Posted on 01/01/2008 2:01:51 AM PST by Maelstorm
Baptisms for the Dead
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.
It has been done on this forum. They didn't come out so well either.
I think if he did that would be all anyone talked about and his campaign would get little coverage!
That said Christ did set the standard and He was baptized.
Yet, he was not babptized for sins. He did it to fulfill all righteousness. John even recognized that He himself needed to be baptized by the unbaptized Christ, and John had the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb.
So are you saying, let me get this straight, between Paul and JS there was NO Christian work?
Jesus taught that you must believe to be saved.
If you die as an unbeliever, you die in your sins.
No baptism by proxy. Sorry.
How else can you interpret the entire Gospel of John?
***
Why did Jesus go and visit those in spirit prison if the show was over?
There are many passages in the scriptures that testify diferently.
Such as every knee will bow
Romans 14
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
Wow! Badda bing! Badda boom! That was amazing. I knew that material was preterist, but you nailed it.
There were no occurrences of the word NERO found in the Text of the Scriptures.
I then apologize, that was not my intent.
I simply question the doctrine that once we accept the fact that Christ is the Redeemer, our salvation requires no further acts of repentance our part.
Bump, and mark for research.
“In 1 Cor. 15:29 Paul references the same work taking place in the early Church established by Christ.” Completely and utterly false. ... And that is the typical Mormonism Apologetics methodology I just used, to say ‘false’ but not detail why it is asseeted as false. Isn’t it special?
Placemark
Will you ever be able to comprehend that worthiness to be saved is IMPOSSIBLE for one dead in tresspasses and sin? A dead man cannot produce works of LIFE/RIGHTEOUSNESS. If Grace is not first, to impart new life as Jesus taught Nicodemus in John3:5, there can be no works worthy of His Righteousness because the worker is dead in spirit. If you try to produce works worthy of His Grace, without His Life in your human spirit, then the works are your creation, and the Bible is clear in John's intro to his Gospel that ONLY by Him and through Him are all things made. Deadmen cannot produce works sourced in LIFE.
Considering what Jesus taught Nicodemus (and ol' Nic was the one who provided the spices for Jesus burial enshroudment), ask yourself what works an unborn baby can perform in the air world ... 'you must be born again' in order to do works of Spirit LIFE chracteristics.
“Much of the NT wa written after the last book of the assembled books was written.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Much of the New Testament was written by Paul, and were letters to the Christians in the churches he had founded...
Several of the letters were written from prison, or during his journeys...
John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, was just a young man when Jesus was crucified and rose again, a finished work of redemption for us....
Paul was long dead when John, now an old man, wrote the Book of Revelation...
Jesus was baptized as an infant AND as an adult. The adult baptism was not for his sins, or our sins, it was a rite of ordination. If you notice, his ministry did not really begin until after that point. In Jewish custom, you were not a rabbi until you had been washed by a rabbi. John was a priest by lineage and he ordained Jesus who was a priest of the order of Melchizedek.
We trivialize the meaning of baptism when we say it is necessary for salvation and use John 3:5 as an example. It was/is a promise to serve God and teach or work in his name (evangelize). Think priesthood of all believers as an example.
Baptism is not a ritual of dunking, sprinkling, or pouring that we do to save our souls, it is an act we do to signify our desire to serve God. Being cleansed (the original word in the text) is a spiritual thing. You must be cleansed by the Holy Spirit. No amount of ritual will save you or anyone. Salvation is free, a gift we receive by Grace.
Right. Paul was using the analogy in 1 Cor. 15:29 to illustrate that the pagans believed that there was life after death. Christians were not doing such a thing.
I have these comments as statements of personal opinion: Baptism of the dead is laughably absurd, it takes a lot of gall on the part of the living, and it’s all for naught. But it sure is convenient for the weak of mind and the lame of theology.
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” [Rev. 22:18–19] (Italics added.)
Let us first consider what John meant by “this book” and then consider what he meant by not adding to or taking from it. When John wrote the Book of Revelation in the latter part of the first century a.d., he was not writing the concluding pages of the New Testament, as there was no New Testament in existence at that time. He was an exile on the isle of Patmos and was writing a scroll addressed to seven branches of the Church on the western side of what we today call Turkey. His manuscript was entirely independent of the rest of the 27 separate manuscripts that later came to form the anthology that we know of as the New Testament. Nor was his manuscript necessarily the last one written. It is the consensus of those who have written on the subject that several of these 27 scrolls were written after the Book of Revelation was written. Not until the fourth century a.d. did the emerging collection of sacred writings become the New Testament essentially as we know it today. In the light of these facts, we may see that when John spoke of “this book,” he wasn’t referring to a not-yet-formed New Testament but simply to his own scroll, the Book of Revelation itself.
What, then, does John mean when he commands anyone who reads his work not to add words to it or to take words from it? He means that no one should tamper with the text of his scroll in any way. He wants no copyist, no would-be deceiver, no well-intentioned but misguided believer, no one to make any changes in the way it reads. He wants it to remain precisely as he has inscribed it under the inspiration of the Lord. It is interesting that the author of Deuteronomy, the fourth book of the Old Testament, similarly warns his readers, “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it.” (Deut. 4:2; compare Deut. 12:32.) In both cases the writers are commanding future viewers of their sacred manuscripts not to alter anything that has been written. Fortunately, no one seems to be arguing, on the basis of the injunction in Deuteronomy, that there never was to be any more scripture, for then some people might conclude that the rest of the Bible must be rejected.
Not only is John not saying that there never would be additional scripture, but the inevitable conclusion that one must draw from the Book of Revelation, when taken as a whole, is that John recognized that there undoubtedly would be additional scripture in the last days. How so? What is scripture (Latin: scriptura, “a writing”) but divine revelation in written form? A good portion of the Book of Revelation is a prophecy of heavenly messengers coming to earth at a time beyond John’s day. When such messengers come and a written record is made of the visit and their message, automatically new scripture is formed. In the 11th chapter of the Book of Revelation John predicts the mission of two prophets who will prophesy in Jerusalem at the time of the end. When they prophesy and their divinely revealed message from God is preserved in a written record, again new scripture will be formed. Rising above all other events in prophetic significance in the Book of Revelation is the predicted second coming of Jesus Christ. When Christ comes and men of God make a written record of his coming, once more new scripture will be formed.
Rather than the Book of Revelation teaching us that there was never to be more scripture given to the human family, the little volume, viewed from beginning to end, becomes splendid evidence that there would be and must be additional scripture in the last days.
Great Post ... and thanks for the link!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.