Priesthood Authority and Baptism

Jesus Christ being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan River

In my previous post - I addressed the criticism brought up by one Rick Ketchum. This concern appeared to focus on my supposed lack of differentiating rite or ordinance from regeneration in Christ. The article provided a background context of the discussion. Moved forward with addressing what regeneration and justification in Christ are. Addressed the nature of spiritual regeneration and how it is interdependent on Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.

In this article, I want to address the continued commentary left by Rick Ketchum. Some of the information being responded to will point back to the initial post previously published.

Attempting to Explain Latter-day Saint Teachings

Rick Ketchum: Let me explain why Mormons don't understand the difference. Mormons believe that water baptism and having an LDS priesthood holder lay on hands on you is a combo meal that regenerates. But before I defend why I said water baptism is not a requirement for salvation, let me explain why the LDS baptism contradicts anything the Bible teaches on water baptism.

My Response: This is not accurate. Ketchum clearly misrepresents what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teach. By misrepresenting what he presumes we believe, he is being quite manipulative, dishonest, and blatantly deceptive. One gets that he is not in favor of water baptism being essential to salvation. He goes further to claim that the Restored Gospel teaching on water baptism is in contradiction to the Bible.

All one has to do is look to the fifth article of faith regarding the proper authority needed ot administer in preaching the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Interesting enough - I had posted a response to Pastor Wade of Apologia Church where he attempts to disprove the fifth article of faith. Challenging the reality of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is the authority, responsibility, and power to act in the name of Jesus Christ and to organize and direct part of his work. It is through the opportunities of this priesthood, men and women in partnership with God can conduct the work of the family and the Church.  What this means is that it is a calling and responsibility where we participate with Christ in the ongoing work and ministry to humanity. When one looks at the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one will find the following four-fold ministry aspects of the Church

1. To Proclaim the Gospel
2. To Perfect the Saints
3. To Redeem the Dead
4. To Care for the Poor and Needy

All four of these are well-established within the Old and New Testament text. Furthermore, they comprise the two main purpose and mission of the Gospel. The First is the primary mission of the Church and that entails preaching the Gospel and bringing men and women unto Christ. The second mission and purpose of the Gospel is the social mission of the faith where charity abounds, namely the care of the poor and needy. 

Thus, what the fifth Article of Faith assures us of is that the authority to minister within the Gospel of Jesus Christ - one must be called of God by divine prophecy, set apart by proper authority, and operate in partnership under the authority of the priesthood of the Son of God. It is not something a person is able to take upon themselves. 

Therefore, the ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood requires faithful obedience to the Gospel. What does this mean? The specific standards of worthiness to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood include personal integrity, chastity, obedience to the divine laws of health, and faithful contribution of tithes to the Church. Beyond these traits, it is expected that men will progress in developing attributes of godliness. Like all followers of Christ, they should be faithful, diligent, and amenable to righteous change, learning, and loving. 

Again, such understanding and teaching is evident within the Old and New Testament teachings of Christ, the Pauline Epistles, and the Pastoral Epistles. 

Furthermore, majority of the Evangelical Churches actually agree on the personal integrity, chastity, and even law of health in their considerations of pastoral ministry and leadership of the Church. 

For instance, acts 29 is a ministry organization that focuses on helping individuals plant churches. Here is their list of qualifications for considering someone to be a pastor: 

Above reproach based on 1 Timothy and Titus. This includes 17 qualifications to determine if someone is above reproach: 

• Marriage that is to one woman and illustrates Christ's love for the Church - a Pastor must love his wife exclusively with his mind, will and emotions and not just his body. 
• Pastors' children must be in submission - and thus qualifications for a Pastor begins in the home. 
• A Pastor is a faithful steward
• Must be humble
• Gentle
• Sober minded and not given to drunkenness
• Peaceful
• Financial Integrity
• Hospitable
• A lover of good
• self-controlled
• upright
• Holy - devoted to Jesus externally and internally
• Must be able to teach
• Spiritually mature
• respectable
• An example 

Since most Christian churches operate under such "qualifications" for a pastor - does Pastor Wade's criticism stand with any credibility and merit? No, because the same criticism and argument may be said against such qualifications to be a pastor - namely that Pastor Wade himself had to "prove his worthiness" to even be qualified to fulfill the role of a pastor and leader of a church. 

Fortunately, when we read the qualifications, the Lord placed on those who are to be worthy to hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, we find the following as it pertains to the Priesthood:

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold the heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (D&C 121:36-39) 

Contrast this with what the proper use of priesthood authority does - and seeing how this appears to mirror Acts 29's qualifications for a Pastor of being above reproach - we read: 

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile - Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou has reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall by thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever. (D&C 121:41-46). 

These verses speak to the contrasting of unrighteous dominion and that of righteous dominion as it pertains to the worthiness of holding the Melchizedek Priesthood. 

Understanding and knowing what the purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood is - let us now address the next claim Pastor Wade attempts to make: 

But the Bible demonstrates from Old to the New Testament that the Melchizedek Priesthood belongs only to one - the righteous one - Jesus Christ. And so, it says in 1 Peter 2, it says that we are a holy nation a royal priesthood, a people for God's own possession that we might proclaim the excellencies of him who has called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light. 

What we see here is another attempt at interpreting an isolated passage of scripture in order to fit within the parameters of one's bias and prejudicial beliefs. Namely, reading into the text what is not there. Pastor Wade merely attempts to summarize what 1 Peter 2 says without directly quoting it. The context he attempts to rely on is this: 

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:1-10). 

Taking a more critical examination of 1 Peter 2:1-25 (Exegesis) we find the following commentary as to what the context entails: 

 To guileless feeding on the word by the sense of their privileges as new-born babes, living stones in the spiritual temple built on Christ the chief corner-stone, and royal priests, in contrast to their former state: also, to abstinence from fleshly lusts, and to walk worthily in all relations of life, so that the world without which opposes them may be constrained to glorify God in seeing their good works. Christ, the grand pattern to follow in patience under suffering for well-doing. (Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 503). Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

 Peter is writing an exhortation to those scattered around Asia Minor and appears to remind them of the spiritual inheritance and salvation they received. Much of this exhortation coincides with the persecution many of them were receiving for their faith in Jesus Christ. It is in this context we read Peter's words of assurance and confidence in their salvation and eternal life. Reminding those strangers that they are pilgrims, their faith built on the chief cornerstone that is Jesus Christ, and therefore recipients and inheritors of a Holy Priesthood. This particular inheritance, according to the very words of Peter himself, declare that because they are after the order of the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ - they are to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 

In the same authoritative commentary on 1 Peter 2 we read the following observation concerning Priesthood: 

priesthood—Christians are both the spiritual temple and the priests of the temple. There are two Greek words for “temple”; hieron (the sacred place), the whole building, including the courts wherein the sacrifice was killed; and naos (the dwelling, namely, of God), the inner shrine wherein God peculiarly manifested Himself, and where, in the holiest place, the blood of the slain sacrifice was presented before Him. All believers alike, and not merely ministers, are now the dwelling of God (and are called the “naos,” Greek, not the hieron) and priests unto God (Rev 1:6). The minister is not, like the Jewish priest (Greek, “hiercus”), admitted nearer to God than the people, but merely for order’s sake leads the spiritual services of the people. Priest is the abbreviation of presbyter in the Church of England Prayer Book, not corresponding to the Aaronic priest (hiereus, who offered literal sacrifices). Christ is the only literal hiereus-priest in the New Testament through whom alone we may always draw near to God. Compare 1 Pe 2:9, “a royal priesthood,” that is, a body of priest-kings, such as was Melchisedec. The Spirit never, in New Testament, gives the name hiereus, or sacerdotal priest, to ministers of the Gospel. (Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Vol. 2, p. 504). Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

Thus, how we understand this particular passage reflects whether it is being seen through bias and prejudicial beliefs that are read into the text, or we are understanding and drawing out its meaning. Here, we find that the latter is more explicit. Peter is writing and exhorting those who are scattered and are being persecuted that they are consecrated and ordained by God to properly minister in preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Priest-Kings. And this stems from our understanding that Christ had bestowed the priesthood authority and the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unto Peter in Matthew 16: 

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:13-19)

The authority bestowed upon Peter, and upon the other disciples (and not just the twelve - there were also the 70 Christ bestowed the authority preach, minister, and heal those afflicted with illness and disease (Luke 10)) held the keys to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. It is this same authority Peter is exhorting those scattered around Asia Minor in their own capacity to minister, preach, heal, and perform other temporal and spiritual needs within the body of Christ. 

The reality is - 1 Peter 2 does not actually denounce and teach that Christ is the only sole Priesthood Authority. It is explicitly the opposite as it recognizes Christ as the chief corner stone of the Holy Priesthood. The context also refers to this priesthood authority as a stumbling block. 

Another commentary further helps us understand the context of 1 Peter 2:

Using many OT quotations and allusions, Peter continues to encourage his readers in their Christian conduct. Christians should respond to God’s saving act in Jesus with behavior that honors Him—they should act like they are indeed His people and representatives. (Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Pe 2:1–12). Lexham Press.)

And as it pertains to the mention of the Holy Priesthood: 

Peter explains the transfer of priesthood language from Israel to the Church in a later verse (see v. 9 and note). Here Peter reminds his audience of the priesthood’s ultimate purpose: to offer God praise and thanksgiving (Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Pe 2:5). Lexham Press.)

Going to the note on v. 9 we read: 

Describes the people of God—those who place their trust in Christ—using language formerly used of Israel. (Barry, J. D., Mangum, D., Brown, D. R., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Ritzema, E., Whitehead, M. M., Grigoni, M. R., & Bomar, D. (2012, 2016). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Pe 2:9). Lexham Press.)

Thus, we see that the powerful explanation and refutation of Pastor Wade in using 1 Peter 2 falls apart. It is quite apparent that when a critical examination (Exegesis) is employed - the confirmation bias of Eisegesis falls short. Showing forth the lack of integrity and illiteracy of Biblical Interpretation. This, of course, is based on the reflection, observation, and commentary from conservative Christian sources that substantiate the role and authority of the Holy Priesthood among the believers of the First Century Christian Church - namely the Melchizedek Priesthood. 

For instance, here is a third commentary on 1 Peter 2:

Believers not only make up the church but serve in it, ministering as a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices. All believers are priests (cf. 1 Peter 2:9; Heb. 4:16; Rev. 1:6) and need no mediator other than Jesus Christ to approach God directly. Such priestly service requires holiness (cf. 1 Peter 1:16, 22). Praise to God and doing good to others are spiritual sacrifices that please Him (Heb. 13:15). (Raymer, R. M. (1985). 1 Peter. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 845). Victor Books.)

Ministering as a Holy Priesthood. Such service requires personal holiness or righteousness - something Pastor Wade said is contrary to the Bible: "We know that this is contrary to what the Word of God says. And in reality, we know that what they're saying is we need good works, and we need our own righteousness to be able to inherit the Melchizedek Priesthood." The sad reality is that Pastor Wade appears to be deceived in his understanding. This is evidenced by the very passage he quotes as an attempt to challenge the Fifth Article of Faith. For, if conservative Christian commentaries express that Christians are to be holy, righteous in order to minister according to the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ - then Pastor Wade is caught lying and using deception to make a false claim and criticism. 

This is supported by the following observation of the same commentary previously quoted: 

Now believers in the Church Age are called a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God. Peter called Christians “a holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5) and “a royal priesthood” (2:9; cf. Rev. 1:6). The words “belonging to God” loosely render the words eis peripoiēsin, which are literally “unto obtaining or preserving” (also used in Heb. 10:39, where the NIV has “are saved”). Christians are a special people because God has preserved them for Himself. While these descriptions of the church are similar to those used of Israel in the Old Testament, this in no way indicates that the church supplants Israel and assumes the national blessings promised to Israel (and to be fulfilled in the Millennium). Peter just used similar terms to point up similar truths. As Israel was “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God,” so too believers today are chosen, are priests, are holy, and belong to God. Similarity does not mean identity.

God’s purpose in choosing believers for Himself is so that they may declare the praises of Him before others. “Praises” could also be translated “eminent qualities,” “excellencies,” or “virtues” (aretos, used only four times in the NT: Phil. 4:8; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 1:3, 5). Believer-priests should live so that their heavenly Father’s qualities are evident in their lives. They are to serve as witnesses of the glory and grace of God, who called them out of darkness into His wonderful light. Peter (1 Peter 2:10) explained this figure with a quotation from Hosea 2:23. “Darkness” refers to the time when his readers were pagans, ignorant of God’s provision of salvation (cf. Col. 1:13), when they were not a people, when they had not received mercy. His “wonderful light” now illumines the people of God because they have received mercy. The practice of holiness, in which God’s people serve as a holy and royal priesthood offering spiritual sacrifices and extolling His excellencies, is the proper response to the mercy (cf. 1 Peter 1:3) they have received. (Raymer, R. M. (1985). 1 Peter. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 2, pp. 845–846). Victor Books.)

 The Holy Order of Priesthood after the Son of God - the Melchizedek Priesthood has been restored in these last days. It possesses the keys to ministering to the Church, to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to perfect the Saints, and to reach out and minister to those who are impoverish and in need. This priesthood is the authority to act in the name of Jesus Christ. To minister on Christ's behalf. Because of this - we are blessed, chosen, and a royal priesthood engaged in spiritual sacrifices to bring about the purpose and will of God - and that is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of humanity. 

It is because of the fifth article of faith that we establish the truth that no man takes this authority upon himself. He is to be called of God by divine revelation and consecrated - set apart - to minister in the temporal and spiritual affairs of the Church. It is the Holy Priesthood authority to minister in our homes and out in the community. 

Rick Ketchum: The LDS church is not found in the Bible. Yet they believe they are the only ones on earth who are qualified to baptise. This means both the baptisms of Catholic and Protestants are meaningless. Second they also believe that no one earth but the LDS has the gift of the Holy Spirit. So when the poster talks about water baptism, let's be clear that it is not biblical.

My response: It is quite clear that Ketchum is being quite dishonest in what he is attempting to reason against. First, the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are well established within the Biblical text. As for the comment that LDS Church holds the idea of being the only ones one earth who are qualified to baptize is not accurate. There is no teaching that stipulates a Catholic or Protestant baptism is meaningless. On the contrary, the LDS Church recognizes the nature of a person having been baptized in good faith as part of their Christian commitment. And secondly, the aspect of Ketchum's comment is just as dishonest and disastrously dangerous. At no point has the LDS Church held to the notion that anyone outside of the LDS faith does not have the gift of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, any person is influenced by the Holy Spirit as a means to come unto Christ and follow Him. However, the ability to access the full blessings and benefits of the Holy Spirit as a companion and guide is stipulated by those who receive it and are maintaining a worthy lifestyle by faith in Jesus Christ.

What this means is that even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can deny the gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the companionship.

Rick Ketchum: Next, there is no such thing as a covenant of baptism. This is a Smithism that requires Mormons to make a covenant of promises they must keep. Since they believe in a conditional works based salvation that can be lost this means their baptism is conditional. There is no evidence of proper authority needed to water baptize. So the LDS water baptism is not biblical.

My response: Not only does Ketchum misrepresent what the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saint teaches - he claims that the idea of baptism being a covenant is not Biblical and something that Joseph Smith made up. For instance, GotQuestion answers the question that baptism comes after the spiritual circumcision and is a sign of the New Covenant whereas the physical circumcision was a sign and token of the Abrahamic covenant and all the spiritual blessings attached to this covenant.

The late R.C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries address, not only Baptism - he also preaches that Baptism is one of covenant.

From a Christian, and a New Testament Study on the Believers Baptism, perspective - the covenant of baptism is a sign of the Christian faith:

Is believer’s baptism the clear teaching of the New Testament Scriptures? What are the historical and theological challenges to believer’s baptism? What are the practical applications for believer’s baptism today? This volume addresses these compelling questions. Indeed, Believer’s Baptism: The Covenant Sign of the New Age in Christ begins with the belief that believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism or other faith proclaiming methods) is the clear teaching of the New Testament. Along the way, the argument is supported by written contributions from Andreas Köstenberger, Robert Stein, Thomas Schreiner, Stephen Wellum, Steve McKinion, Jonathan Rainbow, Shawn Wright, and Mark Dever.

However, if one were to look to the nature of Baptism and the covenant associated with this ordinance - one has to turn to Cyril of Jerusalem and what he teaches on the mysteries of Baptism and the Chrism.

Rick Ketchum: The reason Mormons do not understand why I said what I said is that they do not understand context. I have never met a Mormon in talking to them daily for 4 years who understand the context. Jesus was the Messiah to the house of Israel. Mormons grab everything He says regardless if it was meant for Gentiles or not. Next, the original apostles were sent to the house of Israel. Another context that they ignore.

My Response: It does not seem very clear here as to what Ketchum is referring to regarding context. He then goes into this idea that Jesus Christ was the Messiah to the house of Israel. Latter-day Saints actually believe that Jesus Christ is the promised messiah prophesied throughout the Old Testament. However, Jesus Christ was not merely the promised messiah for the Nation of Israel alone. He was the promised Messiah for all of humanity whereby we receive the redemption and forgiveness of sins associated with the infinite atonement.

Nor do we ignore the calling of the original apostles and their ministry. Yes, the original disciples were called to preach to the Jews first. However, after the Crucifixion of Christ, the apostles were commissioned to go into all the known world to preach the gospel, baptizing them, and making disciples. In fact, Christ requested that the Apostles wait in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit is poured out among them. This occurred in Acts 2 and the reason for the day of Pentecost. And before the calling of Paul, Peter had in vision a blanket filled with food that was not kosher (Acts 10:9-16). This vision symbolized the opening of the Gospel to be preached unto the Gentiles.

Rick Ketchum: Ceremonial cleansing by water did not begin with Jesus coming. It was a practice of the Jews. Any Gentiles converted to Judaism would have to be water baptized as a sign. What is the context of Acts 2 when Peter tells them they must be water baptized? Acts 2:22 “Men of >Israel,< hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you [f]have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death...

36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Peter is talking to the house of Israel and their sin of crucifying the Savior sent to them. Yet Mormons tell me this is their proof totally ignoring the context just like they do with James 2.

My Response: Since I already addressed the context of Acts 2 and Peter's testimony and sermon in my first response. Addressed how the crowd were pricked in their hearts because of what Peter proclaimed.

Kirk Ketchum: The original apostles were sent to the house of Israel not the Gentiles. Paul is still persecuting believing Jews in Acts 9 when he is called and goes away for at least three years. The first half of the book of Acts is about Israel which was transitioning from the law.

My response: There is no disagreement with this. However, as I said previously, prior to the conversion and calling of Paul - Peter had a vision of unclean animals and received revelation concerning the gospel going to be preached unto the Gentile nations. However, there is one thing that Ketchum fails to understand. Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius. the Book of Acts records that Cornelius, and his household were the first Gentiles to be received into the Gospel and Kingdom of God. They were baptized per Peter's direction because of their faith in Christ.

Rick Ketchum: Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

Water baptism was John's baptism to the Jews. He said Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and fire. This happened on the day of Pentecost. Who baptised with water? John. Who was He sent to? Israel. Mormons generally do not understand that the gospel went to the Jews first, so they see something meant for the Jews and misapply it.

My Response: While it is correct that Matthew 3:11 refers to John's preaching repentance among those present - to include the religious leaders of the day - John did mention that Christ had the greater authority. Still, Christ came to John to be baptized himself. What need did Christ have to be baptized?

Let's step back for a moment and go back to what Ketchum said earlier about ceremonial cleansing. Assuming he did not actually read the attached post on the Nature and Covenant of Baptism as a Religious Rite and Sacred Ordinance. I wrote on the Laver Basin and the Washing and Anointing of the Priests From there, I present my case on the question of Christ needing to be baptized and what he meant by "to fulfill all righteousness".

The Laver Basin and the Washing and Anointing of Temple Priests

In Exodus 30:17-21, we have the description of the Laver Basin. This basin was designed so that Aaron and the Priests were to wash their hands and feet prior to entering in and ministering in the temple, as well as exiting the temple:

The Lord said to Moses, “You shall also make a basin of bronze, with its stand of bronze, for washing. You shall put it between the tent of meeting and the altar, and you shall put water in it, with which Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet. When they go into the tent of meeting, or when they come near the altar to minister, to burn a food offering to the Lord, they shall wash with water, so that they may not die. They shall wash their hands and their feet, so that they may not die. It shall be a statute forever to them, even to him and to his offspring throughout their generations.”

This Laver was placed between the alter and the door of the Holy Place.  It's primary use is for the washing of the priests hands and feet. What is interesting is that in Exodus 40:12-16, the initial use of this laver was to consecrate and anoint Aaron and his descendants so that they stood Holy in the Priesthood God had called them into: 

Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the entrance of the tent of meeting and shall wash them with water and put on Aaron the holy garments. And you shall anoint him and consecrate him, that he may serve me as priest. You shall bring his sons also and put coats on them, and anoint them, as you anointed their father, that they may serve me as priests. And their anointing shall admit them to a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations.” This Moses did; according to all that the Lord commanded him, so he did. In the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, the tabernacle was erected.

Leviticus 8:1-6 further provides insight into this consecration ceremony:

 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments and the anointing oil and the bull of the sin offering and the two rams and the basket of unleavened bread. And assemble all the congregation at the entrance of the tent of meeting.” And Moses did as the Lord commanded him, and the congregation was assembled at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And Moses said to the congregation, “This is the thing that the Lord has commanded to be done.” And Moses brought Aaron and his sons and washed them with water. This ceremony appears to symbolize the New Testament Baptism for the Remission of Sins and the Anointing of the Holy Spirit.

According to Matthew Henry Commentary, we read the following:

The consecration of Aaron and his sons had been delayed until the tabernacle had been prepared, and the laws of the sacrifices given. Aaron and his sons were washed with water, to signify that they ought to purify themselves from all sinful dispositions, and ever after to keep themselves pure. Christ washes those from their sins in his own blood whom he makes kings and priests to our God, Re 1:5,6; and those that draw near to God must be washed in pure water, Heb 10:22. The anointing of Aaron was to typify the anointing of Christ with the Spirit, which was not given by measure to him. All believers have received the anointing.This consecration and anointing ritual involved setting apart Aaron and His sons to minister in God's Holy Priesthood. This consecration ceremony also involved receiving new garments, required sacrifices, and then spending 7-days within the Temple.

The importance of referencing this is to understand the nature of Biblical symbolism. There is much symbolism contained herein. However, I want to draw the attention to the very nature of the act itself.

• God called out Aaron and his descendants to bear the Holy Priesthood and function as God's divine appointed priests
• Moses, God's Prophet, was to set them apart and cleanse them through a ritual of purification, then consecrate them through a ritual of anointing oil upon them.
• Aaron and his sons were clothed with new garments to signify their designation as priesthood holders to minister and serve in God's Holy Temple. 
• Aaron and his sons were to make appropriate sacrifice to officiate in their new calling. 

This symbolism parallels the process by which a person comes into faith and receives baptism for the remission of their sins. It is a sacred rite and ordinance in that:

• God calls individuals out of their sinfulness 
• Through proper authority, individuals are then washed (Baptism for the remission of sins) and anointed with holy oil (Receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands)
• Clothed in new garments (Newness of life as this essay will explain)
• Walk in obedience to God's will and commandments as living sacrifices

Since we understand that God is a God of order and that we understand the power of symbolism within the Temple of Ancient Israel, as it manifests in the nature and person of Jesus Christ. In his work, Old Testament Messages of the Christ, Jasper Abraham Huffman makes this observation regarding the Old Testament Symbolism:

An attempt to discuss Old Testament symbolism in its completeness would be a great task. To do justice to such an undertaking would require a large volume, for the Old Testament abounds in figures and symbolisms. Every one of these points to Jesus Christ.  

And concerning the laver Huffman writes:

As the priest approached the Tabernacle proper, leaving the brazen altar, he had to pass the brazen laver. This contained water for the cleansing of the hands and the feet of the priests, which must not be neglected upon the penalty of death. He dare not come into the presence of the Lord without being ceremonially clean. Again a very significant furnishing. They of God's royal priesthood, will find between the alter of pardon and the Holy Place, a laver which dare not be passed by, upon the penalty of spiritual death, for "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Heb. 12:14. He must not be only ceremonially clean but effectually so: Not only hands and feet but heart as well. Does that priest pause at the laver? What doth he behold? He finds that the laver contains for him a cleansing, yea more than water for more than water is necessary for moral cleansing. It contains for him blood, which flowed from the pierced side of him who died as a sacrifice for the world. Is it efficacious? Yea, it is really blood. As he pauses by the laver he hears a voice praying: "Father sanctify them in thy truth: thy word is truth," and " For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth." St. John 17:17 and 19. 

Huffman further continues the symbolism between the cleansing at the Laver by the priests of Aaron and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ:

He also hears another say: "Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood suffered without the gate." Heb. 13:12. Neither does he look upon it as a demand made unjustly but as a necessary, expensive provision arising out of absolute necessity. Huffman continues with his commentary and the Apostle Paul referencing the church as the Bride of Christ in Ephesians 5:25-27.

This, being understood in the Jewish Wedding custom of the day, references the cleansing through sanctification of the bride:

The Apostle Paul...represents the church as a bride being made ready for the coming bridegroom. The ceremonial cleansing of the bride in Jewish customs is also provided for the spiritual Bride - the church - but in a real and effectual manner. Here the laver appears as the instrument of sanctification. Furthermore, Huffman references Titus 3:5 and how it refers to washing of regeneration or the laver of regeneration. He concludes that one views the symbolism of the Laver as a symbol of cleansing and sanctification. 

This is further illustrated when the reader comes to Huffman's commentary on the priestly anointing:

Important as the sanctifying or cleansing side of the Holy Spirit's work, symbolized by the laver, may be, there is another aspect of his work symbolized by the ceremonial consecration of the priest as well as the high priest. Both were anointed with holy oil before they were permitted to minister in the Holy Place. Ex. 30:30 and Lev. 8:30. Anointing with oil is symbolic of the anointing of the Holy Spirit. The cleansing represents the putting off, the anointing the putting on. S.D. Gordon says that "anointing" is the power word, but the positive or anointing of the Spirit has its corresponding negative to the cleansing. Both of these aspects were inseparably united in the consecration of the priesthood. To what point is Huffman observing? He remarks the laver as symbolism to the subjective side of grace and the brazen alter as the objective work of justification. He further postulates that the viewing of the laver of the Sanctuary as a symbol of cleansing or sanctification, for in a true sense, sanctification is all that work of grace which is wrought subjectively in man. And he further contends that the symbolization of the laver is the sanctification of man's heart, wrought by the agency of the Holy Spirit, using as the means the atoning blood of Christ.

Granted, Jasper Abraham Huffman does not point to the parallel between the initial cleansing ritual of Aaron and the priests to that of the baptism by immersion. However, the connotation is clearly present in how it alludes to the nature of Baptism (as we will see) and the salvific efficacy of baptism.

John's Baptism and Christ announcing the need to fulfill all righteousness

When we come to the preaching of John the Baptist, there are important things to take note of:

• John called the Pharisee's unto repentance upon seeing them
• John was baptizing people, by immersion, in the Jordan River
• John declaring the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand

Along with this, we have Jesus Christ coming forward and requesting to be baptized by John the Baptist. This event is contained in Matthew 3, Mark 1:1-11, Luke 3:21-24, and John 1:30-34. This is important to understand because the Apostle Paul, in Hebrews, refers to Jesus Christ as our High Priest:

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

And:

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. This references back to our previous discussion of the cleansing, sanctification, and anointing of Aaron and the Priests. A symbol of the cleansing, sanctification, and anointing of the Savior as he is being called and separated for ministry.

Before we proceed further to understand the baptism of Christ as a cleansing, sanctification, and anointing of Holy Priesthood Ministry, we must understand the context of what is happening at the River Jordan.

As the people are coming forward and being baptized by John the Baptist, among the crowd were the religious leaders. Upon seeing them, John calls them out: 

Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

Here, we understand that John is expressing an urgent need for the religious leaders to bear fruit in keeping with repentance and then being baptized for repentance. This, again, points back to the temple symbolism of cleansing, sanctification, and anointing. Yet, among all those present, Christ comes to ask John to baptize him. John protests and requests that Christ does the honor first. In response, we have the Savior saying this:

And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.In this short phrase, there is much being said here. The question we want to answer is: What did Christ mean to fulfill all righteousness? 

Since we have established the nature of the calling of Aaron and his sons and how this is symbolic and foreshadowing to the New Testament, it is simple to understand:

• Christ is beginning his ministry under the priesthood authority of God
• Christ needs to be cleansed, sanctified, and anointed in consecration to his priestly duties
• Christ is then required to officiate and provide the necessary sacrifice as part of his priesthood duties

In addition to this, the baptism of Christ is symbolism to the actual sacrifice Christ will administer: 

• His death
• His burial
• His resurrection

Therefore, to fulfill all righteousness essentially is Christ saying that he is being set apart to minister and work in officiating the necessary sacrifice needed for redeeming humanity. Not that Christ was sinful and needed to repent - but through Him, and his example, we will receive the salvific efficacy of his atonement and sacrifice. 

It is after discussing John's Baptism and Christ's need to fulfill righteousness that I go into the nature of Baptism as a covenant and use Romans 6:1-11 as the foundation for that point. It is this section of the article I had initially posted with the question of whether or not the Apostle Paul spoke against Baptism.

Rick Ketchum: Now let's talk about Paul. He said he was not called to water baptize BUT to preach the gospel. Why would he say this is it was part of the gospel? He wouldn't. The issue is that the poster does not know the difference between water and baptism of the Spirit. There are only two agents involved in the regeneration of man: the Spirit and the incorruptible word. When Paul talks about one baptism, he is talking about a spiritual baptism. The poster does not understand what Paul teaches.

My Response: What is interesting is that Ketchum spent time making an accusation that Latter-day Saints (Mormons) take things out of context. Yet, we see him doing exactly that - take 1 Corinthians 1:17 out of context. Not that he is wrong in what Paul is saying. That is evident by what one reads. However, he negates three things. First, he negates the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. Second, he negates Paul's other letters and his actions. Third, the overall Great Commision.

If Paul truly was not sent to baptize, then how come he mentions certain individuals by name, and then those whom he does not remember. Those he mentioned, he baptized:

I give thanks that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name. (Now I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Beyond that I do not know if I baptized anyone else.) 

And the greater context of 1 Corinthians 1 appears to focus on some division the Apostle Paul seemed to be addressing:

For it has been made clear to me concerning you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you. But I say this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” and “I am with Apollos,” and “I am with Cephas,” and “I am with Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:11-13, LEB

The Corinthian Christians appeared to quarrel over the supremacy of who baptized them. Paul's focus was not on necessity of Baptism. His focus on bringing attention to the reality of the Gospel and how that message plays in the purpose of being baptized. Here is what the Gospel Coalition has to say:

Moreover, rather than being a boast, this list is intended to minimize the importance of exactly who baptized those in the Corinthian church. Rather than baptism being a contest between Christians regarding which “celebrity preacher” performed the rite, it is instead an act of obedience and sign of the gospel message. Paul is minimizing the performative, “celebrity” aspect of baptism, not the act of baptism.

The wider context supports this as well. Verses 18–25, which arguably introduce the main theme of the letter, are one extended contrast of Jewish and Greco-Roman folly on the one hand and divine wisdom on the other. And that particular contrast leads Paul to combat the contentious factions that have arisen between different groups in the church, divided by who led them to Christ. Rather than the person who evangelized them, it’s the message of the gospel, centered on the person and work of Jesus, that really matters.

With this understanding - Paul does not appear to say that baptism does not matter. He appears to refer to the idea that who baptized who does not matter.

John Piper, founder and minister of Desiring God supports what the Gospel Coalition reveals. And that is Paul was not discounting or opposing baptism (which Ketchum appears to present):

First, then, did Paul oppose baptism or try to discourage converts from being baptized? From Paul's other letters, as well as from what we can see in the book of Acts the answer is, No. On the contrary Paul assumed that all the believers he wrote to were baptized, and he based important parts of his teaching upon this common experience of all the believers. For example, in Romans 6:3 Paul says, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

Piper goes on and proposes another question that he answers. That question is how come Paul did not baptize anyone whom he preached too and converted? Here is the answer:

Why, did Paul not make it a practice to baptize all his new converts? Why did he evidently let Timothy, or Silas, or Luke do the actual immersing in water? The answer Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 1:15 is this: I avoid doing the baptizing myself, so that none of my converts will be tempted to say they were baptized in my name. What lies behind this concern?

Paul had a tremendous authority in the early church. He had seen the risen Christ and had been commissioned by him to teach the churches. There was a risk, therefore, that he be idolized and that people become proud of being Paul's converts. And apparently this misplaced pride had begun to spread in the Corinthian church, and factions formed saying, "'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas.'" The body of Christ at Corinth was being torn asunder by the boasting of different factions in their favorite teacher.

Paul wants to stop this boasting and the divisions it was causing. So he says in 3:5, "What is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." Then in 3:21 he draws the inference. "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." In other words, as he says in 1:31, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."

When we properly approach scripture, we want to take into consideration the context. Allow the text itself to draw out the meaning of what the passage is saying and not read into it what our own bias and prejudicial viewpoint desires for it to say. What this also does is prove the point I made to Rick Ketchum that many Evangelical Christians are prone to misinterpret Paul and present what they believe Paul to teach. However, when properly examining Paul from an exegesis viewpoint - many of the teachings of modern Christianity do not hold any credibility and truth. Furthermore, that much of what Paul wrote in his epistles are more in line with the teachings of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ than modern mainstream Christianity. Point in fact the nature and purpose of Baptism being salvific and necessary.

Rick Ketchum: Were we physically crucified with Christ? No. Were we physically buried with Christ? No. Were we physically resurrected with Christ? no. The context of Romans 6 is all spiritual.

My response: It appears that Ketchum is referencing my citation of Romans 6:1-11. His question appears to be rhetorical and essentially a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Another ploy and tactic that some Evangelicals will use to discredit something someone said. Here is what I said:

The Apostle Paul makes clear distinction that the baptism correlates to the death of Christ, burial of Christ, and resurrection of Christ. It also points to the nature of our own death, burial, and eventual resurrection (whether it is in the First resurrection or second resurrection). Therefore, we see that this is a covenant relationship between us and Christ. We are unified through baptism. We are also required to walk in the newness of life as our old self is crucified with Christ. "

My statement and claim is taken from the very words of the Apostle Paul himself in Romans 6:1-11. What I am pointing out is the symbolism of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. In this context - Paul is alluding to the symbolic nature of how we are dying unto Christ, being buried with Christ, and rising up in newness of life with Christ through baptism. It is the plain understanding of this passage.

This is not the only place the Apostle Paul teaches on the relation of baptism and how it unifies us to Christ. Galatians 3:23-29:

²¹ Therefore is the law opposed to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, certainly righteousness would have been from the law. ²² But the scripture imprisoned all under sin, in order that the promise could be given by faithⁱ in Jesus Christ to those who believe. ²³ But before faith came, we were detained under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed. ²⁴ So then, the law became our guardian until Christ, in order that we could be justified by faith. ²⁵ But after* faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. ²⁶ For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,^j 27 for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are descendants of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

And writing to the Christian Church in Colosea:

 Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, live in him, ⁷ firmly rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding with thankfulness. ⁸ Beware lest _⌊anyone take you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ, ⁹ because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰ and you are filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority, ¹¹ in whom also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands, by the removal of the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, in which also you were raised together with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³ And although you were dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ having destroyed the certificate of indebtedness in ordinances against us, which was hostile to us, and removed it out of the way by nailing it to the cross. ¹⁵ When he* had disarmed the rulers and the authorities, he made a display of them in public, triumphing over them by it.

Colossians 2:6-15 - Lexham English Bible

Paul is referring to water baptism as symbolism to being identified with Christ, unified with Christ, and resurrected with Christ. The serious mental gymnastics employed by Rick Ketchum appears quite evident.

Rick Ketchum: In Eph 2 where Paul gives his most definitive explanation of the gospel he never mentions water baptism. In fact wherever Paul teaches the gospel he never mentions water baptism. In fact the times he does mention baptism he is talking about a spiritual baptism, not water.

My response: The evidence and reality is that Paul is not referring to a spiritual baptism. Ketchum has yet to give any sound and reasonable explanation to support such a notion and interpretation. And it seems that he consistently repeats this idea over and over. Almost as if he is attempting to convince himself that it is the correct interpretation and doctrine.

Yes, I do agree that the Apostle Paul lays out a definitive explanation of the Gospel in the letter to the Ephesians. However, not what the common Evangelical interpretation presents.

2) Claim Made: It says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that for by grace you have been saved through faith for is the gift of God not a result of work so that no man may boast. It is not our work we are justified by ... but we are justified by the works of one who is impeccable. One who is perfect. The one Jesus Christ, the God-man. God from all eternity who on that cross said it is finished." 

Response to the claim: Again, we will take into consideration whether or not Pastor Wade is presenting an Eisegesis understanding (reading into the text his own bias and prejudicial understanding) or from an Exegesis (drawing out the meaning of the text from a critical examination of the text). 

Here is a response I gave concerning Pastor Wad's misunderstanding of the third article of faith and how the common eisegesis interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9 does not hold up with a proper examination of the text.

Since Pastor Wade quoted Ephesians 2:8-9 (which is common practice for many Evangelical Christians to do so in support of their understanding of the doctrine of Sola Gratia), we shall examing the context to determine of there is any credible merit to his interpretation. 

Again, as we did with Romans 3:20, we want to consider the context of Ephesians 2:8-9. It begins with going back to Ephesians 1. This is due to Ephesians 2:1 carrying over the thoughts of Ephesians 1. 

Writing to the Church in Ephesus, the Apostle makes an astounding statement of truth: 

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Ephesians 1:4-5). 

Here, we find that the Apostle Paul is referring to the plan of salvation that was established prior to human existence. Prior to Adam and Eve, and the Garden of Eden. In this context, and based on the Greek term for Predestinated, we understand Paul referring to the idea and truth that those whom he is writing to were "determined before, ordained, predestinate" to be heirs of salvation through Jesus Christ. 

On the surface, this may support the doctrine of predestination within reformed theology (which is for another discussion altogether). However, when fully understood, we see it as fulfillment of God's will and purpose in that the plan of salvation through Jesus Christ is meant to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Thus, God, beforehand established the boundaries and limits of the Plan of Salvation - not who will benefit from the saving grace. 

Another phrase the Apostle Paul utilizes is the nature of adoption. Here, we must understand this in light of the fact that Paul, being a Jew and Pharisee, is writing to Gentile Christians. To them, they are being adopted into the blessings inherit to the Abrahamic Covenant. 

Having this in our mindset - Paul is again establishing the nature and purpose of the Plan of Salvation as it pertains to the atonement of Jesus Christ. This is supported by the context of Ephesians 1:7-14.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both wich are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 

Paul carries this thought toward the justification of the Gentile believers at Ephesus in the second Chapter. 

Furthermore, the Apostle continues on with Ephesians 2:10: "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto Good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." 

Most Evangelicals only quote Ephesians 2:8-9 and then fail to include verse 10 contextually. Thus, Ephesians 2:8-10 bridges the idea and nature of the doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ as the first principle of the Gospel. First, unto the Jew and second, unto those who are Gentiles adopted into the covenant promises of God. 

In his commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians - Hodges gives this analysis: 

There are three principal topics treated of in this Section. First, the spiritual state of the Ephesians before their conversion. Second, the change which God had wrought in them. Third, the design for which that change had been effected. 

I. The state of the Ephesians before their conversion, and the natural state of men universally, is one of spiritual death, which includes—1. A state of sin. 2. A state of subjection to Satan and to our own corrupt affections. 3. A state of condemnation, vs. 1-3. 

II. The change which they had experienced was a spiritual resurrection; concerning which the apostle teaches—1. That God is its author. 2. That it is a work of love and grace. 3. That it was through Christ, or in virtue of union with him. 4. That it involves great exaltation, even an association with Christ in his glory, vs. 4-6. 

III. The design of this dispensation is the manifestation through all coming ages of the grace of God. It is a manifestation of grace—1. Because salvation in general is of grace. 2.. Because the fact that the Ephesian Christians believed or accepted of this salvation was due not to themselves but to God. Faith is his gift. 3. Because good works are the fruits not of nature, but of grace. We are created unto good works. 

As established, the nature of Paul's discourse gives us insight and understanding into the nature and purpose of the atonement. We, ourselves of our own merit, could never provide the necessary sacrifice needed to bring about our own justification. It is through our faith in Jesus Christ that we are then justified by God's grace. 

So, where does that leave us when we consider the third article of faith? What does it refer to when it says "...by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel"? 

True, any ritual obedience to any law or ordinance does not, in and of itself, justify us before God. Take for instance the sacrifice Abel brought before God contrasted to that sacrifice Cain brought forth. Abel's sacrifice was favored and acceptable before the Lord. Not because of what type of offering Abel brought, but because of Abel's faith in knowing and understanding who God is. Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable, not because of what he brought forth, but because of his manner, attitude, and lack of faith and confidence in God. 

The sacrificial rituals of the Mosaic Covenant and law required specific animal sacrifices. These rituals alone did not merit any justification upon the one bringing them forth. It rested upon their attitude and mind toward God. 

It is this attitude and mindset as to the reason the Savior responded that the two great commandments are to first Love God and second to love others. It is on this concept and attitude where the laws and prophets are established. Our love toward God is based on our faith and trust in Him. Thereby justifying us through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. We therefore then walk in obedience to God's will and desire for us in fulfilling those covenants (law) and ordinances whereby we make those covenants. 

Rick Ketchum: The issue is that Mormons define everything in earthly terms. This is why they have temples and ordinances like the Jews. This is why they have an OT priesthood and prophets. This is why they think Mt Zion and the new Jerusalem are talking about physical locations. Even God the Father has been reduced to a man in their teaching. So This is nothing new for them.

My Response: This claim and assertion of Ketchum is far reaching and is nothing more than a non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the discussion on Baptism and whether or not it is taught within the scope of the New Testament. Neither does it address any relevant information concerning whether or not there is precedent to consider that Baptism is or is not salvific.

Rick Ketchum: The poster takes what Peter specifically said the house of Israel and claims this is proof for the Gentiles. Seriously? Mormons had to resurrect John the Baptist to make their doctrine of baptism work. What does that tell you? The poster simply does not know what Paul teaches as the gospel.

My response: Again, with the personal attack by claiming that I do not know what Paul teaches as the gospel. Unlike Ketchum, I took the time to consider his viewpoint, looked to the scriptures, and found whether or not they were compatible with some of the more renown and respected theologians on this subject. John Piper disagrees with Ketchum, Spurgeon disagrees with Ketchum, R. C. Sproul disagrees with Ketchum. And these are a handful of Reformed theologians. That ought to tell you something.

As to the claim Mormons had to resurrect John the Baptist in order to make our doctrine of baptism work is again, misleading, dishonest, manipulative, and deceptive. John the Baptist came as a messenger to restore the keys of the kingdom that pertained to the administration and authority of baptism:

In the early 1800s, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ restored the gospel to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. This Restoration included the restoration of priesthood power and authority.

While Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were working on the translation of the Book of Mormon, they read about baptism for the remission of sins. On May 15, 1829, they went to a wooded area near Joseph’s home in Harmony, Pennsylvania, and prayed about what they had learned.

In answer to their prayer, John the Baptist, under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared and conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, saying, “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins” (Doctrine and Covenants 13:1). Following John’s instructions, Joseph and Oliver then baptized each other and ordained each other to the Aaronic Priesthood (see Joseph Smith—History 1:68–72.)

Sometime after John the Baptist’s appearance, the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John also appeared to Joseph and Oliver, again under the direction of Jesus Christ, and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants 128:20). “The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:8). With this authority again on the earth, the Church of Jesus Christ could be restored in its fulness.

On a side note - we do know that along with Christ, there were others who rose from the dead:

“At that moment the curtain in the sanctuary of the Temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, rocks split apart, and tombs opened. The bodies of many godly men and women who had died were raised from the dead. They left the cemetery after Jesus’ resurrection, went into the holy city of Jerusalem, and appeared to many people” (Matthew 27:51-53).

It may very well be that John the Baptist was among those Godly men and women who rose up from their grave and were seen by many people. Therefore, it was not the Mormons who resurrected him - but the power and authority of Jesus Christ when he rose from the Grave. Thus, when John the Baptist appared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Co

Rick Ketchum: Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

According to Mormons this can't happen. But it did happen because these were Gentiles. The Jews has no idea that the gospel would include gentiles until Paul was called and they had a difficult time with it. God proved in Acts 10 that hearing the gospel and believing are the only requirements. There are hundreds of millions of believers today who were born again by hearing the gospel and believing. Jesus said in John 5:24 that if we believe in Him we shall receive eternal life. Peter said in 1 Peter 1:3,23, that we are born again by the resurrection of Christ and the incorruptible word.

My response: It is interesting that Ketchum cites Acts 10:44 and then claims that Latter-day Saints do not believe this can't happen. Yes, it did happen when Peter came and visited Cornelius and his household. Yes, the gospel was preached unto them. Yes, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and the Jews were amazed. Yes, they were baptized because of their faith in Jesus Christ. And no, Acts 10 does not strictly say that the only requirements is merely hearing the Gospel and believing it and then you are saved. Peter asked for water to be brought forth so that Cornelius and his household were to be baptized as a result of their faith and belief in who Christ is.

What most Evangelical Christians appear to lack is the understanding of the reason for the Restoration of the Gospel. The nature of the restoration was not just about restoring the keys of the Kingdom of God and re-stablishing the Priesthood authority. Neither is it really about the building of the temples and the Endowment ceremony. Genealogy. All those are part and parcel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that the necessity for the restoration of the Gospel was for the purpose of bringing the message of the infinite atonement unto the Jews once again.

It is the idea that the gospel was first preached unto the Jews and then later unto the Gentiles. however, because of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the destruction of the temple- the end of the Jewish age came about. They were scattered, dispersed, and no longer a nation or a people. Within Biblical prophecy concerning the restoration of the Jews as a people and nation will occur when in the last dispensation when the message of the Gospel will be brought forth unto the Jews after it is preached unto the Gentiles.

I cover this when addressing the tenth article of faith and expounding upon how the nation and People of Israel will be restored in the Last days and they will be the last to hear the message of the Gospel.

Furthermore, merely cherry picking out bible verses to establish support and precedents for one's theological doctrine is improper interpretation. Anyone, per A.W. Tozer, is capable of taking select verse out of the Bible and make them say something. And that is what Ketchum appears to do.

Rick Ketchum: The poster does not understand what Paul taught and is trying to pervert his teaching. He never added rites or ordinances as requirements of salvation. He said grace is a gift that cannot be earned through works. The poster is saying the opposite. The fact that Mormons do not seem to understand what a spiritual baptism is makes me question if they do have the Holy Spirit.

My response: ad nauseum - meaning that Ketchum's penchant to attack my personal credibility by claiming that I don't understand what Paul taught and is attempting to pervert his teaching has become quite tiresome and annoying. Like a broken record skipping. He has yet to prove any substantial sound and reasonable explanation as to how I lack understanding of Paul. Furthermore, has yet t provides any substantial proof that I'm perverting the teachings of Paul.

Whereas the past two articles are a thorough and adequate response that refutes his idea of spiritual baptism and that the Apostle Paul did not preach against the efficacy of Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and that even renown and reputable theologians disprove his poppycock interpretation and pathetic strong-arm attempt to insult and denounce my own credibility and understanding of the subject matter. In other words - Ketchum has done some serious projection of his own inadequate understanding and lacking the New Testament and how it supports baptism by immersion as salvific. It also has shown that he is projecting his own misunderstandings and perversion of what he claims Paul taught.

The question remains - is he willing to give some thoughtful consideration to the evidence and information presented. Is he going to consider the possibility that his viewpoint, interpretation, and understanding is wrong? Is he even willing to apologize publicly for embarrassing himself in attacking my own credibility and understanding of Paul, the New Testament and the doctrine of Baptism? Or - is he going to double down and maintain his present attitude and behavior in slandering the Restored Gospel, the members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, and those who counter his criticisms and expose them for what they are?