Replies

1. True faith produces good works. I don't see what you are asking. When we die, God will judge our good works by fire. Either they will burn up because they weren't done in the proper spirit, or they will endure and we will get a reward. In other words, you cannot do good works if you don't have true faith. So your question about all that is needed is faith is simply a rhetorical one. But you knew that.

2. If the Mormons aren't adding anything, then why did they have to write the PoGP, D and Covenants and the Bof Mormon as sacred texts on par with the Bible? That's adding something, friend. If J. Smith didn't add anything to the gospel delivered in the New testament, they how come you all don't just throw out the Book of Mormon and just read the Word?

You can't throw it out because Smith added something, therefore changed the gospel delivered by Paul and the New Testament. Your question about why Paul had to "say more" after he wrote the letter to the Galatians is not a matter of quantity of writing, as you imply, but a matter of quality. Paul said that we must adhere to the gospel he had already preached. It does no harm to keep preaching the same gospel, in fact, that is what all Christians are charged to do. It does do harm, though, to preach ANOTHER GOSPEL that adds things to what has been received.

Mormonism is another gospel added to the Bible. What part of that don't you understand?

3. The idea of being born of water and spirit -- seems to me that the necessity of Baptism is not the physical act itself but of the public acknowledgment of our commitment to Christ and our repentance before Him. Being baptized is a public act. Jesus warns us that if we forsake Him before men, He will forsake us in Heaven. I think it might have been a stern warning to Nicodemus that he need to be born from above -- born again with the Holy Spirit -- but that the work was incomplete until he made a public validation of his conversion in water like how John the Baptist was baptizing. From all I know, Nicodemus's belief in Jesus was private. Like his admonition to the rich man, Jesus was telling Nicodemus it was not cool that his faith was secret and unrepentant!

It is also not cool for us to ever forsake knowing the Lord or being a Christian.

Your last question about baptism for the dead. Geez, it is so laborious and easy. I got this from a Forerunner Commentary Does Paul Condone Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29)?

The practice of being baptized for those who have died is based upon a wrong understanding of I Corinthians 15:29. The New Testament Church did not follow this practice, and the apostle Paul did not teach it. This custom was introduced into the professing Christian world about AD 150 by Marcion, a man who created his own religion and established his own church in Rome in AD 144.

The Bible clearly shows that, before a person may be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33). The dead are not able to repent or believe, because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Baptism is for the living; it is a symbol whereby the living acknowledge their sins, figuratively die with Christ in a watery grave, and rise out of that watery grave to live a new, righteous life through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; 8:9; Galatians 2:20).

Baptism is also a symbol of the resurrection. To rise up out of the watery grave is to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of the dead (Romans 6:1-5). To surrender one's life to Christ now, to crucify the self now, to be baptized—all this is foolish unless there is a resurrection of the dead. If there were no hope of the resurrection, life could be summed up this way: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (I Corinthians 15:32).

I Corinthians 15:29 now becomes clear. The whole of I Corinthians 15 concerns the resurrection from the dead. Paul cites the example of those who were baptized as a proof of the resurrection. Their actions symbolized their hope that they would live again. The resurrection is the hope of the dead.

Paul's question seems to be, "Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?" (New King James Version). However, this verse is not correctly translated from the Greek. Paul is not talking about being baptized "in the place of," "on behalf of," or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper, and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context.

For example, Paul declares, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As in I Corinthians 15:29, the Greek word translated "for" is huper. In Philippians 2:13, huper cannot mean "instead of." It would be senseless to say, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do instead of His good pleasure"! Correctly translated, it means, "God works in you both to will and to do for the realization of His good pleasure" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon). What is God's "good pleasure"? "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom," says Jesus (Luke 12:32). God works in us "in the hope of" giving us His Kingdom!

Thus, according to the context, hyper in I Corinthians 15:29 should be translated "for the hope of." Notice the verse again: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

What is the hope of the dead? The resurrection! Baptism illustrates the hope of the resurrection. One who is baptized rises out of a watery grave, symbolic of the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never come true?" However, Paul affirms that, because Christ died and rose again, we have this true hope, the resurrection, to look forward to (I Corinthians 15:17-22).

This verse, then, has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

CalJones, I'll address a couple of points (which I have already addressed), then I will end my end of this discussion, as it is clearly growing tiresome to many here. I'll just point out a couple of things that I haven't already said or that I perhaps did not adequately explain.

"If the Mormons aren't adding anything, then why did they have to write the PoGP, D and Covenants and the Bof Mormon as sacred texts on par with the Bible?"

First, Mormons didn't "write" these things, but that's beside the point. The point is that latter day revelation has not addded anything to the gospel of Christ, which is what the Bible warns against. It doesn't say anything about adding to the Bible or the canons that were ultimately adopted hundreds of years after these warnings were written. In fact, quoting these warnings don't add anything to your argument. If Mormon theology is the true gospel, then it isn't adding anything to Christ's gospel, and those warnings are inapplicable. If, however, Mormon theology is not the true gospel then this is a separate, distinct issue that should be addressed on its own merits.

Anyway, back to the point. These other texts are necessary because the Bibe alone is not able to conclusively answer so many doctrinal questions with its text. This is obvious from the discussions that we have had, reasonably interpreting the same passages differently (you say that your interpretations are valid and mine are ridiculous, but that's unreasonable, and at least one apparently neutral observer stated that my arguments seemed to make sense). Furthermore, even if you want to throw out the Mormon interpretations of the Bible as establishing ambiguity, the many Protestant sects interpret it very differently as well. At times you seem to indicate that there are only 2 sets of beliefs, Mormon and what you would call Christian, but obviously this is far from the truth. Well-meaning, intelligent people can interpret the Bible in many different ways. This is way latter-day revelation was required - not to add or change anything, but to clarify this undeniable ambiguity and restore Christ's true gospel to the Earth.

Your interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:29 illustrates this point. I can see how some would be convinced by your argument, but to me it still leaves many questions unanswered. It still refers to some people (they) getting baptised for the dead, or "for the hope of" the dead (as you interpret it). Here, the dead is a distinct group, no matter how you look at it, because the passage still refers to twwo distinct groups of people. If this is not clearly the most logical explanation, as I believe, it is irrefutably a logical explanation, one that leaves the question of whether baptism for the dead is a part of Christ's gospel unanswered and in need of further illumination.

I hope this clarifies my position somewhat to any who are actually interested in the discussion. That said, logic and reason are not the key to religious belief - the key, of course, is faith. I would encourage anyone wondering about the true interpretation of the Bible and whether the Book of Mormon comes from Christ to follow some of the Bible's unambiguous language found in James 1:5 and ask God through prayer, and he will answer your question.