kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) (11/20/90)
As I see the issue of Baptism, much of what has been discussed here
seems, well, needless theologising.
I see no clear statement that Jesus intended for us to baptise those who
are too young to understand repentance. There are a few "and his household"
passages here and there, but I find arguments built upon those mostly
irrelevant time-wasters: we have no information on the age of the youngest
child, and so the arguments are not very convincing.
Additionally, I cannot squish my brain into the shape needed for things
like `emergency baptism' to make any sense. I read the articles and think
"It's water. You get it out of the faucet and dunk people in it. It's no
different than the water you get in the church kitchen to make tea." I
cannot make myself think of the water as magical, or special, or anything
else. It just makes no sense to me.
If Jesus intended for us to baptise infants, or intended to suggest that
there was some special property about dunking people with the correct
words, it seems he could have said so. But there is no clear statement to
baptise infants, and no clear statement that the dunking is anything other
than a symbol. As such, I see no particular reason to go back and produce
reams of theologising from a few scattered texts.
Anyway, two other things appeared in these threads, both of which are
pseudo-related and so will get a reply in this article (instead of in other
ones).
First, David Wagner said something like "Luther and the RCs were agreed in
condemning the errors of those opposed to infant baptism." While I suppose
I ought to be flattered that His Holiness Mr Luther felt I was worth a word
or two, I'd like to point out that I think Mr Wagner is the one who errs on
this issue; but I do not speak as if it were a foregone conclusion. I
respectfully request similar courtesy from those who feel I am in error.
Secondly, Steve (somebody) posted an article saying that infant baptism was
not the practice in the first-century church, and therefore we should not
baptise infants. I am curious to know if he applies this principle to the
writings he considers Scriptural; specifically, whether he uses the New
Testament as Scripture, and if so why?%
------
% - I am familiar with 2 Peter 3:16, and with 1 Timothy 5:18, but I find the
claim that these passages intend to call portions of the NT `Scripture'
in the same class as the arguments about `households' being baptised.
The position is not unambiguously stated, and therefore the speculations
are of little interest. The first _clear_ reference to any of Paul's
writings as Scripture is not until ~117 AD, and the first clear
reference to one of the Gospels as Scripture is in ~130 AD.
------
kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu Darren F. Provine ...njin!gboro!kilroy
"Schism is the oldest of Christian traditions." -- Michael L. Siemonwagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/23/90)
In article <Nov.19.23.37.04.1990.24617@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > >I read the articles and think >"It's water. You get it out of the faucet and dunk people in it. It's no >different than the water you get in the church kitchen to make tea." I >cannot make myself think of the water as magical, or special, or anything >else. It just makes no sense to me. Luther addressed this very point. He said in his Large Catechism, "Baptism is not simply common water, but water comprehended in God's Word and commandment and sanctified by them." The water is nothing; God's word and commandment is everything. "To be baptized in God's name is to be baptized not by men but by God himself. Although it is performed by men's hands, it is nevertheless truly God's own act. From this fact everyone can easily conclude that it is of much greater value than the work of any man or saint. For what work can man do that is greater than God's work?...But mad reason rushes forth and, because Baptism is not dazzling like the works we do, regards it as worthless." That Baptism has real spiritual benefits is made amply clear in 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, and Ephesians 5: 25,26. I have quoted these in a separate article submitted yesterday. >First, David Wagner said something like "Luther and the RCs were agreed in >condemning the errors of those opposed to infant baptism." While I suppose >I ought to be flattered that His Holiness Mr Luther felt I was worth a word >or two, I'd like to point out that I think Mr Wagner is the one who errs on >this issue; but I do not speak as if it were a foregone conclusion. I >respectfully request similar courtesy from those who feel I am in error. To be precise, this is what Melancthon wrote in the Augsburg confession, which enjoyed very widespread support from many opposed to the papacy, on the subject of Baptism. "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into grace. "Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children and declare that children are saved without Baptism." I do not think that Melancthon intended to say that those who believe but die without the opportunity of Baptism, are not saved. That would contradict the words of Christ, who told the believing thief on the cross next to him: "Today, you will be with me in paradise". The Anabaptists were generally regarded as fanatics; in addition to rejecting infant Baptism, they taught that a Christian should not hold public office, serve as princes and judges, render decisions and pass sentence, be married, and a host of other things. They also taught that the devil and condemned men will not suffer eternal pain and torment. I sincerely hope that Mr. Provine is not an Anabaptist. The classical confessional tradition has always been one which affirmed certain theses and rejected and condemned certain antitheses. This tradition stretches back at least to the Council of Nicea. The Lutheran Confessions stand firmly on this tradition, from the Augsburg Confession to the Formula of Concord. I agree that I have a responsibility to be evangelical towards those who hold to error out of ignorance and weakness, and to be humble and aware that I, too, may be misinformed and in error. I am sorry if I occasionally fall short of this standard. However I also feel a responsibility to stand up for what I believe, namely the clear teachings of Scripture. Occasionally this requires that the Word be wielded as a 'sharp, double edged sword'. Perhaps I should use the Word more, and Luther less? But I think it is unfair of Mr. Provine to paint Luther as an antichrist. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran. "Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, "How long?" And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song." --a verse from 'The Church's One Foundation' --Samuel J. Stone, 1866 My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (11/27/90)
In article <Nov.23.02.12.37.1990.20141@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article <Nov.19.23.37.04.1990.24617@athos.rutgers.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes: > >To be precise, this is what Melancthon wrote in the Augsburg confession, >which enjoyed very widespread support from many opposed to the papacy, >on the subject of Baptism. > > "Our churches teach that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that the >grace of God is offered through Baptism, and that children should be baptized, >for being offered to God through Baptism they are received into grace. > "Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who reject the Baptism of children >and declare that children are saved without Baptism." > David, how do you come to the conclusion that based on the above quote it was not believed that baptism was not a requirement for salvation. The quote you have provided exactly says that baptism is required for salvation. I believe that what you are doing is what is called rationalization. The theological view point that baptism for infants are not required for salvation is a late development which was not held in the days of Luther. Your quote in fact supports my statement. However, it is clear from the many postings that many still believe that infant baptism is still a reguirement. This is the reason why many talks about "emergency" baptisms. We need to stop and think how our theology reflects back on the character of God. One may ask, what kind of God is it which would condemn an infant because the negligence of perents or because of where the baby was born. Even if we believe that an infant which received no baptism can be saved, doesn't resolve the problem, because it was clearly indicated that baptism will provide an advantage to the infant. Meaning, that if there is two infants, one which received baptism and the other didn't, the one which did would be better off. A god which would set such laws would be no God at all. Infants can't sin and they are not responsible for their actions. They have no control over what their parents are, or what their parents will do or not do. We have no recorded child baptism in the Bible at all. This is for a very good reason. For baptism is unto repentance, and infants have nothing to repent of. Matt 3:8 ======== "Bring forth therefore fruit meet for repentance:" Matt 3:11 ========= "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance..." Infant baptism is one of the many teachings of man. > I do not think that Melancthon intended to say that those who believe >but die without the opportunity of Baptism, are not saved. That would >contradict the words of Christ, who told the believing thief on the >cross next to him: "Today, you will be with me in paradise". > I believe that there is a lot of confusion about the requirement of baptism. One must be of an age of accountability before baptism becomes a requirement. Baptism for the thief is in fact a requirement for his salvation. The idea that the thief went to heaven is false. The scripture tells us that Jesus didn't go to "heaven". This is what Jesus said following the resurrection: John 20:16 ========== "Jesus answered her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my bretheren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." I believe that you would expect to find the thief where Jesus went "today". Peter tells us where Jesus went following his death and before his resurrection: I Peter 3:18-19 =============== "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:" "By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;" I Peter 4:6 ----------- "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." The thief went into the spirit world to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. The question is, what about the requiremnt to be baptized? The record tells us that baptism for the dead was practiced in the early church. Paul says the following: I Corint 15:29 -------------- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" > >David H. Wagner University of Houston. With brotherly love, Frank [Again, let me point out that for many who practice infant baptism, the issue is not that baptism has some sort of mystical effect on a person, but that it is a sign commanded by God to mark their entrance into the Christian community. In most Protestant churches emergency baptism is specifically prohibited in order to make it clear what is going on. The question of whether baptisms of the whole family in the NT included children is one that I think will never be settled (in this life). I suspect that God will accept both those who believe they are honoring his commandment by baptizing infants and those who believe they are doing so by baptizing only adults. By the way, it seems a failure of Christian charity to use the inflammatory label "teachings of men" for practices that have a reasonable argument for being Biblical -- even if you don't agree with the argument. Since rites such as baptism do not seem to be essentials for salvation, perhaps we should practice the sort of tolerance suggested in Rom 14: 1-6 towards those who believe they are called to do things differently than we do. --clh]
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (11/29/90)
>[Again, let me point out that for many who practice infant baptism, >the issue is not that baptism has some sort of mystical effect on a >person, but that it is a sign commanded by God to mark their entrance >into the Christian community. In most Protestant churches emergency >baptism is specifically prohibited in order to make it clear what is >going on. The question of whether baptisms of the whole family in the >NT included children is one that I think will never be settled (in >this life). I suspect that God will accept both those who believe >they are honoring his commandment by baptizing infants and those who >believe they are doing so by baptizing only adults. > I would like to respectfully disagree with the Moderator. First of all, there were many who claimed that in fact baptism did have some special mystical effect on the infant. My response was to them, and not to the Moderator's belief. An infant can't make a decision if it wants to enter into the Christian community, or not. Such decision must be made by a person who has reached the age of accountability, and can decide for her or himself. I believe that there is a contradiction in saying on one hand that infant baptism is not really a requirement, and on the other hand to say that it is a commandment of God. >By the way, it seems a failure of Christian charity to use the >inflammatory label "teachings of men" for practices that have a >reasonable argument for being Biblical -- even if you don't agree with >the argument. Since rites such as baptism do not seem to be >essentials for salvation, perhaps we should practice the sort of >tolerance suggested in Rom 14: 1-6 towards those who believe they are >called to do things differently than we do. > >--clh] I know that we live in a world today when all things are ok to do. It doesn't really matter what one person does or doesn't do, since if that person believes it, it must be ok. Again, I would like to respectfully disagree with the Moderator that baptism is not essential to salvation. Here are just a few passages which says otherwise: John 3:5 ======== "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto the, Except a man be born of the water and of the spirit, he can't enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 16:16 ---------- "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Acts 2:37-38 ============ "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and bretheren, what shall we do?" "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." The bottom line is that there is more then reasonable indication that baptism is in fact a requirement for entry into the kingdom of God. I apologize if my statement regarding the "teachings of man" was inflammatory. I have not ment it that way at all, however, I will not argue with your judgement. My remarks that infant baptism was a teachings of man was ment to be a challenge for those who have excepted traditions to reevaluate their believes in view of the Bible, and not what some other person said about it, who claimed no special revelation on this subject at all. We are all entitled to our own opinions, however, they are not necessarily the revealed word of God. The fact is that none of us can claim that we have a pure knowledge of God and his laws. All of our beliefs have been distorted to some greater or smaller extent by the philosophies of man. Without us recognizing this fact, there is no hope at all that we can grow in our understanding. In fact, such attitude will be a major stumbling block which will prevent our progress. With brotherly love, Frank
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (11/30/90)
In article <Nov.29.00.10.19.1990.14084@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: > An infant can't make a decision if it wants to enter >into the Christian community, or not. Such decision must be made by a >person who has reached the age of accountability, and can decide for her >or himself. Neither can an adult unbeliever make such a decision, for he is 'dead in his transgressions and sins' (Ephesians 2). Conversion is no less miraculous in the adult than it is in an infant. It might be more miraculous, because the adult has had plenty of time to harden his heart. >I believe that there is a contradiction in saying on one hand that infant >baptism is not really a requirement, and on the other hand to say that it >is a commandment of God. I may have made a mistake or a mistatement. Baptism is a requirement, but the real requirement is faith. If someone has faith but dies before he has the opportunity to receive baptism, I believe he is saved. My basis for this is Christ's statement to the believing thief on the cross, "Today, you will be with me in paradise." On the other hand, if someone says he has faith but claims not to need or want baptism, then I say he has no true faith, and is rejecting Christ's command. To try to make baptism an absolute requirement which can be satisfied by baptizing the dead is legalistic, unscriptural, and absurd. >Mark 16:16 >---------- >"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not >shall be damned." Note that Christ did not say here, 'he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.' David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "On Jordan's Bank the Baptist's cry Announces that the Lord is nigh; Come then, and hearken, for he brings Glad tidings from the King of Kings "Then cleansed be ev'ry Christian breast And furnished for so great a guest. Yea, let us each our hearts prepare For Christ to come and enter there. "For Thou art our Salvation, Lord, Our Refuge, and our great Reward. Without Thy grace our souls must fade And wither like a flow'r decayed." --"Jordanis oras praevia" v.1-3. -- Charles Coffin, 1736 --from 'The Lutheran Hymnal, #63 My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/04/90)
In article <Nov.30.04.27.14.1990.4844@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >In article <Nov.29.00.10.19.1990.14084@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >> >An infant can't make a decision if it wants to enter >>into the Christian community, or not. Such decision must be made by a >>person who has reached the age of accountability, and can decide for her >>or himself. > >Neither can an adult unbeliever make such a decision, for he is 'dead >in his transgressions and sins' (Ephesians 2). Conversion is no less >miraculous in the adult than it is in an infant. It might be more >miraculous, because the adult has had plenty of time to harden his >heart. > Your premise, if it would be true, would remove anything on our part which would have anything to do with our salvation. Meaning that predestination would be in effect, meaning that God would predestine us for either salvation or to condemnation. I believe that you are being carried away with your logic and you push ideas and concepts to their logical conclusion, where they get distorted. It is one thing to say that we are saved by the grace of God, and another that we have no role to play in it at all. Based on your logic, if I will be condemned to go to hell, it is not my fault at all. It is God's fault because he didn't save me. The truth is that God does reach out with tender mercies towards all of us, however, the decision to accept or not is ours. This is the basis upon which I said that an infant can't make a decision if he or she wants to belong to a particular denomination, or if he or she wants to be a Christian or not. Free agency is one of the very basic principles which is in effect on both in heaven and on earth. Denying free agency is one of the most evil part of Satans plan. Without free agency we are reduced to a thing, and it denies that we have been called to be joint heirs with Christ. >>I believe that there is a contradiction in saying on one hand that infant >>baptism is not really a requirement, and on the other hand to say that it >>is a commandment of God. > >I may have made a mistake or a mistatement. Baptism is a requirement, >but the real requirement is faith. If someone has faith but dies before >he has the opportunity to receive baptism, I believe he is saved. My basis >for this is Christ's statement to the believing thief on the cross, "Today, >you will be with me in paradise." On the other hand, if someone says he >has faith but claims not to need or want baptism, then I say he has no true >faith, and is rejecting Christ's command. > I do not disagree with your statement. To baptize someone who has no faith in Christ is like baptizing a bag of beens. However, you have ignored my comments and pertaining scriptures that the thief didn't go to heaven. He went where Christ went "today". The scripture explicitly states that Jesus did't go to his Father. Peter explained that he went into the spirit world to preach the gospel. The bottom line is that the thief went to heaven is on of the many para scriptures which we believe in, which is in fact not true at all. I also agree with your statement that if a person has faith in Jesus Christ will be baptised. The principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ are: 1. First, faith in the lord Jesus Christ. 2. Second, repentance. 3. Third, baptism with water. 4. Fourth, laying on of the hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The order is important. We can't speak of repentance with out faith in the Lord Jesus christ before faith, we cant speak of baptism before faith and repentance, etc. >To try to make baptism an absolute requirement which can be satisfied by >baptizing the dead is legalistic, unscriptural, and absurd. > >>Mark 16:16 >>---------- >>"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not >>shall be damned." > >Note that Christ did not say here, 'he that believeth not or is not baptized >shall be damned.' > > >David H. Wagner I don't know why you are saying that baptism for the dead is unscriptural. Paul didn't find it unscriptural, why do we? In fact Paul used it to support the idea of resurrection when he said: I Corint 15:29 -------------- "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" If you would say that it is not taught or believed by most Christians today, it would be correct. Only the LDS church teach it and practise it. You need to remember that the N.T. is not a manual of discipline, which tells us in great detail of the ordinaces of the early Christian church. This is one reason why we need revelation that things which got lost may be restored. This is what Peter had in mind when he said the following: Acts 3:21 ========= "Whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" Peter, the apostle, and eye witness of Jesus Christ, who received the keys to bind or to loose on the earth, looks forward to the restoration of *all* things. As far as Mark16:16 is concerned, the reason it is not said that those who believe not *and are not baptized* shall be damned, because baptism is worthless without faith. Those who have no faith are alredy condemned, and baptism does absolutly nothing for their salvation (please refer back to my comments regarding the priciples of the gospel of Jesus Christ). On the otherhand, it is not enough to believe, one also must be baptised. With brotherly love, Frank
charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) (12/06/90)
Ok, I'm stripping out tons o'stuff here to get to my point, so you will prob- ably want to go back and read the previous posts if you want to know what's going on here( Oops! If you've been following this line, then you won't need to! :). In article <Dec.3.23.59.14.1990.28188@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >In article <Nov.30.04.27.14.1990.4844@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >>In article <Nov.29.00.10.19.1990.14084@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: [vast quantities deleted] >I do not disagree with your statement. To baptize someone who has no faith >in Christ is like baptizing a bag of beens. > >However, you have ignored my comments and pertaining scriptures that the >thief didn't go to heaven. He went where Christ went "today". The scripture >explicitly states that Jesus did't go to his Father. Peter explained that >he went into the spirit world to preach the gospel. The bottom line is that >the thief went to heaven is on of the many para scriptures which we believe >in, which is in fact not true at all. > Ok, this is from the NIV, so I am aware that it might not be an accurate translation, but here goes anyway. Luke 23:39-43 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Chirst? Save yourself and us!" 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." 42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom(1)." 43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." ^^^^^^^^^^^ (1) Some manuscripts "come with your kingly power". Umm, you have a problem here, Frank, because you are saying that because Jesus said 'today' and that Peter tells us that Jesus was in Hades/Sheol for three days that that's where the repentent criminal went. Unfortunately, there is that little 'in paradise' bit tossed on there. What does that mean? I hate to say this, but in my book it appears we are talking about heaven, or at least the part of Hades/Sheol reserved for people like Lazarus the beggar (Luke 16:19-31). It appears to me that this dude hanging on the cross there got rathered saved! Notice that he identifies Jesus as the Messiah and also acknowledges his own sinful condition. Finally, his asking Jesus to remember him when he 'comes into your(Jesus's) kingdom/come with your kingly power (Christ's second coming? Hmmm.) is the icing on the cake for me. This guy has accepted Christ as his savior then and there, I don't think he had to go to Sheol/Hades and get saved/baptised there. From the 'in paradise' and 'today' bit, I get the feeling that Christ thought the same thing. Ok, I could be way off base on these, but the basic point I wanted to make was that you totally appear to ignore the 'in paradise' bit in reaching the conclusions you made, Frank. Love in Christ, Charles K. Hurst charles@rpi.edu p.s. Hey, looks like I will get to make comments on your other post, Frank! [This discussion - both sides - seems to be taking a rather literal view of how much can happen in a "day" in the afterlife. How does time really apply there? --clh]
farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) (12/11/90)
In article <Dec.6.03.22.08.1990.23318@athos.rutgers.edu>, charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) writes: >Ok, I'm stripping out tons o'stuff here to get to my point, so you will prob- >ably want to go back and read the previous posts if you want to know what's >going on here( Oops! If you've been following this line, then you won't need >to! :). > >In article <Dec.3.23.59.14.1990.28188@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >>In article <Nov.30.04.27.14.1990.4844@athos.rutgers.edu>, wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) writes: >>>In article <Nov.29.00.10.19.1990.14084@athos.rutgers.edu> farkas@eng.sun.com (Frank Farkas) writes: >Ok, I could be way off base on these, but the basic point I wanted to make >was that you totally appear to ignore the 'in paradise' bit in reaching the >conclusions you made, Frank. > I have no problem at all with the fact that the thief eventually ended up in heaven. My arguement was simply based on what Paul taught about faith: Romans 10:12-15 =============== "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him." "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" No one gets saved without faith. All who have faith do because they have heard the gospel and responded positively. Besides, find the meaning of the word "paradise", and you will look for a needle in the haystack. It is not likely that Jesus actually used that word, which is Phoenician in origine. Remember that the gospels were not written in the language what Jesus spoke. It is possible that the writers of the three books, where it is mentioned, used it slightly differently. Jesus clearly said the following: John 3:5 ======== "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto the, Except a man be born of the water and of the spirit, he can't enter into the kingdom of God." Are we saying that the requirement for the entry into the kingdome of God has changed? Who has receied such revelation? >Love in Christ, > >Charles K. Hurst >charles@rpi.edu > >p.s. Hey, looks like I will get to make comments on your other post, Frank! > >[This discussion - both sides - seems to be taking a rather literal >view of how much can happen in a "day" in the afterlife. How does >time really apply there? --clh] I don't know? However, we know that Jesus was resurected the third day. Does this mean that he didn't spent three days without a body because he was in the spirit world? Jesus could have said what he said without the use of the word "today". The fact that he did use the word must have some signaficants to us. If it was not ment today, our time, then it would be meaningless to us. With brotherly love, Frank [My suggestion was that once we go beyond this world, it's not clear to me that things are subject to time in quite the same way. I was suggesting that the thief could be immediately with Christ after his death, and Christ still have had an opportunity to visit those "in prison" as described in I Pet. --clh]
charles@rpi.edu (Charles K. Hurst) (12/11/90)
>[This discussion - both sides - seems to be taking a rather literal >view of how much can happen in a "day" in the afterlife. How does >time really apply there? --clh] Well, to quickly respond to this, Physically Christ was dead for three days (3 by Jewish counting -- I still keep getting 2!! {joke, ok?}). When he says to the thief, "today", I presume he means "right now" or something close to that, like "shortly". As for how much time takes place in the afterlife, <<shrug>>, who knows? I haven't been there, I haven't met any body who has, and I can't think of any bible verses saying that in Sheol 5 days equals 1 day real time, or some such. Besides that, the point of my post, about the "in paradise" bit, sort of makes how much time actually took place sort of irrelevant, IMHO (I could be wrong, and if I am, I'm sure someone will post to correct me!! :). Love in Christ, Charles K. Hurst charles@rpi.edu
David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu (12/12/90)
Lynn, here. > Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 6-Dec-90 Re: Infant > Baptism, and a F.. Charles K. Hurst@rpi.edu (3349) Umm, you have a problem here, Frank, because you are saying that because > Jesus said 'today' and that Peter tells us that Jesus was in > Hades/Sheol for three days that that's where the repentent criminal > went. Unfortunately, there is that little 'in paradise' bit tossed on there. What does that mean? With reference to where Christ was (paradise vs. sheol = "spirit prison" in lds jargon) during the 3 days: lds believe that paradise and prison are "physically" the same place (the "spirit world"), but that people are separated according to their righteousness or wickedness. Those who have been righteous are happy; those who have been wicked are in a (presumably psychological) state of unhappines or torment. I rather imagine the forgiven thief was happy in paradise. According to a revelation received by Joseph F. Smith (6th lds prophet) in 1918 (which was given as he was pondering the pertinent NT verses in I Peter 3 & 4), Christ did not *personally* preach to the wicked during the 3 day period; rather, Christ bridged the gulf and authorized or empowered the righteous to begin preaching the gospel to the ignorant and the wicked. (See Doctrine & Covenants 138)