This broadcaster has 57 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
November 29, 2020 12:01 am
The sons of light continue a focused conversation on topics and questions around the first of the two main Protestant sacraments/ordinances: baptism. We hope you enjoy this deep dive!
Beginning with 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 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, commonly referred to as the Mormon all of us have left that religion have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ. Based on the teachings name of our podcast outer brightness reflects John 19 calls Jesus, the true light gives light to every we have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told in 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 in what God has done in drawing us to his son. We have conversations about all aspects of the transition fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between were glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around listening. However, this contrast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God, to walk with Jesus rather than turn away out of sound brightness brightness wailing and gnashing of teeth. Here except for Michael's angry that is angry that is angry. That is why Matthew, the nuclear colonist Michael BX Mormon apologist Paul Bunyan the fourth LDS article of faith states. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel.
Our first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, repentance third baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Fourth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. In our previous episode of the outer brightness podcast.
We each discussed our past experiences as Latter Day Saints related to the nest necessity of baptism whether differences in viewpoints on the sacraments or ordinances disrupts the unity of the Christian church and how we now prepare and receive the Lord's supper and baptism as born-again Christians. In this episode we would like to take a closer look at the subject in previous episodes we described our personal journeys out of the LDS church and toward biblical Christianity and continuing our faith journeys. One topic that was of particular concern to me was what water baptism is what it signifies, who must receive it and whether it is still an absolute requirement for eternal life. In this episode we hope to address some of these questions and describe how we have grown in our understanding of Scripture concerning water baptism will also dive into passages that we often used as LDS missionaries to demonstrate that we must receive baptism in order to be saved and reconsider whether this is still the case in what has been called the great commission. The resurrected Lord Jesus gives one of his last sets of instructions to his closest disciples. He says to them, quote and Jesus came and said to them all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.
This was in Matthew chapter 28 so in light of this passage. What is Jesus commanding to be done here. Do you think this command was limited to the disciples or does it apply to the whole church, and what notable just instructions about water baptism are given here.
So I think I started with Michael last time. So start with you Paul. So I think that Jesus is commanding his disciples to make disciples and I don't think that the specific command is limited only to his first century disciple. I think it applies to the whole church there commanded to baptize new believers new disciples in the name of the father and of the son of the whole and of the Holy Spirit I think is significant.
I want to get your thoughts here too, but I think it's significant here that the Greek noun on mama is singular is not plural, as one might expect if say Mormonism work through them and the father the son and the Holy Spirit were three separate gods you might expect it to say that that they should be baptized in the names of rather than the name of singular selling your thoughts on that. My thoughts on now.
I'll let you go Michael L at my thoughts.
I don't have a whole lot of different thoughts and then Paul does really mean. I agree that it is the commission for the entire church. I just don't think it would be feasible for you know these these 11 Mende baptize every single person by themselves.
So I think that was meant for all of us, and yet he greeted very specific instructions to baptize in the name of the father the son and the Holy Ghost, but also to observe everything that he is commanded us so don't think I goes against what some Christians do what Paul was just saying words like, oh, you don't really need to be baptized me in that first very clearly says that we need to be baptizing, but also that there does need to be a focus on on righteousness and and drawing closer to God. You know, being a Christian isn't just about saying what I've been saved by grace and now me to be an antinomian and I'm not to do anything, you know I'm good I'm just gonna run red lights all day. You know, go to the liquor store assignment for the knock against you. Just hear the liquor store again.
What was a joke about that is singular to liquor store just to see you earlier peculiar Baptist Baptist a liquor store will be a peculiar Baptist. No particular baptism very particular about the alcohol I buy particular liquor. What took liquor take of Sir Michael Lori, did you have anything that still I completely say Facebook for up to yeah anyways.
What are your thoughts on this and I'm curious to know yeah method is is you doing your thoughts. I was curious about why you asked the question, do you think this command was limited to this to the disciples are to supply the whole church touch on that as well.
Pictures yeah so it's generally been understood in history. I think that this is called the great commission is given not just to the disciples, but to the entire church and that what is and what Jesus commanding is making disciples, baptizing them in water. However, I've known some people who were very has very strange ideas who were convinced that it was basically limited to this command was limited to the apostles just them and that either baptizing them was baptizing them by water or that the command to baptize them was not to baptism by water, but to baptize them by teaching them the word. You know, like a spiritual baptism kind of thing. So this is interesting because you'll meet certain people who claim to be Christian, and they have these very strange views about passages you know and I think that's why so court not hold the soul script tour this idea that the doctor in the. The only thing that's God breeze is Scripture is the Bible.
Every other source is not God breeze.
We have asked access to us today and so because of that fact.
Scripture is the only source available to the Christian church now that is infallible, so it's the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the church but that doesn't mean that other sources are not useful.
So when we look to the past 2000 years, you know, we see that this is basically been understood to be speaking to the entire church not just to the disciples and and that this is also saying that is speaking of water baptism not simply just preaching the word. So I brought that up just because you know some people a lot of times when people deconstructing all past viewpoints past religious beliefs. Sometimes it can deconstructed down to the Adam level where it's like okay I'm gonna have a certain level of skepticism about anything in the Scriptures, or anything that came before me and I'm gonna reinvent the wheel from the ground up and out and that can be really dangerous if you go that far. If you just completely ignore whatever everybody has said before what everything is come before us. He knows they all it's all Roman Catholic and also it was all wrong. We talked about that earlier but you know some things just because you are in a false religion doesn't mean everything taught in that false region was false so I kinda wanted to point point that out. Anything you would be a huge point discussion, but it's yet is interesting to talk about. I think it's interesting.
You mentioned some people view this is commands only the disciples and then further to say that it doesn't have to do with water baptism which is interesting because I wonder what that person would do with accident Philip in the unit right exterior is water here so that W would break up pretty quickly. I would think yeah yeah what it turned out that the more he talked to him that he deny the Trinity and a lot of other stuff.
So yeah, like that was kind of the first thing a merit raise my eyebrow to Mike not so sure about this guy.
Then when he went he went full-blown anti-Trinitarian is like okay well yeah my suspicions were correct so you might be going in the direction Paul is talking about some some summer posting the Paulist summer he's trying to put down that you know you not baptized into into austere baptism to Christ's kind of idea and and he says you basically I'm thankful that I am not called to baptize, I don't go out to baptize baptize any of you thought he might be going in that direction, suggesting that there were some of the early church that were evangelists only and didn't baptize people within the local churches why it's interesting because that passage was brought up by bank when I was reading a section as being a point against three baptismal regeneration because Paul said I was taught not to baptize, but to preach the gospel in all but a lot of times people consider baptism as the gospel as you like.
In this passage. Even Lutherans and others will see. I mean I'm not speaking down deliverance, but they interpret this passage where it says making disciples of all nations, some some Lutherans will see that they will see baptize sorry they will see baptism is actually fulfilling that command to make disciples. When you baptize them. You are making them disciples know in baptism you are giving them faith you are saving them.
So in the actual act of baptism. You are making them into disciples so it's interesting that in such a passage that seems straightforward, that there's so many different ways to understand things so that's kind when I brought it up.
I was so yeah I do agree that it is important I think the most important thing is to be baptized in the name as you said of the father and of the son of the Holy Spirit, not names, single name, and I think that's a really strong indication of the Trinity.
Excuse me, of the Trinity that the singular God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Yahweh or Jehovah as some transit rated. This is the God of Scripture and were baptized in the name of this God who is a triune God father son Holy Spirit.
Three persons in the single God so yeah I think I'm mean now that I'm born again and and read all these passages I it's hard not to read these kinds of things and see the Trinity all over the place and I think this is an example that it's it's kinda interesting isn't it, how when we were LDS week we can see that at all mean you actually when you do baptisms when you're latter-day St. yes you say those exact words to I baptize you in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Ghost and even in the act of saying that it just never connects yeah I was.
While there is some legitimacy to this idea that in the name of meaning authority of like you know there's a debate about whether to be baptized in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit, and there are some groups that believe that know the correct way to do it is to baptize the name of Jesus because that's done in acts. I forget the passage but there's really great article on that on Netflix website harm.org. He talks about how this is this isn't giving you a formula in the act passage where they are baptizing the name of Jesus. They were just it's it's their baptizing in the name of meaning in the authority of Jesus.
So I think that's kind of how I understood it when I was latter-day St. it's like all were not actually saying that God has one main were saying that we have the authority from God to baptize you know so that's how I understood it, but I think in this passage in the great commission Jesus is giving a formula. The Trinitarian formula for baptism so think but but but I do agree that that reading this and seeing that seeing it now, rather than seeing and saying it's only times before. I mean how many times did we do baptisms for the dead and the temple you know you said you do like 30 baptisms or something you don't really think about is interesting to see is a question that pops up about this verse here, so say you got baptize in a Christian church but they didn't say those words that you said your do you do you accept Christ as your Savior and you say yes they just say right buried like Jesus and only donkey do you need to be baptized again asking for a friend question. I think that I would leave up to the elders of the church. I think they may have different ideas.
I think some churches I think ought to just probably would require being baptized specifically in the name of the father and of the son of the Holy Spirit.
I think it's an elder decision ultimately my my pretty consistent interaction with this passage in it and its use within the churches that Christian baptism was done in the Trinitarian formula was interesting is very shortsighted out in the Eastern church there in a very early church these to you, trying baptisms. They would actually immerse people three times in the water and they still do that in the Eastern Orthodox Church with as infants a dump name or some three times and for the father the son and the Holy Spirit. So sometimes when the time comes up RA. It is a great discussion.
Anything else formula I was going I was going to bring up an additional thing that we probably don't have much time left to bring up the fact that Mark 16 also gives a great commission, but it also says verse 16 whoever so READ the whole thing and he said to them go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned and that's got controversial because there is manuscript evidence to say that maybe the longer ending of Mark is not original, but assuming it is original. Do you think you either you have any issues with that verse which says whoever believes and is baptized will be saved by whoever does not believe will be condemned. Does this mean that everybody has to be baptized to be saved.
Me, I don't. I just don't think that it is specific enough to really be a problem because it doesn't go into addressing you know anybody who believes but is baptize you know it's it's just kind of assume that if you believe you will get baptize and I think that's pretty consistent with my viewpoint. It's interesting that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved by whoever does not believe will not be saved right. It doesn't say whoever does not believe it is not baptized will not be stated. So does that mean that belief and baptism are necessary or does it mean that belief is necessary right which would which would fit with what you see within the rest of the Scriptures because the is the negation of whoever does not believe will not be stated that kinda stands out there naturally agree. I think that's that that's the huge demarcation.
It's not the baptism itself, but what a believer not and I think we've already discussed how not normatively baptism is to be received in the church and its only extenuating circumstances that should prevent summary from baptized, whether they know the thief on the cross. He was obviously dying next to Christ, so he did have a chance to baptize, but normatively once you believe then your baptized and added to the church. It's all kind of it's all part and parcel with becoming a disciple of Christ is interesting you know when you think about this idea that baptism is necessary right at least is taken very literally within the LDS church so much so that there'd be performed.
Baptisms for the dead for people right talk about on on the podcast going to the temple as it is teenager to do that were were my parents were working in the baptistery in the temple and spending Thursday evenings with them. There and think about what goes into that right because you have people working to do. The name extractions and within family history and submit those names to the temple and then all of the ordinances within the temple are done on behalf of those whose names and recorded almost as if God doesn't know who are his, without the LDS church recording who has been baptized in the temple right this is just one of those things when you think about the theological implications of that those ordinances are doing vicariously just becomes very weird because the suggestion is, God doesn't know who are his. Without it, and that's just, on suggestion matters and I've been told to, you know you asked the question. Well, what about people whose names were misspelled or mispronounced and then kind of just been told well that'll all be fixed the millennium. We just have to do our best right now to worry about it, think Jan a member I asked in the groups one time. You know what about those people who are baptized and accepted but then apostatized later in this spirit prison like well you ever do me baptisms for the dead, and that wasn't a very popular question Sandra sorry Greg is so the millennium is a giant database cleanup and yeah yeah yeah and all bunch of batch files to cleanup, but there are networks in your database and everything is kind of sounds stressful doesn't estimate the kinda came to my mind today is how stressful heaven sounds in Mormonism like I was thinking about you heavenly father and Mormonism when he lost 1/3 of his children like that must've been stressful and it's like at least don't have to deal with stress. After this life at all. I do think that there will be things will be doing. Of course, but yeah, I agree that I will.
I've heard some members say that in the millennium the temple be running day and night to get everything done so we will discuss several passages of Scripture that we often use as latter-day Saints to demonstrate that without exception, baptism, a saving, i.e., redeeming, forgiving cleansing, etc. ordinance, which is necessary to receive eternal life, less one passes away before the age of accountability. So the first passages acts chapter 2 verses 38 to 39 and Peter said to them repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself when your pin.
During our discussion about baptism, regeneration, or about what we view to accomplishing what you think Peter could possibly be teaching this passage and how might you understand this passage and how might it be understood from other perspectives so Michael just start off sure you guys real life example here.
I was talking to an LDS missionary probably about a year ago and we're going through Romans chapter 4 and got all the way to the end and understand read this year, but basically starting in verse 21. The elf fully convinced the guy was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness. The words it was counted to him were not written for his sake alone, but for hours. Also, it will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead, Jesus our Lord who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification by kinda showing them that you know it.
Imputation occurs when we believe and he you know he's a real real talkative, elder, and he kinda got real quiet quieter than I'd ever seen him yet and just didn't know what to say was just cornered by what the verses with the chapter here says in Romans four, and then he just kind of lit up and he used the exact verse that you just shared Matthew Peter saying, repent, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins is what about that and at the time I didn't know what to say.
You know, just felt like the Scriptures you were almost contradicting each other, like a cattle quite understand how to get around this, but is one perspective that I've kinda seen is what the word for could mean you know one ways is to say directly I'm being baptized to obtain forgiveness than the other way to to look at it that I think makes more sense is doing it because of something that you have. You know I've got this from got questions you a map to do a shout out here but it can assist. If you have a headache you take medicine for that headache. You don't take medicine to obtain a headache, but because you have one. And so it suggested there we are baptized for forgiveness of our sins because we've already obtained that forgiveness of our sins to jump in and add to that to yeah absolutely so on.
Kara my really like Matt slick stuff. I think he's some people don't like him for his attitude, but I think is a brilliant guy called in on his show on asking questions and is usually great and really knowledgeable and he has a page on this on baptism in acts 238 so he gets to the Greek a little bit.
He said the verb translated to be baptized is the indirect passive imperative, which is a command to receive hence passive voice in Greek adapted so which does not give it the same direct command implied and repent the preposition for in the phrase for the remission of sins in Greek is ice unto her into and it is in the accusative case direct object, it can mean for the purpose of identifying you with the remission of sins. It is the same preposition we find in first grade, things tend to in the phrase and were baptized into Moses does note that both contexts are dealing with baptism and identification.
First is 10 to the people were baptized or spiritually identifying themselves with the purposes and vision of Moses, so it's kind of going what you said, it's not. It's not necessarily saying that repent and be baptized to receive in the future, the forgiveness of your sins it's repent to be baptized to be identified with the forgiveness of sins, or the remission of sins. So it's kind of like baptism and repentance in all this is tied into the whole the sign and the symbolism of washing away of sins.
Forgiveness of sins.
So Pierce commanding them to hourly partake of the sacraments of the you can be visually, physically, sacramentally identified with remission of sins. Yeah, that's great. And I member of actually read all that from Karma's wealth that all sounded really familiar, so it's been a while.
That's all Greek to me though. Literally. Not as great the way he explained it is anything else I let Michael I'm not really know. Just wanted to throw that out there that's great.
Thank you, followed by yes so this passage in a little bit different direction. So we talked earlier about how sometimes those who engage in witnessing latter-day Saints will encounter latter-day Saints using certain passages of the Bible is proof texts and will have to take a contrary position.
Michael Academy and Matt you know when I'm responding directly to the way in which the latter-day St. is using the passage rather than maybe digging into the past and Matthew brought up the point that sometimes when when someone has left a faith tradition in grand is kind of goes in the mood in the motorhome to rebuild from the ground up right in terms of what what they believe the Scripture say I am like to solicit almost a position of extreme skepticism with with regard to everything I think I think is is guys who have left the latter-day St. faith right we we were taught to use this passage in a particular way in the way that the young elder that Michael was talking to use it right. This is used as a proof text to show you have to repent and be baptized to be saved and that's the purpose that latter-day Saints take the Scripture and and pointed at people inside see this. This supports what we believe about baptism, but if you actually look at the pastor, then this is something that didn't even stick out to me until today. Right when we were wise, parent for this. If you look at the passages in Peter said to them repent and be baptized. Mrs. this is following is his big sermon right is given on the day of Pentecost and and so the men and brethren are parked in our hearts, they asked him what shall we do right and he says repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and latter-day Saints stop there right and or maybe they don't want to and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost right. Right there. See baptism is necessary, but no one says for the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. The passage ends with the same type of language you find in John 646 right no one can come to me except the Father draws him right so it's it's interesting that that that part of that. This passage I don't see talked about very much when it is used in my like I said, I think sometimes because you people are just reacting to have latter-day St. that they're dialoguing with is using it and latter-day Saints are only using it in the way that they been taught to use it.
But if you look at the end of the passage applicable is for everyone who has been called by God to faith. Right is not that this passage is a proof text of repent and be baptized.
You do these things of your own free will and your saved know this is these are things that the people whom God is calling to himself are going to do and that's an evidence of that is that the men and brethren who were asking Peter this question say what shall we do, they are being called. That's fantastic. Yeah, I mean it's kind of want to bring that up immediately because they know I can't understand you calling and I got a bring that up that value solitude because he I want once I started learning the doctrine of grace and and I reread that passage the same.
That's what stuck out to me to like anytime you see the work call or election, or chosen or something like that.
It just like it neatly sticks out to you and you want to understand what the passage is saying and Dahlia very good. Paul think very much agree with a lot of what Sgt. said one thing to is like. I think I remember hearing James White preaching on this passage in the context is not Peter's talking to Jews. A lot of them are probably afraid because they are convicted they many of them were there probably are some of them were there, probably when Christ was put to death. We don't really know but they're probably worried that they've cut himself off from God.
You know they were the covenant people knowing that they put to death their Messiah. The probably scared and unsure of what's going to happen so instead of condemning them and saying you have no chance. You killed your Savior. You killed your God. You know he he gives him this promise, this very powerful promise that shows that God is not cut them off that they that God is still walk. He still offering the gospel to everybody and to those who will accept it and turn to Christ in faith.
You know they will be they will be saved, but the the promise.
The promise is if you repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That's the promise and as Paul said those are called God is drawing to himself. They should repent and be baptized in the end that's honestly this is also a point of contention because I know that my Peter Brett my reform paid a Baptist friends will use this as evidence that we need infant baptism, but as you brought up Paul I think it's stronger for credo baptism for believers baptism because it does have this this work calling, and the promise is not just to be baptized there promises that if you repent and be baptized. You receive the forgiveness of sins, and so I think it's kind of a package deal to say that that if we come in, repent, and we are baptized and we are united with Christ and that means our children are worthy of receiving the covenant sign of baptism. I don't see that from this text when I see is that yes your children. They also have this promise, but the promise you can't chop the promise up into smaller pieces. You can't say they don't need to be repent. They can be baptized as long as our child of a believer. I see it as your children who are also Jewish and other part of the covenant people of Israel if they repent and turn to Christ, the baptized, they will receive forgiveness of sins to going back to the context where they were afraid if they were cut off from Christ. Well, you probably remember from the condemnation of Jesus with was with Pilate where they were saying you know what should I do with your King. It was it was Pilate right yet that was Pilate there were and they were there they were Jews in the crowd that were shouting, you know, kill him and let his blood be on us and on our children and so some some commentators think that this specific promise is promising them you're not cut off you and your children are not cut off the promise is for you and your children, so there still there still redemption available to you. You just but what you need to do is repent and turn to Christ for forgiveness and so it's kind of helping them with this with that fear that all-wheel because of what we said in condemning Jesus you know where we have no chance because we said, but this this sin on us and our children so it's it's showing that God is so merciful and he still reaching out and offering his redemption to those who who come to him so it's written. If you read this whole passage is whole chapter. It's really it's it's not is it's it's it's kind of a limit manipulative or deceptive, and I don't think everybody does it that way with intention, but to Pluck these two verses out out of the entire context and this just as interesting speech that Peter is giving in to say.
You have to be baptized absolutely no question.
You know it's kind of, I don't think it's really doing justice to the text so I was hoping that you know in discussing this together and sharing of Latter Day Saints up without kind of help them to understand that it's not quite exactly the way we use that winter missionaries but but it's but it's certainly not saying the baptism is not necessary or that's not important and it certainly is important, but but yet so driving anymore thoughts on my thinking we covered it pretty good.
Sometimes I go around the thought and I hope that if I just keep going around and around the center sometimes and then I sometimes I don't.
So I just made maybe just a question, so there are some resource to look at in acts 230 and 39 correct so there are some people who say that this is where some people differ with the position that we kind of put out there that you regeneration precedes faith there some people who look at this passage and say that it makes clear that baptism is the time at which sins are forgiven and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and that gift of the Holy Spirit is actually the regenerating Holy Spirit right so how would you respond to somebody who might make that argument from this passage so I mean I would go straight to the story of Cornelius and and Peter going and talking to them because it says that the holy the gift of the Holy Ghost actually uses the word gift, the gift of the Holy Ghost fell upon them, and there is clearly no baptism that took place there. I think that's a really tough thing for Latter Day Saints to explain is how do these people have the gift of the of the Holy Spirit. Without that baptism because I don't think that's really a possibility in Mormonism.
It has to follow that exact formula you repent then you get baptized and then you receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but did nothing. Yeah I was thinking about that and I I think Michael's answer is very good. Sometimes I wonder though if you know if D since if we use another passage of Scripture to kind of eliminate a possible alternative interpretation that they might say no is to stick to this texting. I mean if you ever had that experience like no I want to talk about that arts once about this one but I can go back to what we discussed earlier about how being baptized for the forgiveness of sins.
It's like for to being identified for the forgiveness of sins. So it's like the command is to repent and be baptized, and this baptism is identified with forgiveness of sins, and so this receiving a gift of the Holy Spirit.
I don't think it necessarily amino LI guess we it's not wrong to refer to other passages because we do certainly see people who will repent and receive the gift of voice, but before the baptized, so I mean I think a good fault with them, I go there and how he would do it but but it there's nothing here to say that that baptism is what limits you to receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
He's basically saying, repent, be baptized, you will receive the Holy Spirit.
But the Holy Spirit also follows repentance falls face so and since we talked about how all of it is kind of a package deal when somebody hears the word, the preaching of the word except the word with gladness with faith, repentance, then it's almost typically immediately there baptized you know in there and there enter the church. Those kind of it's it's it's all a package deal so to where you can't see.
You can't separate each part of each part out into little pieces. You know, so I think I'm Peter promises this. He's not saying you can't have a spirit unless you're baptized. He's he's just saying turn to Christ, repent your see the Holy Spirit and part of that is being baptized, so I don't this is that clear or did I just make it more confusing. I think any meth you bring up brilliant points to me. I think the weakness was when I was just saying is it I pull out another Scripture that says the opposite seems to say the opposite to a latter-day St.
I'm basically just saying that the Bible contradicts itself like that's all they get to see as I think that really would need to happen is we have to take your approach and then take my approach afterwards and and Kennedy both like actually address the Scripture that they're talking about and then show another Scripture to confirm what were saying certain if you have something to fall knucklehead night and I just agree I think what I think the challenges that sometimes we face in conversing with Latter Day Saints about these topics is that there's because the because a latter-day St. tradition and the emphasis they place on the lay priesthood. There's there's almost like. The most I can view sometimes that if if someone is a seminary trained minister or apologists that they are most was the word of mine look for for Latter Day Saints. The third during priest craft priest craft or yeah something like that. Indoctrination maybe is not indoctrination but others I can't find right now, but maybe also want to visit you talking but there's almost as if you on trust worthiness right of someone who has has been seminary trained because there there. It's almost like the video mistrusting in the arm of flesh to teach them what what the Scriptures say, rather than going to God, right because the deal. This views everybody can go directly to God and an understrength understand the Scripture. That's why they have the gift of the Holy Ghost right and so there's almost like this mistrust of of of someone who's been seminary training and part partially because of that on the podcast that I haven't talked much about the fact that I am seminary trained and have an M.Div. and in biblical studies, but I think it goes to one of the challenges that we that we face is is that there are solid principles of biblical interpretation that the church has developed and and understood for centuries right and someone is one of the principles and those are referred to us as hermeneutics right how you how you treat the Texan and one of the one of the principles of hermeneutics is that you don't make don't build a doctrine on a single passage right you do have to take into it into consideration the whole counsel of the word of God. And so when you look at a passage like acts 238 and 39 and you try to make a case that is talking about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit here is something that comes with baptism. Therefore, regeneration happens at baptism you run into the problem of as as Michael pointed out that there's another passage that is passages that indicate that people have the gift of the Holy Ghost fall on them without baptism prior to baptism. You also run into the problem of having to deal with John 646 and on and other passages that talk about the call of God happening prior to baptism so this is just one of those things were is a challenge sometimes to to discuss these things with Latter Day Saints because I do want to kind of focus on this one passage that they've been taught to use as a as a proof text and is challenging to get beyond that with them and in and say hey let's let's look at everything that that the word of God has to say on this because all of that comes into play in should come into play as we as we build our understanding of what God has has taught us within the Scripture that's great that's really great insight. I wanted to bring up in the next part because we we've mentioned that we don't believe in baptism regeneration, but it and want to make our friends Philip left out by discounting other in on interpretation it could allow for big baptism regeneration. Even though we disagree with it. You know, others would say that it does teach that I think maybe I'll bring that up in John three is anything else would like to bring up before you move on. I guess at some great insights are really really appreciate it.
So an additional passage used by LDS to demonstrate the absolute necessity. Baptism is John chapter 3 verses three through five." Jesus answered him, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus said to him, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born. Jesus answered, truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
So how would you explain possible understandings of this text. And I think it's a pulse turn so I think the first thing the kind of did out there right is is there is a latter-day say when this passage was used as a proof text what I understood the teaching to be was that when Jesus says truly, truly, I say unto you most of all, unless one is born of water and of the spirit he can't enter the kingdom of God.
The way I was intended to read I was latter-day St. was, unless one is baptized or the water and receives the gift of the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands, he cannot enter the kingdom of God is that is consistent with the way you understood latter-day St. teaching on this passage to you absolutely you yet that's exactly how I understood it. So one of the things that that was interesting to me as I as I studied through this as part of my seminary studies in working through theology courses that the context is important right the context of what Nicodemus says to Jesus is important right he's asking specifically misunderstands what the Latter Day Saints perspective would be that he misunderstands Jesus right when just born again because they see being born of water as is baptism, but Dumas is asking kind of a question right. Like how can a man be born when he is old can enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, and Jesus answers truly to listen to you, unless one is born of water and and theology professor talk about this line from one of our classes that you know given the context is wholly possible. Here Jesus is talking about the birth water when one woman's water breaks in the Muslim is born of water right that the natural birth that every one of us goes through, and the spirit later right that that regeneration of the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Does that does that understanding makes sense to you guys or do you think that's up this I'll give you my perspective when I was a latter-day St. because people use that argument on me and I thought that it was incredibly weak as a Mormon because I did I just say how can you say that that is talking about earth which is ironic because of Mormonism go with you if you been born.
It means you kept your first estate, and so it actually is doctrinally sound to say that is a Mormon that is talking about birth, it is impossible all way to see that. But I think even now I still have a hard time saying that that's what that's talking about is it just feels unnecessary for Jesus to say you have to be physically born because anybody who ever reads this has been physically born so it just seems I don't know a little bit redundant or unnecessary to mention it. So I just want to know how you would answer that charge so I would say that Jesus begins the passage by saying that unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God and the need to do this. Nicodemus is clarifying questions. He's thinking about natural birth and Jesus then clarifies for him. You know, just everyone has to be born naturally of their of their mother, but I'm talking about the spirit birth that's that's what has to happen to see the kingdom of God, the person has to be born of the spirit and that's consistent with with the rest of the New Testament teaching on regeneration in the end gift of the Holy Spirit.
So I think the cot with the context of the passage and and of what Jesus truly is talking about in this passage make that that explanation makes sense yeah I think it's way stronger when you do explain the context around it because I would have people not explain the context just say oh that's talking about EO MVR embryonic fluids or whatever and I'm like seriously, that doesn't make any sense but yet in the context it does make sounds and it's a much stronger argument that way I think was interesting going back to the point I made earlier write about, five, and the kind of the linear process that's given their right you have you felt that mighty change of heart. If so, and be baptized right is what Elma is preaching in the book of Mormon and if you hold to that, and then try to take this passage to be born of water equals baptism and the spirit equals gift of the Holy Ghost, and you're kind of turning Elma five on its head and what it presents is that as the logical process of conversion is something I was going to bring up earlier but I forgot. But then you just reminded me is something that I always found interesting oil lease when I start questioning LDS church today really notice until then. One of their chapters.
When I was latter-day St. was doctrine and covenants chapter 20 is kind like there's think it was added onto overtime but it was originally supposedly like me know when they instituted the churches was, like almost the church Constitution sort of set forth like all the different church offices in baptism and everything. So if you go to verse 37 and doctrine cones.
Chapter 20 says and and again by way of commitment to the church concerning the matter. Baptism all those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church, and I think it goes along with your St. Paul is that it's interesting because it always seem like a latter-day St. theology, I believe that you could have the spirit only temporarily, before baptism, you know, I might come and go, but if you want to spirit all the time and you want to have forgiveness of sins and you want to be you not have the Holy Ghost with you into and to be in Christ. You have to be baptized. But this passage says that you need to show by your works, that you have exercised faith, repentance in Christ and that you already have received the spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins. So that also seems to follow more than asked 10 route rather than what I seem to remember is Latter Day Saints not this seems a lot more in line with no Orthodox Christianity than LDS theology.
At least I think I know how you both feel it says that it basically sounds like you need to show the of Artie been forgiven or stands before you can even be baptized. Yeah, sounds like a good head.
Paul is a seems like the same idea that you have been in Renee 1032 you know you have to deny yourselves of all godliness and then his grace is sufficient for you, kind of a problem when it will reinstate medical was asked if you you have in front of you with the with the data is for doctrine, is 20.
I think it was 1830 when they instituted early when they started the church, but hold on. Yeah I said it was likely recorded soon after April 6, 1830 so yeah that's interesting out so I was going to bring this up earlier but I think this is good for place to kinda drop this and so we opened the episode wrecked with with articles of article of faith for Ray and it kinda lays out: up, lays out that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel in the way that it's present in their first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins for the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost right and so that I can order still is is is your current pointing out with with the DC 20 still is kind of put Matthews it's more of a reformed kind of you comes first then repentance, then baptism, and then the gift of the Holy Ghost, but it kind of places to get to the Holy Ghost last which I think this is his credit. Interesting is that with the order that you laid out in D&C 20 is a little bit counter to that right and that's that that's the point you're making about D&C 20 because it almost makes a seems like you have to show evidence that you received the spirit of Christ, right which the New Testament refers to the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Christ.
So it's almost like that that temporally perceives baptism but I think what's interesting about this article of faith is that is why I does.
This is why asked about the dating on on D&C 20 because what one of the things I think is interesting about Joseph Smith as she was a cultural sponge picked up things that were going on around him and repackaged them and then presented them as revelation as he does that with the Masonic Temple of the Masonic ceremony in the temple and does that with with lots of other things. But this this article of faith is one of the things that you did that with rice… This is this article of faith comes to be comes about as part of the Wentworth leather that he writes to the Chicago newspaperman right and that's that's where we get the articles of faith which follows there.
The church is the LDS church moved to Kirtland, Ohio, where he encounters Sydney Rigdon, and a lot of Campbellite teaching and what's interesting about that is that there's a there's a Campbellite preacher who was an evangelist who was very, very popular in northern Ohio in the same way that Rigdon was before Rigdon joined Mormonism and his name is Walter Scott and he had this what that what he called like the five finger exercise that you would use to teach people school children about about the gospel and how you how you come to be converted so you would start with his thumb and be like is faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins and gift of the Holy Ghost on his is exercise. There were five things right remission of sins was a separate thing from baptism but is based on acts 238 right which we been talking about, but it's just interesting that Joseph Smith when he writes the articles of 50 just kind of slides that same exercise into article of faith for like like you did with a lot of other stuff is a cultural sponge because he had been through Kirtland at that point and had kinda soaked up that Campbellite theology from Rigdon and from from just being among people who joined Mormonism from from the Campbellite movement so I just find it interesting in minutes/validating on Dr. income is 20 because it's different than them both. Article of faith for and in Walter Scott's kinda way he lays out lots. That's interesting. So I was going to just limit what we Artie talked about and say that so all I kind of came to when I when I see this passage.
I'm not entirely sure hundred percent what do you, I take I can do that that understanding.
Like you said that it unites as being born of water and of the scary saying you know like you were even born once the natural birth but you have to be born spiritual birth so that I could see that is definitely a possibility. Also, I see. Probably another one of the stronger interpretations is that again Jesus is talking to Nicodemus. He's he's part of Sanhedrin right and so he's very knowledgeable in Scripture. You know he's a teacher of the law you he you know Scripture in all front, back, and so and this is kind of why Jesus says you can rebuke them a little bit and he says truly Troy say to you need to be born again and so when Jesus says that you must be born of water and the spirit. This might evoke some imagery from the Old Testament so as passage in Ezekiel chapter 36 where it says that I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and put a new spirit hold on Silas my place and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you. Sorry I keep I keep messing up on this and remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my spirit within you and cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will be careful to observe my ordinances.
So going back to beginning says I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. So I think there's possibility when Jesus is pointing out being born of water and of the spirit is not speaking of two different births at you know, a lot of times I think in Jewish thought they would use synonyms to kind of bolster the imagery or make it more forceful order or strong in the in the person's mind. So when he said being born water in the spirit something about two different things. He's he's Just reemphasizing the same rebirth the same spiritual rebirth and he continues on, and he doesn't talk about being born water again.
He only really mentions that once basically will in verse five and continues on its is that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
I continues I do not marvel that I said to you must be born again.
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going so is everyone who is born of the spirit and so a lot of reformed traditional line reform commentators they see. This passage is being born again. It's the sovereign work of God. The monitor just a quirk of God meaning it's God's work alone being born again is the work of the Spirit in our heart and it's not your baptism and that the latter part of that passage seems to point towards that evidence where it says do not marvel that I said to you must report again.
The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going so is everyone who is born of the spirit, so this being born of the spirit being one of the water and of the spirit is the work of God in our hearts.
The work of regeneration and we don't know it's it's on God's timing when were regenerated. Someone could hear the room. The preaching the word. For months, years, decades and at God's will. They'll be born again and it kinda reminds you of the blowing of the wind. You feel the wind on your face you, we might be able to tell the that the direction but you don't know where it came from. You don't know what caused the wind.
You just feel it and so I think that's a stronger case for the monitor.
Just took regeneration in the heart of the Holy Spirit, not through water baptism adjuster. The work of God, you, you feel it you you feel new you feel different. You feel renewed. You feel changed, but you don't know how you don't know where you don't know when necessarily exactly but it's it's it's the work of God in you.
So I think that's kind that's one of the interpretation that I kind of lean towards that this water, the spirit is not two separate births, but speaking overall of the cleansing regenerating washing work of God on the inner heart of the of the fallen man to change them into a completely new creation. I mentioned on the biblical studies guy right so there's there's always kind of a discussion. You know like how you bios it is a biblical theology or as a systematic theology in others, this this wrestling that goes on between Gibson and and the systematic survey and I'd I kinda follow me on the Google theology side because my my position is that when interpreting Scripture. Google theology should drive your systematics rate should have a solid understanding of the context and in the genre of the writing you're looking at. So I went and presented their it is interesting that Jesus might be referring back to the to the Old Testament and that's certainly the sermon would be consistent with with what he says to do mostly kind of upgrades and says you know your teacher in Israel and you don't understand this stuff, so it could be definitely could do that when he goes on to say to that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and I was born of the Spirit is spirit. Now I see that this kind of consistent with the board of water is this referring to natural birth consistent with the context of Nicodemus's questions, but definitely digging more to to that reference he different from the Old Testament visit from Ezekiel right so and see how that might interact with this this passage so that yeah definitely.
If I see the way you see it as a possibility so I can assail Mike well I see validity to his role years. You know my either. Either way, I don't think there's really rocking out among the two or three ways I think we talked about a little bit.
I don't think there's a wrong way to see it or in such a way that would negatively impact your understanding of the rest of Scripture. Deuteronomy yeah I think it's definitely think the LDS view is definitely wrong especially with that that diversity shared Matthew where he says you are the wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound we do not know where it comes from work goes. So it is spirit, testing, and in Mormonism everyone who is born of the spirit.
You know exactly where they came from and that is that system that Joseph Smith gave you repent and be baptized, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and this definitely seems to speak against that right and and many and this is and going back to accepter to one thing on invention two is is I think a lot of those people in that chapter. I'm not sure if all of them were were were at the day of Pentecost, or if that was later I can't remember if there's a time difference, but meets the same chapter as the day of Pentecost were they had this huge outpouring of the Spirit and many of them were already no believers so you know I think that's another instance where it just shows that the spirit did follow up on many of them before they had been baptized and so and that goes along with this, the spirit blowing through and and working in us. We don't know where it goes or where it comes but but this is how everyone is born of the spirit is is it it it. You can't really say all I got from this circuit from the source nine think is gonna briefly bring up that there are no Lutherans and Anglicans you know some some kinds of Anglicans I think primarily believe that these passages do talk about baptismal regeneration that you can be that they can be used to show that you are actually regenerated in baptism and I can kinda see how they they seem to form and I've talked to the Lutherans. They seem to interpret Scripture more on face value. Deuteronomy like Delta read a passage and they'll say that the clarity of Scripture requires that we read it without trying to first make it make sense with every thing else a little bit, you alluded to Pauline on not worry so much systematically reading a text, just read it and understand it and then you know then then you can fit fitted in with the rest of Scripture later is not quite what you're saying but it's a similar kind of idea, so I know that they would read this and say that this is talking about. That is regeneration then ever talking about the patristic writings that their church fathers basically since the second century. This is how they view this passage is that it's talking about water baptism so I certainly don't hold that all the church fathers were infallible by any means, and we always need to go to the source at font as to the source and re-examine Scripture and then that's our ultimate sole source of authority so I don't feel threatened that most of the church fathers didn't see this passage like I do, but I just wanted to bring that up. You know that's good and my point was simply simply that right is when I said that your biblical theology should should drive and flow through to your systematics right is is just that did know we we read Scripture as if I think we were talking mother in our chapter read earlier in the week. Right when we read scriptures of the people in the shares of of those who are writing and those who are preaching and in Scripture are just like us and we really need to understand how would a first century Jew have understood that passage right.
How would how would Nicodemus have understood what Jesus said to him after he asked questions about natural birth. We have understood that is very possible if you would've understood Jesus is referencing Ezekiel right so that's the kind Google theology and then context that should should flow through to your systematics, not the other way around. Some that's asking yeah I like that.
We thank you for tuning into 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. We would appreciate it if you give the page alike.
We also have an outer brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. you can also send us an email at outer firstname.lastname@example.org. Hope to hear from you soon. You can subscribe to the outer brightness podcast on Apple podcasts cast box Google podcasts pocket cast pod being specified in stitcher.
Also you can check out our new YouTube channel and if you like it be shirts to lay hands on the unsubscribe 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 next moment apologist from water to wine.work blogs and sometimes pond method you as well.
Music for the outer brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road.
Learn more about Adams Road. By visiting their ministry page. It Adams Road ministry.com. Stay bright and is a and I is