Uh In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him. Was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. More commonly referred to as the Mormon faith. All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1:9, which calls Jesus the true light which gives light to everyone.
We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be, and the light we have is not our own, it comes to us from without. Thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to His Son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition: the fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between. We're glad you found us, and we hope you'll stick around.
You're listening to Outer Brightness, a podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God. to walk with Jesus rather than turn away. Outer brightness, outer brightness, outer brightness, outer brightness. There's no weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth here. Except when Michael's hanger that is, anger that is, angry that is.
I'm Matthew, the nuclear Calvinist. I'm Michael, the ex-Mormon apologist. I'm Paul Bunyan. Let's get into it. Another passage from First Peter chapter three, verse twenty one, has been used to show that water baptism is necessary and saves.
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. End quote.
So here's a question for discussion. How can we understand this verse in the wider context of this portion of Peter's epistle? And how can we understand this when it talks about baptism and how it saves?
So does it save, does it justify, or does it save us in another fashion?
So these are some questions that we'd like to talk about.
So I'll turn it over to Paul first to discuss this passage. Yeah, so I think for this passage especially, it's important to look at the broader context of the passage and contrast that with LDS theology, looking at the way that LDS thought theology views this passage and the way that Orthodox Christian theology views this passage. The reason I say that is when LDS look at the broader context of this passage, they tend to use 1 Peter 3.19. And 20 as a proof text for their view of the afterlife. And I also have to say, to be fair to Latter-day Saints, when I first left the LDS church, I was in a discussion group on Facebook and this passage came up and the Christians in that group were explaining that Peter was talking about angels in prison and not disembodied human spirits.
And they said that Jesus was proclaiming his victory over these fallen angels. And I was at that time still laboring under the LDS assumptions about the nature of angels. And so I wasn't just incredulous at what they were saying, but I couldn't even grasp what they were saying because at the time, my knowledge and understanding of the theology of the New Testament writers was so lacking that I literally could not see what the Christians were talking about when they were talking about those being angels in prison and not disembodied human spirits. And so I say that because as a Latter-day Saint, I don't think I was taught to view the New Testament writing. Thank you.
In their own context and on their own terms. I think that rather I was taught to fit an LDS narrative of human progression onto the New Testament and read it in that manner. And doing so, I think with this passage especially results in a very different understanding of the New Testament than the authors themselves had. And so that LDS lens through which I was reading the Bible is this. And it applies to this passage.
So human spirits were created by God as spirit children to him in the pre-mortal world. In that world, there was a war caused by Lucifer over the topic of human agency. And those spirits who followed Lucifer and rebelled against God in the pre-mortal world, they were cast out and condemned to never gain a physical body. And they were thus damned to never be able to progress to godhood. They are said to have not kept their first estate.
In LDS parlance. All other human spirits who didn't rebel in the premortal world are said to have been sent to earth, the mortal world, by God to receive a physical body and to be tested to see if they'll obey all God's commands when they're not in his presence. Those who are faithful on earth are said to have kept their second estate. And then upon death, the spirits of humans are separated from their bodies. The bodies lie in the grave until the resurrection, and the spirits go to either paradise or to spirit prison.
And paradise is said to be a place of happiness in the post-mortal world, reserved for those who have been baptized into the LDS church and who have remained faithful. The spirits of those humans who did not receive the LDS gospel and ordinances on earth, they go to spirit prison. Latter-day Saints believe that there's missionary work being performed in spirit prison. Righteous spirits pass from paradise to spirit prison to preach. And if A spirit in prison receives the LDS gospel and ordinances performed in LDS temples on their behalf, baptism for the dead and confirmation for the dead, then that spirit can progress to paradise.
Those spirits who accept the LDS gospel in spirit prison can then accept further LDS temple ordinances performed in the LDS temples on their behalf, washing and anointing, endowment, and eternal sealing of their marriage if they were married on earth, and they then become eligible to inherit the celestial kingdom after the resurrection and final judgment.
So turning back to the passage at hand, when LDS look at this section of 1 Peter, they believe that 1 Peter 3.19 specifically teaches that Jesus kicked off the missionary efforts to the disembodied dead in spirit prison, suggesting that he went there between his death and resurrection.
So 1 Peter 3.20 then for LDS, for Latter-day Saints, ties directly to the idea that one must be baptized. By someone who holds the proper priesthood authority, or the baptism is invalid and ineffectual in the world to come.
So, before I go on, would you two say that I've accurately described? LDS teachings there. Yes, sounds good to me. Yeah, yeah. All right.
So the contrast between LDS theology and New Testament teaching here in this passage couldn't be more stark.
So the New Testament worldview is Christocentric. It puts Christ Jesus at the center of the theological framework. The LDS view is anthropocentric. It puts humans and their destiny at the center of the theological framework. And as a result, the supernatural worldview of the New Testament authors is completely lost.
In the LDS interpretation.
So, understanding this section of First Peter in context. The spirits who are said to be in prison here are fallen angels. They're not the spirits of dead humans. as LDS theology claims, cross-reference this passage with 2 Peter 2, 4 and 5, where Peter covers the same material and he says, quote, for if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until judgment, end quote. You can look also at Jude 6, where it says, quote, and angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, he is kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day.
So we can note a couple of things about these passages. First, the angels that are being referenced sinned in some way, and as a result, God cast them into hell or prison. Second, their sin involved not staying in their proper abode.
Some biblical interpreters connect these fallen angels with Genesis 6, 1 to 4, due to the fact that both Peter and Jude are covering similar ground. And Jude quotes from a text from the second temple period, 1 Enoch. And that text, from which Jude quotes in verses 14 and 15, it expands on the fallen angels described in Genesis 6, 1 to 4. This connection is even more striking when one considers that 1 Enoch presents the flood in Genesis as God's judgment of the sin introduced to humanity by these fallen angels, and Peter references the flood in 1 Peter chapter 3.
So the New Testament more broadly presents Jesus' incarnation, death, and resurrection as God's ultimate triumph over Satan and these fallen angels. In the classic text referring to Christ's preeminence, Paul the Apostle wrote in Colossians 1.15, quote, he is the image of the invisible God, the first Born of all creation for by him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and for him. Bible interpreters are generally agreed that when verse 16 refers to thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities, that it's a reference to various categories of angels. All of whom were created through and for Christ, according to Paul. Interpreters are also generally agreed that when Peter wrote that Jesus proclaimed to the spirits in prison, he was proclaiming his victory over them and the chaos that they had caused among humanity.
So Peter was not, as LDS teachings suggest, saying that Jesus was proclaiming the gospel to disembodied spirits of deceased humans to give them another chance. To believe that robs the New Testament of its supernatural worldview, which flows naturally from the Old Testament. And there's way more that could be said on these topics and how Jesus' victory over the demons. Or fallen angels is woven throughout the New Testament. But the question here that you asked, Matthew, is about 1 Peter 3 and how, what it says about baptism specifically.
Does baptism save us?
So, having laid the groundwork of the supernatural worldview that's held by Peter, I'm going to read from Dr. Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm, because he unpacks this passage really well. He says, 1 Peter 3, 14 to 22, I'm sorry, is one of the more puzzling passages of the New Testament, set against the backdrop of the divine counsel worldview.
However, it's actually quite comprehensible. He quotes 1 Peter 3, 14 through 22, which says, But even if you might suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed, and do not be afraid of their intimidation or be disturbed, but set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts, always ready to make a defense to anyone who asks you for an accounting concerning the hope that is in you. But do so with courtesy and respect. Having a good conscience, so that in the things in which you are slandered, the ones who malign your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good if God wills it.
Than for doing evil. For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust. In order that he could bring you to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which he also went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, who were formerly disobedient when the patience of God waited in the days of Noah, while an ark was being constructed, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were rescued through water. And also, corresponding to this, baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, with angels and authorities and powers having been subjected to him. That's the end of the second or the first Peter passage.
And then Heiser goes on to say: The overall theme of 1 Peter is that Christians must withstand persecution and persevere in their faith. That much is clear in this passage, but what's with But what's with baptism, the ark, Noah, and spirits in prison? And does this text say that baptism saves us? To understand what Peter is thinking, we have to understand a concept that scholars have called types or typology. Typology is a kind of prophecy.
And then Heiser goes on to define a type as basically an unspoken prophecy. It is an event, person, or institution that foreshadows something that will come, but which isn't revealed until after the fact. And then skipping ahead a little bit to his section where he starts getting into unpacking this passage in particular, he says, Peter saw a theological analogy between the events of Genesis 6 and the gospel and resurrection. In other words, he considered the events of Genesis 6 to be types or precursors to New Testament events and ideas. Just as Jesus was the second Adam for Paul, Jesus is the second Enoch for Peter.
Enoch descended to the imprisoned fallen angels to announce their doom in the second temple text, 1 Peter. 1 Peter 3, 14 to 22 has Jesus descending to these same spirits in prison to tell them that they were still defeated despite his crucifixion. God's plan of salvation and kingdom rule had not been derailed. In fact, it was right on schedule. The crucifixion actually meant victory over every demonic force opposed to God.
This victory declaration is why 1 Peter 3, 14 to 22 ends with Jesus risen from the dead and set at the right hand of God above all angels, authorities, and powers. The messaging is very deliberate and has a supernatural view of Genesis 6, 1 to 4 at its core.
So how does this relate to baptism? Our focus for answering that question is two terms in verse 21. That baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The two highlighted words need reconsideration in light of the divine counsel. Council worldview.
The word most often translated appeal in verse 21 is best understood as pledge here, a meaning that it has elsewhere. Likewise, the word conscience does not refer to the inner voice of right and wrong in this text, rather, the word refers to the disposition of one's loyalties. A usage that is also found in other contexts and Greek literature. Baptism, then, is not what produces salvation. quote unquote saves.
In that it reflects a heart decision, a pledge of loyalty to the risen savior. In effect, baptism in the New Testament theology is a loyalty oath, a public avowal of who is on the Lord's side in the cosmic war between good and evil. But in addition to that, it is also a visceral reminder to the defeated fallen angels. Every baptism is a reiteration of their doom in the wake of the gospel and the kingdom of God. Early Christians understood the typology of this passage and its link back to the fallen angels of Genesis 6.
Early baptismal formulas included a renunciation of Satan and his angels, and for this very reason. Baptism was and still is spiritual warfare.
So, baptism does not save, but it's a holy war. It represents God's victory over the angels that rebelled against him and corrupted humanity. All right.
Wow, that's really neat stuff, Paul. Really enjoyed. listening to those quotes. That was something else. I can't say interesting, so I'm trying to think of another word.
You can you can say it like once or twice. We we all have two allotments of saying interesting. Yeah, I wasn't I wasn't predicting that you're gonna go into the the whole Spirits in Prison thing. But uh since we're talking about uh baptism, uh I think that's really interesting. And and it it relates to ba you know, baptism for the dead, so I guess it does relate to the topic.
Yeah, and I went there because if you've if you talk about this passage, that always with Latter-day Saints, it always comes up because it's one of their key proof texts. that they use.
So it's something that you do have to be ready to address. With them. Yeah, definitely. It was interesting because I was looking up Kistemacher's commentary on this really quickly, and I thought he had one interpretation in my mind, but I guess he basically had the same interpretation that you were discussing, that it's not talking about spirits who are in the spirit world as Latter-day Saints see it, but as supernatural beings that were disobedient. And he gives some interesting reasoning for that.
I was also checking the ESV study Bible, and they said that there's, I'm sure that there's even more interpretations, but they say that there's three primary ones. The first one, and I've heard this before too, from some Reformed, so I just wanted to put that out there. It says: the first interpretation understands spirits. Referring to the unsaved human spirits of Noah's day. Christ in the spirit proclaimed the gospel in the days of Noah through Noah.
The unbelievers who heard Christ's preaching did not obey in the days of Noah and are now suffering judgment. Several reasons support this view. First reason, Peter calls Noah a herald of righteousness, where herald represents the Greek keriks or kerik, preacher, which corresponds to the noun cheriso, proclaim, in 1 Peter 3.19. Second reason, Peter says the spirit of Christ was speaking through the Old Testament prophets. Thus Christ could have been speaking through Noah as an Old Testament prophet.
Third reason, the context indicates that Christ was preaching through Noah, who is in a persecuted minority, and God saved Noah, which is similar to the situation in Peter's time. Christ is now preaching the gospel through Peter and his readers to a persecuted minority, and God will save them. And then the second interpretation is the one that you explained, that they're the spirits of fallen angels or fallen beings. And the third view, it's interesting here. It says, in a third view, some have advocated the That Christ offered a second chance of salvation to those in hell.
This interpretation, however, is in direct contradiction with other scripture.
So it refers to the parable of. The rich man in Lazarus and Hebrews 9:27 with the rest of 1 Peter, and therefore must be rejected on biblical and theological grounds, leaving either of the first two views as the most likely interpretation.
So, even if you disagree with the interpretation that you went with, Paul, you know, there may be some that advocate this other view, you know, that it's not that Christ went to hell and proclaimed the gospel to them in the spirit prison or wherever hell or whatever you want to call it. It's more Christ was proclaiming the gospel through Noah in the days of Noah, and they rejected this gospel.
So that's, yeah, that's so those two interpretations to me seem the most likely, but yeah, I tend to lean more towards the one that you described. But it is, it is an interesting passage because Peter is such an interesting author. He ties all of these different aspects of Scripture and these historical events throughout Scripture. I mean, he's talking about in the beginning of chapter three, he's talking about husbands and wives, wives be subject to your husbands. Be respectful, you know, husbands, you know, take care of your wives.
And understanding, and then he goes on to suffering for righteousness' sake. And then he's and he pulls in Noah and he pulls in the ark and all that and baptism. And it's so many things going on at once. And yeah, I think, I definitely think this is one of the most difficult passages to interpret. And I've talked to people, and some people just admit they don't really know precisely 100% what it's saying, but we can know, kind of like we were talking before in our discussion before we started recording.
Sometimes you might not be able to say positively 100% this is exactly what it means, but we can, based on this. This immediate context in a global context, we can know what it's not saying. And I think you already kind of talked a lot about that, Paul. We know it's not saying that Jesus went to the spirit prison and gave people who didn't hear the gospel or who disobeyed the gospel a second chance at salvation. We can know for sure that that's not what it's saying.
Well, hold on one second there, though, because at least in the King James Version, 1 Peter 3:19, the way it reads here is that he went and preached to the spirits in prison. I think that's kind of interesting because usually the word preach, you know, in a Christian context is. Is a positive thing, right? Like, hey, this is the word. If you accept it, you have hope.
Um, so I'm kind of wondering how that is in a different translation, but I know that, yeah, sorry to cut you off. Uh, it's generally. Translated proclaim. in other translations. And that's why they say that he was proclaiming victory to the fallen angels.
And going back to, you know, I referenced the conversation or the Facebook discussion that I was in probably likely right about 10 years ago now that was discussing this passage. And that was one of the claims that the one Christian was making is it had to do with the Greek word and how it's translated preached versus proclaimed. And actually that conversation about the Greek and how to translate, it's one of the things that made me want to go and study in a Christian seminary. That's really that is really interesting because it just seems like there's a couple of instances where just the way that the King James version is written and you pair that with LDS theology and it just seems to really build a trap. For Latter-day Saints, where, you know, like from the LDS mindset, it says preach, you know, and it doesn't seem like that argument really works as well because it's like, well, it says preached here.
And that usually has a positive connotation. I mean, I had a similar experience with that when I was trying to, you know, argue with some Latter-day Saints about Hebrews. And I was like, show it. I was like, look, the Bible says that sanctification happens after perfection. And they're like, no, it doesn't.
I'm like, I'll prove it.
So I go to Hebrews, you know, where it says, by one sacrifice, he has perfected forever them that are being sanctified.
Well, that's what the ESV says. But the King James Version says he is perfected forever those who. Who are sanctified. And I saw that, and I actually had one of those moments where I'm like, is Calvinism true? Like, does God not want them saved?
Because this is a perfect trap. Like, it's just, it almost, I don't know. It was just one of those thoughts that I had. Like, how can it be? Like, it's like, just, and it just seemed like it was almost impossible to get out of it based on the way that things were worded.
That's interesting. That's why I like what Heiser does in kind of staying faithful to the fact that both Peter and Jude are related material. and they are covering the same ground. And they're referencing the sin of the watchers in Genesis 1 to 4 or Genesis 6, 1 to 4. The reason I like that, it ties together New Testament theology really well.
Like I was having a conversation with one of our listeners, David, about the Trinity earlier. And he was giving me a hard time about, well, the Trinity is not in the Bible, you know, typical LDS arguments against the Trinity. And I just made the point to him, you know, because he made a point about a certain passage. And I said, well, does the passage state that? Or are you making an inference?
And he admitted that he was making an inference. And I said, well, you know, the Trinity, although you say it's, it's. Extra-biblical. It's an inference from scripture, right? From all of scripture.
And I said, to me, it ties together all of the scriptural teaching on the nature of God better than anything else I've seen. And so that's why I. Why I'm a Trinitarian. But this passage with the way that Heiser ties it in with the supernatural worldview is the same way for me, right? It ties together New Testament theology in a way that makes sense of a lot of other difficult passages.
And so, even some interpreters I respect, like John MacArthur, he'll go as far as saying, yes, this is referencing fallen angels. But when he gets to Jude, he almost box a little bit at the fact that Jude uses 1 Enoch because it almost, I don't know what, I can't speak for why he does, but I suspect it's because he feels almost like he's walking into a trap that, well, then why isn't 1 Enoch part of the canon, right? If Jude is quoting from it. But, you know, Paul quotes from Roman poets, and those Roman poets aren't part of the canon either. Exactly.
So just because something is quoted. In scripture and alluded to, it doesn't mean that that itself is an inspired writing. And so, you know, Latter-day Saints will give you a hard time if you're talking about Jude and this passage too. But ultimately, I don't think we have to be afraid as Christians of really understanding biblical theology and what the worldview was that the New Testament authors had, because that worldview is what led, what has led to the historic Christian creeds. You know, the understandings of the early church fathers that led to the creeds.
They they were within that world as well.
So, anyway. Just my plug for biblical theology. Just your proclamation. I was gonna say that I said interesting, and then Michael, you also said interesting, so we've only got one more interesting left.
Well, you just said it twice more, so you're done. Have I said it? You I don't think so. No, I think you're good. You still got two left.
So, um, okay, yeah, that was a really great discussion and uh insight. Um, I don't really have anything else to add to that. Uh, so should we so since I was kind of going in a different direction than I had uh envisioned but it was really great.
So I think I'm really glad we I did want to kind of take a little bit of a crack at it. I don't, I'm not going to go as in-depth as Paul did on this, but it's kind of funny looking at this verse again because I know that I used this as an LDS apologist, but and I know it appeared in my book, A Biblical Defense of Mormonism, this verse, but I don't think I really talked about context at all. I think I just threw this verse in, didn't I, Paul? That is correct. You said in 1 Peter 3:20, Peter says that baptism saves, and you moved on to a different passage.
Right, because I pretty much believed that this verse spoke for itself and that it was so strong that there was no need to explain anything here. And, you know, even now, looking at this verse, it does appear, especially when you're looking at it by itself, to be a very strong verse saying that baptism saves us. You know, just. Just being an English guy who writes, like, that seems to be what it is saying there.
So I was kind of looking back through Romans chapter 4, which is Probably my favorite chapter in all of Scripture where Paul really just lays down the gospel. And I was fascinated to see, you know, he doesn't mention baptism even one time. In that chapter. And I was like, well, if it's that important, then why isn't it here? You know, he's just talking about faith and even saying that if it's through works, then we have something to boast of.
And I know that as a Latter-day Saint, you know, my baptism was something that I felt that I could boast about. I'd been baptized, I was. Keeping the covenants, you know, I was on the path to righteousness. And one of the things that kind of stuck out to me is: you know, Paul asks this question in Romans chapter 4. He says, you know, when was righteousness counted to Abraham?
Was it before circumcision or was it after? And I see a tie in with First Peter, too. We can ask the same question about Noah because I would say when did Noah find favor in the eyes of the Lord? Was it Before the flood, or was it after the flood? And the scriptures say that he found favor in the eyes of the Lord before the flood occurred.
And so, I think that there is a parallel between those two, uh, those two passages. And so, yeah, I don't believe now that baptism saves us, at least not in the sense of just being justified and pronounced clean. And it's funny, too, because it says right here in this verse, um, baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know if this was you guys' experience, but as a Latter-day Saint, I s I swear that they actually used Uh the metaphor of Removing dirt from your body to explain what baptism did, that it, you know, washes us clean, you know, like. In the way that taking a shower washes us clean, only it cleans us from sin.
But here it's expressly saying that it's not like the removal of dirt from the body. I can confirm that they did teach that.
Okay, thank you. I'm not crazy. I appreciate that, Paul. And so, yeah, it seems like it's really definitely saying here: you know, it doesn't save us in the sense that it is removing stains from our souls. You know, it's not taking sin away from us and washing us in the way that we thought it did when we were Latter-day Saints, but it is an appeal to a good conscience.
So yeah, I just wanted to share that. No, that's good. I could see that specific clause in two different ways. I could see it the way you said, that, you know, it's not saying that the water itself somehow washes away sin, you know, in and of itself. But I could also see it, because I know that, you know, we have friends that are Lutherans and some Anglicans will use this passage and say that, you know, they'll use that as evidence of baptismal regeneration.
So we've kind of been talking a little bit about that in the other passages. But just to bring it up, you know, they believe in baptismal regeneration such that when... their infants are baptized, they actually are, the Holy Spirit actually does work through that sacrament to regenerate the child, give the child faith, you know, basically bring the child to new life as a Christian. And so I could see them reading this passage and saying, oh, well, it's not talking about like a physical removal of dirt, you know, like it's not actually literally cleaning the baby's body. It's, it's, it's a spiritual inward cleansing.
Do you know what I mean?
So I could see them I could see them as maybe s seeing Peter, as saying it's not a physical change that's going on, but a spiritual one. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying I agree with that. I'm just saying that if I were a Lutheran, that's kind of how I would probably read this passage. Yeah, I I could see that.
I guess the question that I would have For that, would just be, you know, I guess it's different when you're a baby, but for an adult, you know, you wouldn't get baptized before having faith, right?
So, I mean, because it almost makes it sound like they're equal, or, you know, you can just be baptized and that counts. And then you'll get your faith if you get baptized first.
So I guess I don't understand Lutheranism really.
So I guess that's just where my mind goes first. You know, is then do I need to have faith to be baptized? And the scriptures seem to teach that you do. Like the eunuch, you know, he sees that body of water and says, What? What hinders me from being baptized?
And Philip says, if you believe, then you may. Yeah, from what I've read from Lutheranism, they, so like, I have a LCMS, a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
So they're like one of the more, I think, conservative Lutheran views because there's a lot, you know, within the Lutheran and Anglican views, there could be a lot of differences. But they said here in this frequently asked questions page, they said that they do not believe baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. But they say, and as our Lutheran fathers have always taught, baptism confirms the grace of God upon adults who have already come to faith and strengthens them in their faith, even as the Lord's Supper does.
So from what it seems like there, yeah, it's similar. It seems like when it comes to adult conversion, we're pretty much unified across the board, whether you're Presbyterian or Methodist or Baptist or whatever. You have to have faith first and repentance first, and then you're baptized.
So I've never encountered a case where there's a difference in that. The only difference is when we Decide on, okay, who are infants proper subjects of baptism? And if they are, you know, is it by pouring, by sprinkling, by immersion, etc.
Okay, yeah, I had no problem at all with that definition that you read. That sounds great to me. Did you have anything else to add? None on that question, no.
So I found a really great page that has similar views to what I hold. They hold to the 1699 Baptist Confession, and so this is actually a commentary on the confession. And basically, they post several quotes from church leaders that are relevant to this particular passage. He says, Albert Barnes noted on this clause, speaking of 1 Peter 3:21, not a mere external washing, however solemnly done, no outward ablution or purifying saves us, but that which pertains to the conscience. This important clause is thrown in to guard the statement from the abuse to which it would otherwise be liable.
The supposition that baptism has of itself a purifying and saving power. To guard against this, the apostle expressly declares that he means much more than. Than a mere outward application of water. And then John Gill wrote: For to baptism, profession of faith in Christ and of the doctrine of Christ in a pure conscience is requisite. And in baptism, persons make a public confession of God and openly put on Christ before men.
The sense seems plainly this. That then is baptism rightly performed and its end answered when a person, conscious to himself of its being an ordinance of Christ and of his duty to submit to it, does do so upon profession of his faith in Christ, in obedience to his command and with a view to his glory. In doing which he discharges a good conscience towards God, and being thus performed, it saves. And I already read from the Baptist Catechism. I think it's also in the Westminster Larger Catechism.
Let me pull that up in one of my tabs, one of my millions of tabs open right now.
Okay, so this is question 161 in the Westminster Larger Catechism. I think it's 98, 96, or 98, something like that, in the Baptist Catechism. But it's the same question. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Answer: the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered.
So. Parenthetical note, you know, it's not talking about the intentions of the pastor or the preacher who's giving the sacrament. Basically saying it's it's not reliant on his on his uh desires or intention, uh continuing on, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted.
So in themselves the sacraments don't have power to to save, but through those who have faith they do become effectual to salvation.
So um yeah, so faith, repentance and the sacraments they all go together.
So, you can't separate these things from the efficacy of the sacrament itself. Whereas the Roman Catholic view is that they believe in ex operae operato, which basically means in the working work, in the work working, that in doing the sacrament, you actually are effectually giving salvation to The person.
So they believe that. The sole instrument of justification is not faith, but actually baptism. Whereas the Reformed view is that the sole instrument of justification is faith. I just wanted to talk a little bit more about this, too.
So he's referring to Noah on the ark and they're being saved in the ark. And so he uses this kind of analogy. And Paul, you might have already talked about this a little bit, but so. Everything in Christ in the Bible is Christocentric. Everything points to Christ.
And so when we see Noah and these eight people on the ark that are being saved by God and they're being brought through the water, as you mentioned, Michael, they were favored by God. Noah had already received favor from God beforehand. And the ark represents Christ.
So they're protected in this ark who brings them through the waters to salvation. And so I think Peter's trying to make this connection between the waters that were pouring over them and they were saved being in Christ and being covered in the water to this idea of baptism, you know, confessing Christ and being in Christ. And so it's not... You know, it wasn't the water that saved them, or it wasn't the ark, you know, it wasn't the water that saved them. It was God.
It was Christ, you know, that saved us, that saves us spiritually, just as when God led them on the ark through the waters, you know, God saved them. And so That's why he says it's not a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
So it's in that sense that through faith we profess our faith to God and we are. we truly have faith in Christ, it's through that that that Baptism saves and that we are saved. It's not in the mere washing from the water itself. And so, this is why the Reformed always make a point to point to the sacraments and the sign, what it actually is and what it's pointing to, which is the thing that's signified.
So, there's a sign, which is baptism by water, and what it signifies is salvation, regeneration, being in Christ, redemption, salvation, all of that.
So, there's the sign, which is the water baptism, but what it's pointing to is salvation, which the sign doesn't necessarily give you.
So, you know, you can receive the sign, but not have what it signifies. But the hope is that you only give the sign of the covenant of baptism to those who have what it signifies or who have shown profession of faith and who do show fruits of repentance.
So, they should go part and parcel together. It's not like you can really tear them apart. And I think sometimes that's where you get problems is when people try to separate spiritual baptism from water baptism and say, This passage is only talking about spirituality. spiritual baptism. This one's only talking about water baptism.
Because I think the biblical authors kind of saw You know, they saw such a strong connection between the two that if somebody was saved, they were immediately baptized in water.
So it's kind of a modern invention that we tried to separate those two into completely different categories. Whereas in the early church, they saw such a strong connection that if you were saved, you were baptized. You know, there was, as Paul, you've mentioned in the past, there was not a large contingent of Christians who were not baptized. There were exceptions, but that was not the the normative experience.
So, sorry, I keep rambling on. No, that's good. You brought up some good points.
So, just kind of play off a couple of things.
So, I hope I don't lose my train of thought.
So, You were talking about the separation of water baptism and spirit baptism, and how sometimes people try to. Say that one passage is talking only about spiritual baptism, and one passage is only talking about water baptism. Why do you think there is that discussion? What do you think the historical Christian context is for that discussion. Do you think it flows from Kind of the Zwinglian view.
Yeah, that's really interesting. Oh, shoot. I already used up my a lot. Damn. I'm gonna have to think of another uh I'm gonna have to go go Google synonyms for interesting.
Yeah, I think it could be that. I think it's probably a reaction to Roman Catholicism. You know, they want to say, well, this can't be water baptism because then this would say that then this would imply that we're justified by water baptism. You know what I mean? Like it seems almost like a reaction to Roman Catholic theology, but like you said, it could also be a reaction on the other side, possibly to Zwinglian theology, where it's more of a, from what I understand of Zwingli, he thought it was more of a profession, you know, it was more profession of faith rather than an actual sacramental impartation of grace through baptism.
So I could see them trying to say, well, it's not talking about water baptism here. It's only talking about spirit baptism because then that would kind of go counter to their To their theology.
So I could see that. I'm not saying that they're, you know, it's hard because there's no perfect theologian, and always there's potential, possible, valid interpretations of any particular passage.
So I think it would depend on the passage in question. But yeah, I could definitely see that, that someone has their systematic theology. And then to try to fit every passage in it, they'd say, Well, this can't mean water baptism because then that would mean I'd have to change my understanding. Do you know what I mean?
So, I'm not sure if that's kind of what you're getting at. Yeah, yeah, it is. And to just kind of put a fine point on what I was getting at is that you know, we all can sometimes face the danger of bringing to the text of scripture an understanding that comes from a later interpreter and. Kind of retrofitting that onto the text of the Bible. Latter-day Saints do that explicitly with the teachings of Joseph Smith, right?
And sometimes they rightly criticize Christians for doing the same thing with the teachings of Luther or the teachings of Calvin or whoever else theologian that someone may be studying. And that can be dangerous, kind of as you noted, Matthew, in your response to my question, is that the New Testament writers seem to see kind of an intimate connection between The spiritual regeneration and baptism.
So it's not necessarily the right approach to try to bring some later interpreters' approach to it, which may be a reaction, as you said, to Roman Catholicism, a right reaction to something that may have been wrong. But even so, you should come to the text of the scripture and try to understand it on its own context. Right. Yeah. I agree with that.
The other thing I wanted to try to follow up on a little bit on what you said is where you were talking about, I can't remember the exact wording that you were using from the confession, or maybe a theologian, I can't remember which you were reading from at the time, but you were talking about that it doesn't have to do with the right intentions of the person performing the ordinance, right? And in thinking about that, I realized what we what we kind of had, the conversation we kind of haven't had yet around this and baptism that's important to Latter-day Saints is this idea of priesthood, right? And having the right authority to perform a sacrament or an ordinance.
So what would you Say to a Latter-day Saint that would say, Okay, that's great. You may have a view of baptism in terms of it imparting grace in the New Testament sense. But it's still not done with the right authority.
So, how would you answer that critique? Let me let me form my thoughts. How about you go first, Michael? I think the first thing that comes to my mind is just, you know, kind of what we've been talking about. Here, that if baptism is not something that actually justifies us.
then why does it need to be done under any sort of proper authority at all. I mean, I think that once you take that position, it really takes the strength out of the LDS argument that you need to have the right authority to do to do it because it just assumes That baptism has this saving power, that it's a holy covenant between you and God, and you need to have somebody with the authority to allow you to make that oath to God. And to me, it's not an oath. It's me showing my allegiance and my loyalty to God, but it is an outward sign of an inward change. And it doesn't matter if the person has the proper authority.
I'm making a statement and an outside source doesn't affect that.
So you see it as kind of like, well, the fact that we're justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and it's not an absolute necessity to be baptized in water, then it doesn't mean that we need to be baptized by one with authority, at least in the sense of receiving salvation. That's kind of what you're saying, right? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, well, I do, so I do believe that.
That elders and deacons in the church do have authority. But I don't think it's a special sacerdotal, sacramental, you know, kind of like special authority like they they or priesthood, you know, like the Latter-day Saints and some of the other traditions believe kind of like Anglicans and Lutherans, they do believe in kind of like, you know, in a sort of priestly order, but more, but more certainly by the Latter-day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church.
So I would say that elders are the ones that should. give baptism, you know, um in a in a normal church setting because they're the ones that are the ministers of the new covenant. You know, they're the ones that have the author the spiritual authority over their flock. But I don't think that it negates The, that's what I'm looking for, the efficacy or the sanction of that water baptism if they're not an elder. And this was kind of like a big.
Debate in the early church, the Donatist controversy. It wasn't about whether they were ordained priests or not, it was whether they were quote-unquote worthy. You know, there were some in the faith who denied the faith after persecution or those who fell into sin. And so kind of the Donatist position was that those who receive sacraments from those people should be annulled and they should have to redo those sacraments because they're not valid. But then it was decided that that's not the case.
It's not about the person giving the sacrament, it's about the one receiving it. And it's, and I'll requote that catechist question from the Westminster Confession. It says, it's so the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not, I'm skipping some parts. Not by the intention of him by whom they are administered, so not the priest or the minister giving it to them, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted.
So it's Christ that instituted these sacraments or these ordinances, and so he sanctions them. You know, he is the one that blesses them and says, okay, these sacraments are valid and. I give those them to those, and they should be given to those who have faith in me. And it's by the working of the Holy Spirit that it's, you know, that they're actually, that grace is actually administered to the faithful.
So, I mean, on one hand, I do agree that in some sense they should be. Performed by those who have some authority, like an elder or a missionary that's given authority to preach in that area. But there's nothing in scripture that says you have to have a special priesthood. The only priesthood we know of in the new covenant is Christ as the high priest of the new covenant.
So there's no priesthood given to the The apostles, where they're given authority and power, but there's no priesthood attached to that. Do you know what I mean?
That's kind of like an overlaying of LDS theology onto the scriptures rather than just reading the scriptures themselves. Right. Yeah. And if I could just share. A passage to just kind of goes along with that.
I'm going to add one more thought to that, but it's Doctrine and Covenants 121, verse 37. And this is talking about the LDS priesthood. It says that they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves, the spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
So, the problem with the LDS system is: you know, I would be terrified because, you know, if I was getting baptized in that system again, I'd be wondering, like, how do I know that this person's priesthood is still valid and that they haven't. To some small degree, tried to exercise dominion over somebody. And if their priesthood is not there, then I'm not saved by this ordinance. Whereas what you were saying, Matthew, like, yeah, maybe somebody with authority should. Should do the baptizing, but that authority is not going to go away because they've.
sin to some small degree, like it will a Latter-day Saint. who's trying to to perform baptisms. Yeah, I was going to bring up that exact point, Michael and Matthew. I was going to bring up the Donatus controversy as well. It's interesting to me that the Latter-day Saint concept of priesthood is, as you said, Matthew, it kind of is something retrofit back onto the Bible.
And it really is something that flows out of. The Reformation, right? And the Roman Catholic view of Of priesthood and who has authority, and then how the reformers were reacting to that as they were seeking to reform the church. And Latter-day Saints like to quote Wesley. There's a quote, I can't remember exactly what it says, but they like to quote him in talking about authority, that he couldn't find anyone that had authority.
I mean, that's been quoted in conference. And, you know, they quote that as saying, you know, it's kind of evidence that, well, the Reformation couldn't go far enough because it didn't have a restoration of authority. Right. And so then you get to the LDS view, which is really kind of an interesting mixture of. you know the whole new testament Concept of you know, all believers being a royal priesthood.
And. The kind of very rigid view of the Roman Catholic Church, right? And to your point, Michael, about unrighteous dominion, I was going to make the same point. If you have someone, a Latter-day Saint priesthood holder who is exercising unrighteous dominion, let's say he's beating his wife, and he doesn't tell anyone about that, that's obviously something he's going to hide and not try to get out of the walls of his own home, right? But if he's doing that, then according to LDS teachings, amen to the priesthood of that man.
Right. Any ordinances that he performs, the powers of heaven have been removed. And so, really, it's left up to bishops to try to be aware of whether or not they have anyone within their congregation who's a priesthood holder who's not worthy of performing ordinances. But when you think about baptisms, the only time a father is Uh, interviewed by a bishop as to whether he's worthy to baptize is when he's baptizing his children. If he's the word mission leader and the missionaries ask him to baptize an investigator who's coming into the LDS church, he's not interviewed in any kind of worthiness sense to perform that ordinance.
So, Michael, the problems you noted with the LDS system are real, if that's the way God works. Yeah, and it actually goes even deeper than that because. Everybody has their line of priesthood in Mormonism, and maybe even if that leader is good, but the person, you know. two people above him Was unrighteous and beat his wife, then amen to the priesthood of that man. He had nothing to pass on.
So, if there's a chink anywhere in that chain, then there's no legitimate priesthood. And I mean, I've brought this up to LDS apologists before, and they've tried to say that the baptisms and everything are still effective. But, you know, I want to know where that is found, that those ordinances still count when somebody is not worthy to use the priesthood, especially in light of the Doctrine and Covenants saying explicitly, amen to the priesthood of that man. I don't think there's any other way to read that.
Well, there's not. And really, it undercuts their argument about the great apostasy, right? Because part of the great apostasy supposedly was the loss of authority due to unworthiness, right? That's the big argument that Talmadge makes is that as the Roman Catholic Church fell into grave sin, That the power of the priesthood was removed from the earth.
So, if that happened in the LDS church, or I'm sorry, if that happened in the Roman Catholic Church, according to Latter-day Saint teachings, then Why can't it happen in the LDS church? And the answer is: well, God has promised that He'll never take the priesthood away from the earth again. But as we've been talking about the same challenges are present. And so when if you're going to make the argument that well, there's just a promise that it will never happen again, that's just special pleading for your position. Yeah, it is.
And by the way, I don't know if you noticed this, but I actually just did some negative apologetics, didn't I? Oh snap. We're breaking new ground today. Yeah, the uh the LDS me would not be happy with myself right now. Yeah, and I said the word that shall not be spoken as a multi-syllabic word.
I I know we're I know we're kind of like we haven't even started on the Lord's Supper, so we might have to do that next time, but I guess we'll see. But I wanted I wanted to bring up how I would probably defend it as a Latter day Saint. Um you know, the idea that if you're if you you're in unrighteousness, you can lose that authority and you're Your ordinances will no longer count. I think the way I would have answered it is: if you go to the Book of Mormon, there's the example of King Noah in the book of Mosiah, I think, right? Where basically he and all the priests were kind of corrupted and they were evil, and Abinadi preaches to them, and it pricks the heart of Alma the Elder.
I hope I'm recounting this correctly. And so, Alma the Elder, he kind of like feels in his heart, or God tells him to leave, and so he leaves and he brings a group of followers to the waters of Mormon and he preaches there and he baptizes them in there.
Well, there's no explicit historical recounting of his being ordained after his kind of conversion experience, I guess.
So, presumably, I would have said as a Latter-day Saint, well, he was ordained as a priest in you know, when he was still in King Noah's court, when he was still kind of wicked and they weren't practicing as they should. He still had that authority, so that when he went to the waters of Mormon and baptized, that authority still counted. Do you see what I mean? But does it say that that baptism actually counted anywhere? Yeah.
I mean, no, and don't really. And I think personally, you know, from our point of view, we see The Book of Mormon as being early on in Joseph Smith's theological development.
So I don't think he was thinking. Along those lines of, like, okay, do I make sure everybody has the right priesthood authority? I think he thought more in 1829, 1830-ish. He was thinking more along the lines of divine sanction, or there's another word. That they use.
But this idea that if God commands you, then you have the authority to perform the work. Do you know what I mean?
So, since God commanded Alma, He had, you know, in the commandment of the Preaching and the baptism, he was given that authority and not requiring laying on of hands to receive that authority.
So, I think that makes more sense in terms of Joseph Smith's theology of the time. But I'm just saying that's how I would have answered it as a believing Latter-day Saint.
So, I wanted to get your guys's response to that if a Latter-day Saint were to bring up that objection. I mean, it's probably the best objection that they can make, I would think, but it still contradicts what the doctrine and covenant says. Yeah, that's the thing, too. It's like the text is pretty clear that, yeah, I don't think you can go around that. And I think, Michael, didn't you say that they still count?
Or maybe it's you, Paul, you know, apologists will say, well, it still counts, not based on their righteousness. And I think that's what my mission president also told us because a missionary asked him, well, what if a member baptizes one of our investigators, turns out that they were in deep sin? Do they have to be re-baptized? And he says, no, they don't. And I think also the argument that he used was, well, it's not just the person giving the baptism.
That baptism has to be under the direction of someone with priesthood keys. Do you know what? I mean, so they're under the direction of the bishop and of the stake presidency for the baptism and the confirmation of that.
Well, I guess it's under the mission president, really, right? If it's a, if it's an investigator, but if it's a member in the ward, then it would be under the b the bishop and the stake president. And so those keys, even though the person may be unrighteous or not worthy of their priesthood, those keys are what make it valid, the the ordinance valid. Yeah. And I think this is why the Donatus controversy is so interesting, right?
Because what you had there was people who had denied their Christian faith to receive a document from the Roman Roman Government that would allow them to buy and sell, that, you know, during that particular Roman persecution of Christians. That it was, it was, you know, I think, I think, if I remember correctly, this is also where the ichthus fish comes from. It's the way that Christians at the time would identify themselves when they were buying and selling with one another, was to draw that fish in the dirt. Because the Roman authority was coming down on Christians and kind of trying to weed them out of the empire by not allowing them to buy and sell. And so there were Christians who had, and church leaders who had, you know, in those circumstances, rather than starve, they had denied their Christian faith to get the paper that was needed, the official paper that was needed to allow them to buy and sell.
And so later, the Donatists were the ones who said, no, no, no, no, if you did that, you're not worthy to be a leader in the church and perform ordinances, right? And the Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, kind of made a ruling on it and said, no, the ordinances performed by those people are still valid. Nobody is losing their salvation over that persecution, right? And so it's almost like the LDS Church, without persecution, has gone through its own Donatist controversy. The challenge is that.
For them, the Donatists is their scriptures. Oh, snap. Ouch. I had a thought too, Matthew, and I hope this isn't derailing the conversation too much, but you said, well, if it's under the keys, it's all good. But if a bishop interviews a father to baptize his son and finds that the father is not worthy, he will not let the father baptize the child.
And if if it if it's really the keys that matter, then why wouldn't he let the father baptize the child? Yeah, that's a good question. Uh see, I always felt like ok the way that I reasoned it in my mind about it when I was Latter Day Saint was like, okay, if the bishop interviews him, He feels that there's nothing wrong, or he's worthy to give the ordinance, and he signs him off. When he signs him off, he's giving his seal saying, you know, I authorize this person to do the baptism.
So if it turns out he wasn't worthy, It would be the you know that guilt would go on the bishop because they authorized it because they should know they should have the gift of discernment to know whether that person can or can't give that ordinance. Do you know what I mean?
So, that's kind of in my mind how I. Envisioned it. Yeah. I was saying if during the interview the father came out and admitted that he wasn't worthy, then he would not be enabled to do the baptism. And so that kind of takes out that whole argument that, you know, the keys are what really matter, because if that was the case, they would let the father do it despite not being worthy.
I see what you mean. Yeah, it's interesting. Oh shoot, I did it again. Tell you what, I'm gonna. I got a solution.
I will not say anything interesting for the rest of the podcast. You shall not say the word that shall not be spoken. In response to your argument about Alma, or yeah, Alma the Younger, or elder. Matthew, I I would just say that it you know the The article of faith is still Canon, right, with the Latter-day Saints.
So You know, we believe that man must What how's it say? How's it going? Must be called of God, must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands, right? By those who are tied to the performance of ordinances.
So, um, as far as I know, that's still in the LDS canon, right? Right. But what I'm saying is that he had been ordained by the laying on of hands, um, you know, when he was still in King Noah's court and everybody was kind of corrupt a little bit, so he still had that authority, he was just not using it righteously. But then, when God called him out, then he was using it righteously. Do you know what I mean?
So, like, the lineage from priest to son or you know, hand to hand by the laying out of hands, that still was there, and it was dormant in him. But then, when he came out and repented, then it was active, or it was he was able to use it again, is kind of what I was trying to say. I just get hung up on why any high priest in an in a quote-unquote Old Testament era would be performing Christian baptism on people.
Sorry. I was going to say they hung up on those things. I was going to say, plot twist. It turns out that Alma the elder was a Levite and naturally held the priesthood, and it didn't matter if it was ordained to him or not. See, that's an interesting bit of history that not a lot of Mormons know that since they're Levites, they have the right to the priesthood, and so they don't need, they can baptize.
By that authority that they have. And if they're bishops, they don't need counselors.
So when I got my patriarchal blessing, I was really like crossing my fingers hoping for Levi. I was like, I want to be the one bishop with no counselors. I just want to be like a one-man show. Wow, I didn't know that.
So, can I guess? Did you get Ephraim? Yeah, yeah, I do. Yeah, me too. I did too.
I think everybody does, don't they? No, actually, you know what's what's interesting? My uh my first wife, she got uh Manasseh, but there were other siblings in her family that got Ephraim. I'm like, how does that happen? Like Your blood, full blood siblings are from different tribes than you are.
It's like, is that how you find out that you were adopted? You know? But is there, has there, I wonder, has there ever actually been anyone that wasn't Ephraim or Manasseh? I don't know. I have never seen it.
There was, there was a guy in my mission who he wasn't, I never served with him. He was before me, but he served with my companion at the time, and he was Jewish. And I think he was actually from the tribe of Judah, or at least they said he was Judah, probably based on the fact that he came from Jewish heritage.
So that's the only one I know of that was from really from a different tribe than Manasseh or Ephraim.
Okay. Have you guys heard the rumor? Like they say that if somebody comes into the ward and they have, they're from Levi that they immediately become the bishop. Like whoever was the bishop has to step down. Never heard that.
Never heard that. No.
Okay. Yeah. All right.
Categorize that under an interesting urban legend. Yes. Mm-hmm. Step aside, Bishop. It's like a 42.
That's two for me. Oh, yeah, that's right. Are you keeping count, Michael? I lost count. I know that we've all exceeded it at this point.
If I say it again, is it amen to my priesthood? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, you have to turn in your resignation to the church. We thank you for tuning in to this episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast.
We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the Outer Brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking Send a Message at the top of the page, and we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook, where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com.
We hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Cast, Podbean, Spotify, and Stitcher. Also, you can check out our new YouTube channel, and if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe button and confirm it. If you like what you hear, please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael the X Mormon apologist at fromwatertowine.org.
Where he blogs, and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Rode. Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at Adamsroad Ministry.com. Stay bright, Fireflies. Come to me on you, labor and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am gentle and I'm lowly in high, and you will find rest for your soul for my yoke is easy. And my burden. Is God I am the way and the truth. And if you love me, I'll keep my word. I'll make my home in you.
No one comes to the father but through me. There's nothing and no one else to live. I stand at the door you're hiding behind. Can you hear me? Don't give, won't you rest me inside And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light I am the way and the truth And if you love me and keep my word I'll make my home in truth I gave my life to set you free And now I live so that you will be alive indeed And you will find rest for your soul For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
I am the way and the truth. And if you love me and keep my word, you will find rest for your soul. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. I am the way and the truth. And if you love me and keep my word, I'll make my home in you.
I'll make my home in you in you.
Whisper: parakeet / 2025-07-04 19:35:23 / 2025-07-04 19:37:05 / 2