to the unorthodox practice of SOME early unchatechized christians who mistakenly attempted to baptize dead relatives. Paul mentions this once and never endorses it. Jesus never taught it. I find it of interest that the BoM with it’s claimed “fullness of the gospel” never even mentions it. Why do you think that is?

 

[Zakuska]

Why mention it when Paul already does. It wasnt “lost”. Why restore it.

Its still in the Bible but lost to Christiainity.

 

[Zakuska]

Theres also mention of Baptisms for the Dead by the Apostles themselves in the Shepard of Hermas. Which was considered Scripture by many Early Christians.

CHAPTER XVI

“Explain to me a little further, sir,” I said. “What is it that you desire?” he asked. “Why, sir,” I said, "did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits? “They were obliged,” he answered, **“to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. **Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For,” he continued, “before a man bears the name of the Son of God s he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.” “Why, sir,” I asked, “did the forty stones also ascend with them out of the pit, having already received the seal?” “Because,” he said, “these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, after falling asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached it not only to those who were asleep, but themselves also gave them the seal of the preaching. Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God. For this reason also did they ascend with them, and were fitted along with them into the building of the tower, and, untouched by the chisel, were built in along with them. For they slept in righteousness and in great purity, but only they had not this seal. You have accordingly the explanation of these also.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm

Those before the flood had not the seal of baptism. He is teaching specifically that the Apostles themselves preached the Gospel to them in hades and performed baptisms for the dead, the seal was water. They preached and sealed those who beleived with water by proxy.

 

[Chris-WA]

Everything in scripture suggests that baptism is unto repentance for the remission of our own sins. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that baptism is for the removal of Adam’s “original sin”. Show me one scripture that supports that doctrine. There is not one scripture that says that baptism is for the removal of the “original sin”. There are plenty that say that it is for the remission of our own sins.

It is you who have added the word “own” in the phrase “remission of sins,” not the writers of scripture. Now let’s look at Romans Ch 5 vs 19:For just as through the disobedience of one person (Adam) the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one (Christ) the many will be made righteous.

Get that? We are made sinners because of the disobedience of Adam. That is original sin. So how do we receive this righteousness from Christ’s obedience on the cross? Read further in Romans Ch 6 vs 1-4:

What then shall we say? Shall we persist in sin that grace may abound? Of course not! How can we who died to sin yet live in it? Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

You see, it is baptism that not only removes our personal sins, but also removes the original sin of Adam, which he brought into the world and all inherit.

Regardless of what is in the catechism, that would be the logical conclusion of that theological position. You have to make up your mind which side you want to jump. You can’t have it both ways.

Some did see that as a logical conclusion, but that’s probably why the Catholic Church wants to make sure that we don’t condemn the unbaptized to hell for no fault of their own. It’s only logical that God in His infinite mercy would mercifully deal with the unbaptized due to no fault of their own.

What I was referring to is that the law of circumcision was done away by the Atonement, just as the rest of the Mosaic law was done away. That is made clear enough in the NT.

No, the entire Mosaic law was not done away with. It was fulfilled and perfected through the new covenant, but not destroyed. What was done away with were the Deuterocanical laws and the requirement for circumcision to enter the faith, which is what Paul is referring to when he says the “law” no longer applies. He doesn’t mean that the 10 Commandments no longer apply!

I gave you that as evidence that baptism did not replace circumcision, as you had stated, because it had existed among the Jews prior to that. It was an ordinance that the Jews recognized. It cannot be a replacement for the law of circumcision because it existed among the Jews before circumcision was done away.

Not so. Your point is nullified by St. Paul Himself in Colossians Ch 2 vs 11-12:

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Paul makes the connection that old circumcision has been replaced by the circumcision of Christ. What is the circumcision of Christ?–baptism! This is also the unanimous teaching of the church since the beginning, even up through the centuries among dissenters such as Luther and Calvin. A Jew became a member of the old covenant through circumcision. A Christian becomes a member of the new covenant through baptism.

 

[amgid]

tkdnick:

Maybe you could expound on this a little. The LDS I have had conversations with say that the bread and water served at sacrament meeting are only symbols so as to recall the covenants made with Christ. I’ve never had any of them say that ‘the sacrament’ actually “does” anything.

LDS do not believe in any kind of “transubstantiation,” in any shape or form. The bread and wine (water) are only symbolic, and only serve as emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ. This, however, does not mean that the sacrament doesn’t actually “do anything”. It “does” and awful lot! The most important things that it does is expressed in these verses of scripture.

3 Nephi 18:

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
I don’t know of anything more important that can be “done” to you than that you should have the Spirit of the Lord to always to be with you. Here is another important thing that the regular partaking of the Sacrament does to us:

D&C 59:

9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer, and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;
In other words, it enables us to keep ourselves “unspotted” from the world.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Of course the LDS “gift of the holy ghost” is supposed to “have his spirit to be with you” as long as you remain worthy.

Righteous behavior (with repentance when needed) would in LDS doctrine keep you unspotted as well.

I will not deny the importance to LDS of the symbolism present in the sacrament. But in Catholic terms it is closer to crossing yourself with holy water when entering church than the eucharistis celebration of the mass. (amgid, that’s not a criticism either, This is a practice that is widespread among catholics and spiritually important. It serves as a reminder and “renewal” of Baptism. LDS sacrament is taught as a renewal of batismal covenants yes?)

 

[Zakuska]

Correct.

 

[Servant1]

amgid:

This does not mean that infants were also baptized. In those days baptisms were performed by immersion. It would have been dangerous to baptize an infant.

Who says? Orthodox Churches baptize babies by immersion all the time and have for eons. Find one example of it ever being fatal or dangerous. Further, there’s no biblical documentation that all baptisms, including infants, were by immersion. Baptism by immersion was the norm, I agree. But neing the norm is not the same as being an absolute.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

It is you who have added the word “own” in the phrase “remission of sins,” not the writers of scripture…

If you genuinely believe that this is all sound doctrine, then good luck to you. I have nothing further to say.

amgid

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Of course the LDS “gift of the holy ghost” is supposed to “have his spirit to be with you” as long as you remain worthy.

That is true; but part of the “remaining worthy” bit is regular partaking of the Sacrament. It will be more difficult to “remain worthy” if you are not regularly partaking of the Sacrament. That is what the scripture means.

Righteous behavior (with repentance when needed) would in LDS doctrine keep you unspotted as well.

Again, yes; but the scripture says that in order to “keep ourselves more fully unspotted from the world” we must regularly partake of the Sacrament. “More fully” means that you can remain “unspotted” better by regularly partaking of the Sacrament than not.

I will not deny the importance to LDS of the symbolism present in the sacrament…

That misses the point. That was not the issue that I was addressing in my post; neither does it relate to the issue that the original poster had raised which I was responding to. The “importance to LDS of the symbolism” was not the subject of the discussion.

The original poster had implied that the fact that we do not believe in transubstantiation means that we cannot believe that partaking of the Sacrament literally “does something to us”. I was trying to inform him that you do not have to believe in transubstantiation in order to believe that partaking of the Sacrament “does something to you”.

He evidently thought that the only way that the Sacrament can “do something to you” is if you are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ (as the Catholics believe). I was trying to inform him that that need not be the case, for "It is the spirit that quickeneth {i.e. makes alive, gives life}; the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63).

I was trying to inform him that you can very much believe that the Sacrament can “do something to you” without you having to literally “eat” Christ with a knife and a fork, with salt and pepper on it to make it taste better, because “the flesh profiteth nothing”. It is “the Spirit that quickeneth”. (John 6:63.)

That is the issue that he had raised, and that is the issue that I was addressing. The “importance to LDS of the symbolism” was not the issue that was under discussion.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Then you don’t understand the Catholic definition of sacrament. Your own view of the LDS sacrament as expressed here does not show it “doing something” in the same sense as Catholic sacraments. There is no literal “change” if you will.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

Then you don’t understand the Catholic definition of sacrament. Your own view of the LDS sacrament as expressed here does not show it “doing something” in the same sense as Catholic sacraments. There is no literal “change” if you will.

Before I reply to your post, allow me first to say that I personally have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church. I am not “anti-Catholic,” in any sense of the term; and neither, I am pleased to say, is the LDS Church. When Pope John Paul II dies, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following announcement at the LDS general conference in front of millions of LDS (and non-LDS) viewers and listeners:

My beloved brothers and sisters, on behalf of the worldwide membership of this Church, I extend to our Catholic neighbors and friends our heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow. Pope John Paul II has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of Christianity, to lift the burdens of the poor, and to speak fearlessly in behalf of moral values and human dignity. He will be greatly missed, particularly by the very many who have looked to him for leadership.
This was a completely spontaneous, personal, heart felt expression by President Hinckley, without any prior warning and preparation. Later on the First presidency issues this more formal statement:

First Presidency Expresses Sympathy

At the beginning of the Saturday afternoon session, President Gordon B. Hinckley read the following statement:

"We join those throughout the world who mourn the passing of Pope John Paul II, an extraordinary man of faith, vision, and intellect, whose courageous actions have touched the world in ways that will be felt for generations to come.

“The Pope’s voice remained firm in defense of freedom, family, and Christianity. On matters of principle and morality he was uncompromising. On his compassion for the world’s poor, he has been unwavering.”
I doubt if there were many church leaders of other denominations who were as sympathetic to the Catholic Church on that occasion. So it is not out of any animosity towards the Catholic Church or Catholics in general that I express my disagreements with Catholic theology. But truth is truth, and it cannot be denied. The truth is that the doctrine of transubstantiation as taught by the Catholic Church is shot through. It is false. It is not biblical. The Bible makes that clear as the daylight is from the dark night:

John 6:

63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
The Bible teaches us that the Sacrament is nothing more or less than memorial of the suffering and death of Christ. It is done in “remembrance of Him”:

1 Corinthians 11:

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew {that is, symbolically} the Lord’s death till he come.
Modern LDS scripture likewise fully confirms this doctrine—the promise thereof being that we “will always have His Spirit to be with us”:

3 Nephi 18:

7 And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.

---

11 And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.
(Continued in the next post …)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previos post …)

This, however, does not mean that the Sacrament does not “do anything to us”. You don’t have to physically “eat” Christ with a knife and fork for it to “do something to you”. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is above all a spiritual experience. It is a spiritual feast. And its effects are also felt above all else spiritually, in the spirit, not in the flesh:

3 Nephi 20:

8 And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled.

9 Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.
The adverse consequences of partaking of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper unworthily are equally spiritual, and dramatic:

3 Nephi 18:

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.
And Paul affirms the same doctrine in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 11:

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
So, according to the Bible (and as confirmed in modern LDS scripture), partaking of the Sacrament most certainly “does something to us”. What it “does” depends a lot on how we partake of it. If we partake of it worthily, it imparts to us life—spiritual life; for “the flesh profiteth nothing. It is the spirit that quickeneth {i.e. gives life}.” And if we partake of it unworthily, then it impart to us the opposite, which is spiritual death. Those are the two “biggest things” that can ever be “done” to anybody—to either make them live spiritually, or make them die spiritually. And all of this is “done” to us without us having to physically “eat” Christ with a knife and a fork, with tomato sauce to make it taste better. That is the essence of the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as taught in the Bible, and confirmed by modern LDS scripture.

amgid

 

[majick275]

Well I think you did an excellent job of clarifying the LDS sacrament. I think it would be good if you would read this on the Catholic view:

catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp

That way you could see the completely different view that Catholics have on what the eucharist “does”.

 

[Zakuska]

From your link…

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

Well since God is described as an Intergalactic Space Chicken. His words make perfect sence now! Thanks!

He’s finger lik’n good! Please pass the mashed potatoes and the coleslaw with the kernals fingers.!



1 Cor 10
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

How could Moses and the children of Israel eat Christ if he had not been incarnated yet?

Hmmm… seems to me Christ should be pretty much all cosumed and buried in the dung hills by know. There will be nothing left to come back with at his Second Coming, because all the Christians gobbled him up.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.
27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:
29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Hmmm Pauls a piece of Bread too and so are all the saints. I wonder if he’s french, Garlic, or perhaps a Baggett?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska;

You said:

Zakuska:

Well since God is described as an Intergalactic Space Chicken. His words make perfect sence now! Thanks!

He’s finger lik’n good! Please pass the mashed potatoes and the coleslaw with the kernals fingers.!

Stunning riposte. Nobody said you had to believe it, but you are required to be courteous. This is a flagrant violation of the forum rules and I think you owe all of us (regardless of religious persuasion) an apology.