Skip to comments.Defending the Faith: What about those who have never heard? [How Lds promote baptism of dead]
Posted on 06/14/2013 12:35:01 PM PDT by Colofornian
Years ago...I had lunch with a conservative Protestant clergyman and his wife...Personally friendly and pleasant, they were nonetheless outspoken critics of Mormonism who frankly considered its claims about God blasphemous.
Our conversation...turned to the ultimate fate of the unevangelized...To make the question specific, I proposed the hypothetical case of a medieval Chinese peasant who...had never traveled more than perhaps 20 miles from his home and who had never so much as encountered the name of Jesus.
Hes damned, the clergyman said...I responded that such a fate seemed terribly unjust, since this Chinese peasant had never had a fair chance actually, hed had no chance at all to hear the gospel....
...I pointed out that their God seemed not only to hate the Chinese not to mention Africans, residents of the pre-Columbian New World, and sinful, unredeemed humanity in general but to be inordinately fond of the (historically Calvinist) Netherlands and Scotland.
You say that my view of God is blasphemous, I observed. But your view of God seems to me infinitely worse. You believe that he created us out of nothing. He was under no obligation to create us, but freely chose to do so. Then, historically speaking, he put the overwhelming majority of us into situations where they could never possibly have accepted Christ. And, because those people havent accepted Christ, he intends to torture them forever. Forever. He could have given them another chance...
Maybe Gods justice is different than our justice, proposed the clergyman. Yes, I said. It sounds much more like our injustice.
One of the very many aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that I treasure is its belief in the vicarious redemption of the dead...Joseph Smith offered a fair and solid solution to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
Hence, Peterson and the formal Lds church in this article is accusing the Christian God of being "unjust":
From the commentary: Our conversation...turned to the ultimate fate of the unevangelized...To make the question specific, I proposed the hypothetical case of a medieval Chinese peasant who...had never traveled more than perhaps 20 miles from his home and who had never so much as encountered the name of Jesus. Hes damned, the clergyman said...I responded that such a fate seemed terribly unjust, since this Chinese peasant had never had a fair chance actually, hed had no chance at all to hear the gospel....
In place of what Christians believe about those outside of Christ, Peterson offered the supposed Mormon view -- Baptism of the dead -- which allegedly offers "a fair chance" for such a "medieval Chinese peasant".
Peterson ends his commentary by claiming that the Mormon belief "in the vicarious redemption of the dead" is somehow "a fair and solid solution to" this "problem."
Let's briefly review this argument in this post -- and I'll add to it next post:
First of all, what is Peterson the Mormon apologist presuming about this "medieval Chinese peasant" -- from a Mormon baptism of dead perspective, anyway?
Well, Lds don't baptize nameless phantoms of the past en masse. No, that's what their massive genealogical enterprise is all about: Capturing govt records; capturing church history rosters; capturing names & dates off of tombstones.
So Peterson makes up this spotlight about some medieval Chinese peasant. Yet how many birthnames & birth-death dates does the Mormon church really have about medieval Chinese peasants -- many/most of whom were likely either illiterate or highly illiterate???
Several years ago on a thread, one FREEPER pointed out that: "Very few of the humans who have inhabited this earth were buried in graves - with head stones or plinths" -- so even recovering such names from the pre-Gutenberg era becomes a major challenge for anybody, especially the Mormon genealogical enterprise.
Please, Mr. Peterson. You seem to be an intelligent individual: Please explain how Mormon geneaologists search these tombstoneless from pre-records time out?
(Here Mormons tout the supposed "fairness" re: their system of theirs, yet how "fair" will it be for the tombstoneless of the centuries?)
[Cont'd next post]
Yet, Mormons claim proxy baptism is universal (or will be).
Have Mormons bothered to ever do the math?
Let's go with a young earth math theory for the moment -- that the earth is only 6,000 years old.
#1 A few experts have concluded that if this is the case, we may have had still 30-60 billion people who have ever lived on the earth.
#2, Now, if the Earth suffers few major catastrophes over the next almost 1,000 years, how many people could the earth have by the year 3,000? (One estimate from WikiAnswers suggests 80-110 billion).
#3 Now, toss in perhaps another 400-450 billion people who will have lived and died in the year 2000, 2100, 2200, etc. before the year 3,000 comes upon us.
My point? By the year 3000 Mormons may have to smoke their computer genealogical war machine room to accommodate 500-600 billion plus people who lived from 4,000 B.C. to 3,000 A.D.
Now, since Lds believe that such baptisms aren't done other than by proxy, please, Mr. Peterson, provide for us a "mathematical breakdown" of how this is supposedly "fair."
For example, tell us: How many proxy baptisms will the average Mormon teen-ager have to perform in the temple over the next 13 generations (keep in mind the exact % of Mormon teens even involved in this process) to crank up the Mormon necro-baptism number to an eventual 500-600 billion?
You see, Mr. Peterson, this is what happens when you let incredulity rule even basic logic. Mormons are "sold" on the "fairness" & "Justness" & "equality" argument that the door is (or eventually will be) "open" to "all."
But when you start asking them to define "all," they slouch away.
By "all," do you mean the pre-Gutenberg billions? (Uh...)
By "all," do you mean the "no records exist" for those who lived in the teen A.D. centuries? (Uh...)
By "all," do you mean the lack of worldwide temples & manpower mandated to even meet the current Lds fastfood Necro baptism machine need? (Never mind that no matter how many volunteers they grind up in their computer appetite clamoring for "More food...More food," it'll never ever catch up)
So, do tell Mr. Peterson of your "math formula" for necro-baptizing the billions and billions and billions of known people ... never even mind the 30-60 billion who have already lived & whom you can't find any extant records for!
Lds are 1.7% of the U.S. population...but that includes inactive "jack" Mormons still on the books. And worldwide, that % shrinks to morsel level...especially when you consider the Muslim world, the Communist world, the African world, and the Asian world.
So...imagine you're part of a group that has less than 10 million active members worldwide...and only a few million that claim active access to your inner sanctum temple.
And then, I as your "prophet" tell you that you only have to come up with the names and birth and death records of the billions of people who've ever lived...including pre-Gutenberg times (pre-1456).
How "fair" is that to all those who left no trace of their existence?
What? Does the Mormon god favor only the literate?
What? Does the Mormon god favor primarily those who lived in literate areas beyond Gutenberg times?
Or does the Mormon god favor only the church members of the 17th & 18th & 19th centuries for which the Lds church is more likely to glean records than most public sources?
Gosh, wish they could read Romans 1, 2 and 3 with understanding.
It addresses that.
You are correct sir, it does do that.
I bet his name was Cho or Wong.
Anyhow, I’m not sure that there’s much difference as far as the ancient Chinese peasant is concerned if one guy insists he went to hell with 100% certainty and the other guy insists he only went to hell with 100% certainty if someone didn’t bother proxy baptizing him 3000 years later.
As far as logistics go, if that’s what you believe it would seem like it would be pretty bad if you didn’t try to proxy baptize as many as possible, no matter if you couldn’t get to them all. That’s why it is very strange when the LDS apologize to people and claim they won’t proxy baptize certain groups when they complain about it. Seems like they are doing the dead a disservice by listening to living.
So, what is the answer to the question about people never being exposed to Jesus and His message?
Too bad J. Smith had absolutely no authority to do that.
As for the author's view that God is unjust, he needs to read and study the Bible and throw away his BOM.
God is just thatys why we have our whole lifetime to repent from our sins and be saved...
after we die its too late...
It would be unjust of Gode to allow people to not make a decision while they are still alive...
we must accept salvation through FAITH in the LORD Jesus Christ...
just waiting until we die and then lying around Hell and then deciding we dont like it cause its too hot and we want to go somewhere else is not faith...
That iodea is blasphemy, false religion...
dead dunking is part of a false belief a false religion
Joey Smith made that up because he didnt know what happened to his big brother Alvin when he had died young
Joey hoped Alvin had not gone to Hell because he died beforte Joey invented Mormonism
Joey asked a Christian pastor about it and the man told him that if Alvin had not accepted Jesus as his saviort then he died unsaved and went to Hell
Joey didnt like that true answer so Joey had his long dead brother dead dunked into Mormonism so he would enjoy all the bennies of the false religion, lots of sex etc and his own planet...
also Joey wanted another scam to use against his victims who had dead loved ones...
Sincve then many people both already saved Christian and pagan evil doers have been dead dunked...
ALL the Founding Fathers, Hitler, Ann Frank and many Jewish victims, criminals, and famous people, kings and queens have been dead dunked by maybe well meaning but extremely misguided people who did not understand the Biblical plan of salvation as designed by God...
Even long dead Stanley Ann Dunham was dead dunked in June 2008 to temple Mormon status given the “first anointing” and the “second anointing” the jhighest possible honors and levels that few even live Mormons could ascend to
then given a so called Mormon temple marriage to polygamous and dead Barak Obama Sr
and then so called “sealed” childrem making them full temple Mormons also..
NONE of this can be cancelled or reversed...
so we have our very first Mormon president ...a black man...
whether or not the racist mormons like it or not they are stuck with their own beliefs in their religious systam
seems like the Judeo/Christian God to me...
He enjoys laughing at His enemies in their dirision...
so due to all his mothers honors Mormon Barak Obama Jr outranks even bishop Willard Mitt Romney in the Mormon hierarchy...
Gosh Obama is the next possible profit/pope of the Mormons...
This morning Mormon Glenn Beck said of the Christian Bible and the end times
“the Bible is fiction, good fiction but fiction. I believe in the book of mormon and I read it for info on the end.. the book of mormon is a calendar of the end...”
and he encouraged his listeners to ignore the Bible and read the bom instead for info on what was going to happen in America...
It would be injustice if the person who wasn't saved, wasn't a sinner. The fact that the one who is saved is also a sinner and does not receive justice, but mercy, does not make the punishment of the sinner any less just.
Romans 1:18-23 has the most succinct answer:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."
Verses 16-17 introduce this by proclaiming that it was God's intent to make his salvation available first 'to the Jew' (ancient Israel) and then spread to the world ('to the Greek - the non-Jews'). It is also clear that there are people and people groups that God chooses to withhold preaching from. When you review Paul's travels in the book of Acts, for instance, many times Paul is told directly by God to go to one place or another, and other times is prevented from continuing to a place that he otherwise had planned to travel to.
There are also scriptural examples of men who believed in God despite not hearing a preacher. Abraham would be one of these. James 2:23 "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness and he was called a friend of God. So to summarize, there are two answers:
1. It is God's choice by His grace who to enable to receive his salvation.
2. Mankind cannot claim ignorance of God.
Are some going to miss the full message? Clearly, yes. Does God get the ones he intends to get? Yes, this as well.
Our job as God's servants, then is to deliver the message where and however we are enabled...so here goes:
God, the Creator of all heaven and earth, is perfect. We are not. We cannot achieve that level perfection, so God made a way to bridge that gap. Jesus Christ - called the Son of God, and wholly God Himself - became a man, came to Earth, passed the test that mankind failed, and was sacrificed to pay the penalty for mankind's failures. Those who believe all of these things and choose to serve/worship God are declared not guilty and are spared the penalties that the rest of mankind will ultimately face.
I am not a believer in the “Once Saved Always Saved” doctrine. The New Testament tells us to endure to the end. Why do we need to endure if always saved?
I think the Mormons ask a fair question, but I think most Christians just give a bad answer. The Gospel writers tell us that Christ preached to the spirits in the spirit prison. Why? Why would Christ preach to spirits of dead people who had never heard of Him before?
The Gospel according to me says that He wouldn't do that unless there was a way of their being redeemed, I hope that is the case.
As far as the Mormons doing it through their Temples, well I guess I can't say about that but I'll not demean it until somebody comes up with a better solution to all those spirits.
As far as being able to do the work in a timely fashion, the Mormons say the purpose of the Millennium is precisely for this work. I have never heard of a better explanation for a reason to wait 1000 years for the judgment after the reign of Christ on the earth starts. Hopefully the Mormons can get it all done in 1000 years.
Something else the Mormons believe. They teach that if they don't get the work done for all people that ever lived on the earth then nobody gets redeemed. Either everybody gets a shot at Heaven or nobody does. They teach that during that 1000 years when Christ is personally reigning on the earth that there will be very good communications between the spirit world and ours so that those who's records have not been found will make their existence known to those on the earth doing the work.
#1...Since Abraham...pre-nation of Israel times...Abraham and the children revealed a promised deliverer, the Messiah.
The Gospel is essentially embracing/trusting a promise about this deliverer (from bondage, including sinful bondage).
Therefore, we see clear glimpses of the Gospel all throughout pre-Jesus times...to the point that even kings from other cultures came "West" and gave the Christ-child gifts. (Also, as an example, the Queen of Sheba in Old Testament times had access to revelations from the Jews)
#2...Alan Carp cites a key passage there in Romans 1 to study on this matter.
Essentially, Romans 1 says people suppress the truth they already are privy to...meaning it's hard to accuse God of being "unjust" or "unfair" about withholding Jesus, the Ultimate Truth, when most peoples thruout history have either denied or suppressed whatever truth was obvious within nature!
#3...The Bible consistently describes Christ as the Bridegroom -- and the Church as the Bride.
Now, I don't watch "The Batchelor" or "The Batchelorette" programs...but from what I know some of those not selected cater to the "drama queen" reaction when they are overlooked...
But when you go to a wedding, you -- or others -- don't point an accusatory finger @ the Bridegroom because of who he didn't pick as his bride, do you?
“I think the Mormons ask a fair question, but I think most Christians just give a bad answer. The Gospel writers tell us that Christ preached to the spirits in the spirit prison. Why? Why would Christ preach to spirits of dead people who had never heard of Him before?”
This is a common misunderstanding.
1Pe 3:18-20 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (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.
The spirits in prison here is in reference to the antediluvians, which sometime were disobedient... in the days of Noah... NOT to those who died before the time of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the word preached is not euangelizo, but is ekeruxen, which is a more general proclamation as opposed to Gospel preaching.
The meaning is that Christ preached to those who currently are spirits in prison, (but they were not spirits when the proclamation was made) whom Christ with longsuffering... waited in the days of Noah. In other words, the preaching mentioned in the previous verse, is the longsuffering wait of God in the latter verse that took place in the days of Noah.
One does not need to go into spirit prison to preach to the dead to save them. After all, the antediluvians could have repented and believed with Noah on the one true God. Just like any Gentile could have believed in the God of Abraham, and of Moses, and of Jacob, for salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22). Outside of the religion of Moses, up until the time of Christ, there was no salvation. None of the Pagans or atheists were ever justified in believing in their idols.
Rom 1:20-21 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: (21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
And today, there is no salvation outside of Christ, and those who do not believe are still without excuse.
Heb_9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
“I am not a believer in the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine. The New Testament tells us to endure to the end. Why do we need to endure if always saved?”
We are commanded to make our calling sure, to zealously guard ourselves and rest in Jesus Christ, lest we be found in the end to be false believers. The scripture is clear that the elect can never fall, even under the most powerful of Satanic delusions:
Mar_13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
On the other hand, there will be many who will falsely call Christ “Lord, Lord,” and boast of their exorcising of devils, and of many good works, who will be told “I never knew you.” Not that they had fallen from grace and were once known, but are now rejected; but rather they were never known at all, from the very beginning.
Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
They must leave not because they once were saved, and because they lost their salvation. They must leave because they were “never of us” from the very beginning:
1Jn_2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Contrast this with the Sheep, who are always known of God, and are given from the Father to the Son by sovereign grace:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
“The Gospel according to me”
That’s why you should stick with the Gospel according to John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, Peter, etc, instead of some guy who translated “Reformed Egyptian” out of his hat, and later married something like 30 women, 12 of whom were still married to other men, and some as young as 14 years old.
In other words, it appears you are hoping that the goal of the mormon church for every soul, living or dead, to be "gathered" into the church of Joseph Smith, will be realized "since Mormons believe that it is the only true church that God recognizes, it is imperative when that time comes that Mormon leaders be in charge. But, if their agenda can be achieved before the Millennium by establishing more Mormons in politics and increasing their membership worldwide, so much the better."
JAKraig quote: They teach that if they don't get the work done for all people that ever lived on the earth then nobody gets redeemed. Either everybody gets a shot at Heaven or nobody does." ...and the ONLY "shot" at Heaven is determined by membership in the mormon church and in taking part in arcane rituals in mormon temples.
Sounds just a little bit like the current situation with the would be king of the US.
“Blessed are the poor of Spirit...” God knows our hearts and what was possible in our lives. He can tote up numbers that men cannot even conceive of. He perhaps also expects US to “spread the Word”. “Gospel for Asia” is, in this respect, a worthy cause.
“.. the book of mormon is a calendar of the end...
Oh my goodness. Yikes. WAKE UP GLENN! (sorry)
Well, the first thing they can do is toss that complete work of fiction known as the bom. And the JS ‘bible’ at the same time.
Cultic Mormonism Placemarker
Please re-read my first three posts...and then answer how Mormons are going to be able to baptize people they never knew existed...? (Most people who have ever lived have fallen beyond "recorded history")
The necro-baptism "beast" that needs to be fed includes...
...date born; date died.
No such info, no such proxy baptism.
There's no "gold plates" hanging around somewhere that will give them all that pre-Gutenberg data.
And even since Gutenberg, I would seriously doubt that the Mormon church has even 25% of all people who have ever lived since then in their data banks.
Once the baptism of Jewish holocaust scandals was revealed -- along with other embarrassing celebrities and infamous (Hitler) necro-baptisms -- the Mormon church insisted to its members new "guidelines" that these members were only to proxy-baptize their own relatives...further making it highly improbable that not very many non-Americans and non-Europeans would be necro-baptized.
C'mon JA...what's happened to exercising basic logic on this one?
How can you NOT appreciate a strawman that is built without even referring to Scripture?
—MormonDude(The BoM should be sufficient...)
Yeah; a rational MORMON would think so; but LDSism has a BUNCH more stuff found in the D&C collection.
Ron Popeil says, :But WAIT!!!
Yes folks; for only lifetime payment of 10% of your income, you, TOO!, can put your trust in the Pearl of gGreat Price.
The one containing the WONDERFUL Book of ABRAHAM!!!
This statement shows what an unbelieving, HATEFUL bigot you are!
You KNOW that GOD has a record of ALL these folks, and there could very well be another set of Golden Records, containing ALL these supposedly 'unknown' names just WAITING for our Living Prophet® to stumble across!
--MormonDupe(I sure know that I am ready for ANY kind of revelation that Tommy will deliver to the faithful from GOD!)
BL has never been considered before; so why start Now?
Hes damned, the clergyman said...I responded that such a fate seemed terribly unjust, since this Chinese peasant had never had a fair chance actually, hed had no chance at all to hear the gospel....
Is The God not just?
Does anybody here on FR want The God to treat them fairly? Anybody?
Please respond, if you do.
Is John 3:18 correct?
Yes, of course it is correct, but the English here is too ambiguous to capture the precise nuances of the verb tenses of "belief" and "condemn." A more informative translation is as follows:
"The one persistently committing trust unto Him is not being judged. But the one not persistently committing trust already has been permanently judged because he has not permanently committed trust unto the name of The Only Begotten Son of The God" (The Gospels: A Precise Translation).
Christ did not come into the world to condemn the world, because it and the people within it--every one--had already been pronounced guilty unto death by The Righteous God, based on the sin of Adam (of whom every one bears his genetic substance).
But the love gift of God, the Person Jehovah (YHWH), invested a perfect sinless human body by standing in for us/me so as to receive our/my punishment--a piercing, burning mutilation and shameful reputation, paying the blood-price from his own veins; so that we/I might be judicially pronounced guiltless and free IF I would simply accept this release from condemnation as an undeserved but compassionate benefit of offered friendship.
"Be not afraid, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
Salvation is not a consequence of being baptized, and most certainly not for infants nor for a person's eternal soul that has been separated from a dead, rotting husk.
You are serious and not joking ? He actually said that on the air ?
[ NOTE : I’m sure he thinks that way just surprised he’d say that since most of his audience is conservative Christians ]
[Be sure, when you get to heaven, you let Peter know that...The New American Standard is one of the most literal versions of the Bible: ...the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves younot the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good consciencethrough the resurrection of Jesus Christ... (1 Peter 3)]
(And Luke): 38 Peter said to them, Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself. (Acts 2)
(And Paul): 5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior... (Titus 3)
Noah was obedient to Jehovah because he completely trusted in Christ. According to The God's specific direction, dear Father Noah (and his family following him by faith in Christ) were saved by grace through faith, not by being dipped in water (Eph. 2:8, Heb. 11:6-7)
This saving of Noah is not by water. The verse completely well defined that the washing was a figure of speech. It is the faithfulness of God that saved, with Noah and his family completely relying on the Word of God. Relying on water for Eternal Life? Duh.
Acts 2:38 is almost always completely misinterpreted by mistranslating the function of the preposition εις in Acts 2:38, where the AV has "... be baptized ... for the remission of sins ...". The casual (lazy/ignorant/unregenerated?) expositor would just put in place of "for" the common clause "with a view toward", which is very frequently a correct translation of εις -- but in this case it is not, because it makes verses such as Eph. 2:8 doctrinally nonsensical and inconsistent, along with the overall context that salvation is truly by faith, not by works/literal aitch-too-oh.
If you had Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, you would find out that there are many different uses of the preposition in view, to which 70 column inches of very fine print are given over to εις. And you would find that, taking the Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich The Greek-English Lexicon (2nd revision by Gingrich & Danker) in one hand, and Scrivener's Textus Receptus in the other, you would find thirteen different ways that implementation of εις in a sentence needs to be translated just for the Gospels.
The correct hermeneutics of Acts 2:38 demands that where the action contemplated is based on a previous action, the foundational use is to be applied, which has the sense of εις being translated as "on the basis of" or "based upon." One such related passage is from Mt. 12:41 where:
οτι μετανοησαν εις το κηρυγμα ιονα
"because they repented on the basis of Jonah's proclamation as an herald"
(This is what we call a literal/grammatical/syntactical/cultural hermeneutic.)
Thus, theologically and doctrinally Peter (only within the last few days converted, and giving this sermon on the very day he was spiritually reborn) was urging these listeners who had already just themselves demonstrated belief and thus been saved, to "... be baptized ... on the basis of sins remitted/abandoned ...". Now, the intolerable doctrinal discontinuity is relieved, and Eph. 2:8 and Acts 2:38 are wedded in inseparable unity, rather than diametrically opposed by interpretive ignoramuses.
Furthermore, the Great Commission was being carried out as Christ authorized and delegated. This baptism, according to Christ's command of Mt. 28:18-20 was being fulfilled. The end of this baptism was not like John's, which was a baptism unto repentance (but not salvation); nor was it a baptism like that of Jesus, which was a baptism to fully fulfil all righteousness (Mt. 3:15). No, it was a baptism unto discipleship, by which the 12 had been ritually inducted by Jesus (Jn. 4:1), after which they continued to induct more disciples by mikvah-type immersion baptism of grown, decision-capable adults (Jn. 4:2) to follow Jesus as a Teacher. Most unarguably certainly these baptisms did not and could not impart regeneration of the spirit, for Peter was not converted until days after the Crucifixion, Judas Iscariot was absolutely a partaker of this baptism unto discipleship, and regeneration by the agency of the Indwellimg Holy Spirit did not happen until Pentecost Sunday!
The baptism that Peter supervised was NOT one of baptismal regeneration. It was a public affirmation of commitment of thousands of new followers of The Way into union with the local εκκλησια at Jerusalem, on the basis that they had repented and committed full trust on the authority of the Risen Christ, with sins washed away (not just blotted out) by His Precious Incorruptible Blood, their minds washed by the water of The Word (Eph. 5:25-27), a new spiritual man born inside by regeneration; then accepted ritual mikvah-immersion whilst being made to figuratively drink into one spirit of unity as local disciple-members (1 Cor. 12:13). =========
Now, dealing with your waving Titus 3:5 again, regeneration is not in the water by washing with it literally, even ritually. Do you not know about mikvah ceremonies? It is a ritual cleansing, requiring full, complete immersion and soaking in "living" water. This is still going on, across the world in the Jewish practice at synagogues. It is so thorough the women even have to unbraid and comb out their hair to make sure it is wet out on the minutest scale. But above all, it is a work, which is unacceptable as a precondition for Biblical salvation/regeneration/sanctification. Come on!
The washing is one on the inside of a sentient logical/reasonable human accountable for both mindset and behavior, in whom the regenerative seed (1 Jn. 3:9; Ps. 126:6; Mt. 13:33)--the voice of the Holy Ghost--has lodged, echoed in the halls of the soul, convicted in the intellect(Jn. 16:7-15), brought a godly sorrow in the heart (2 Cor. 7:9-11), imparted the essence of The Faith to the mouth, brought a saving belief, and a call out to the Lord for salvation (Rom. 10:8-10, 13), and regenerated in the spirit.
We don't birth physical babies under water. Why then a spiritual one? The washing here is by the Blood of The Christ and the Water of The Word. Tap or river water has nothing to do with spiritual regeneration. And it most certainly can never save someone who went to their grave rejecting Christ--or even being ignorant of Him.
I think it's about time to give up false doctrines and cry out for instruction, as did the believing eunuch (Acts 8:37).
The Plan: Washing by the Word-->conviction-->repentance/belief-->crying out to the Lord-->regeneration-->baptism affirmation of commitment to discipleship for ever-->union with a local assembly.
Give it up, FRiend, give it up!
And, oh! If I were you I would toss the New American Standard Version, and a lot of other versions like it, all of which are translated from a poisoned stream of corrupted textforms.
1 Corinthians 1:17 (niv)
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
(If baptism was REALLY important in the salvation PROCESS; a rational person would thing it would not be dismissed so lightly here.
Peter and Paul seem to have a different take on it; don’t they!
Almost right: The washing here is by the Blood of The Christ and the water THROUGH The Word... [Fixed it: See Ephesians 5:26: to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water THROUGH the word...]
That’s an interesting observation, Elsie. I’ll take it under advisement. Thanks for your thoughtful reply!
Give me a break! The literal word for "regeneration" occurs ONLY twice in the New Testament. And one of those times is in Titus 3:5. And so one of only two times where regeneration is most clearly delineated -- Titus 3:5 -- you convert the meaning into a man-based "work"!!!????
Now what is consistent with these passages? (Titus 3:5-6; John 3:3-5; Rom. 6:4-5; Col. 2:11-12) Well, each of them link baptism/water to that which yields regeneration/new life!
regeneration by the agency of the Indwellimg Holy Spirit did not happen until Pentecost Sunday!
(Did you happen to notice that Acts 2:38 appears after Pentecost -- at the beginning of Acts 2?)
Re: ark: ...they that were not immersed, and it was not a baptism
(Hey, anybody on an ark would at least be sprayed...and in a pelting constant rain, could readily have been showered in water!)
It was what 1 Peter labels a "correspondence" -- a "parallel"
Just like 8-day old Jews were identified as being part & parcel of the covenant people...so, likewise, circumcision was yet another parallel to baptism: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision NOT performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Col. 2)
IOW, the main import of baptism isn't something men do; it's something Christ has accomplished: 3 Or dont you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6)
Both Col. 2 & Rom. 6 present the baptism act of humanity as something humans are passive -- and Christ/God/Holy Spirit as the active Agent. [Gal. 3:27 also highlights this exact same sense of those being the recipients of baptism as something acted upon them]
Now why is that of special import re: what you said about Acts 2:38??? You wrote: "The correct hermeneutics of Acts 2:38 demands that where the action contemplated is based on a previous action..." -- yet the two actions in Acts 2:38 are (1) repent and (2) be baptized. Repent is what man actively does; "be baptized" is what man passively does -- what he receives.
What is the result of this? "For the forgiveness -- KJV says "remission" -- of sins."
Who gets more credit/glory for those who stress man's repentance leading to forgiveness? [the repentant do] Who gets more credit/glory for those who stress God's actions in a person's life -- where men are passively baptized as a "reception"? [God does]
Forgiveness is a divine act -- not human. Confessional repentance is merely man agreeing with God's view of things.
As Neil T. Anderson wrote: "Paul writes, 'For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body...(1 Cor. 12:13). The Spirit's indwelling (see John 14:17, Rom. 8:9); sealing (see 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13); and baptism (see Gal. 3:27) all occur at the time of regeneration and are therefore never commanded"
...as something for men to accomplish.
According to The God's specific direction, dear Father Noah (and his family following him by faith in Christ) were saved by grace through faith, not by being dipped in water (Eph. 2:8, Heb. 11:6-7)
I think the father of the Protestant Reformation understood what he was talking about:
Note well, therefore, that baptism is water with the word of God, not water & my faith. My faith does not make the baptism but RECEIVES the baptism, no matter whether the person being baptized believes or not; for baptism is not dependent upon my faith but upon Gods Word. (Martin Luther)
So, a precise rendering of this phrase would take the form "...in order that He sanctify and cleanse Her with the bathing of the water by means of Spoken Word ...".
The action, figuratively, is bathing; the cleansing medium, figuratively, is water. But literally, in apposition, the action is cleansing and the literal medium is the Spoken Word, or the Sayings (of the Holy Ghost, of course).
So you cannot force "through" to have any other sense than "by means of" and not "immersed in."
With regard and respect --
You missed the point. Exercising oneself to go through, apply, and receive, though symbolic, is a voluntary gratuiitous work by the will of the flesh, the will of a (hu)man. Regeneration, the gestation by the sperma, the generative seed, of the received Spoken Word, by which the Holy Ghost brings forth a new spiritual babe, is a gift of The God, not of a man or of flesh or of mankind. In the regeneration spoken of in Mt. 19:28, Jesus refers to Himself being reborn into a spiritual body from the dead, as He was (he had yielded up His spirit to The Father God at the Cross), on Resurrection Sunday, thus becoming the first-born from the dead of many brothers (Rom. 8:29, Col. 1:18, Heb. 12:23).
I guess you have confused water baptism (a gratuitously offered human work) with regeneration (a gift of God). They cannot be equated. Sorry. I think you completely missed the gist of Paul's exhortation to Titus.
Well, the comparison is correct, but your application is not.
(Case 1) In the flesh, life is in the blood. In the flesh, the public circumcision rite (a work) is applied to a live flesh human; when possible, at the soonest appropriate time after the new birth as possible, in a blood covenant initiated by the brit mila. (a) Note: the circumcision is not performed on an unborn child. (b) Note: the rite does not cause the birth--rather the rite is conducted to recognize the birth and the covenant.
(Case 2) In the spirit realm, Life is in the Spirit. In the spiritual life, the water baptism rite (a work) is intended for application to a spiritually (re)born person (there is no gender differentiation here); when possible, at the soonest appropriate time as convenient, in a publicly conducted spiritual covenant recognized by water baptism. (a) Note: it would be foolish to attempt to conduct the baptism on a human not yet spiritually reborn. (b) Note: Water baptism does not cause spiritual birth--rather the rite is applied to one who has already claimed and evidenced to be (re)born spiritually.
This rite would never properly be applied to an infant neither yet accountable to God's Law, nor capable of making decisions thereto.
Regarding Paul's discussion of baptism in Romans 6, this is a public external symbolic reenactment in the medium water of what has already occurred privately, inwardly, and literally in the spirit, with new life being imparted by being raised from a state of spiritual death.
Your whole picture of the nature, sphere, function, and purpose of both water and spiritual baptism is so bass ackward as to be totally non-functional. I'm done with this. If this, being explained, cannot be grasped, so be it. It's up to God, now.
Jesus answered, The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps Gods commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Otherwise, if you are not teachable, I can't help you more than I already have.
Good enough, Elsie!
Over and over and over and louder and over and louder....