Baptism of babies & infants

[ParkerD]

If Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism through Jesus Christ our Lord. Judaism entered their infants into the Old covenant by “Circumcision” and presentation of her infants. The first Christians were Jews, who were accustomed to the Law of circumcision. We know from the Epistles of Paul a pharisee (lawyer of the law) taught his Judeo-Christian communities that “Baptism” replaced circumcision.

By circumcision one entered into the Old Covenant of God.

By Baptism one enters into the New and everlasting covenant of God where his KIngdom is. Now what Judeo-Christian from the first century to today would reject their infants from entering into the Kingdom of God? “Baptism saves you now” from infancy to a person in his death bed, this Grace from God is not earned but freely given to all. No one is excluded from God’s will that all be saved.

Gabriel of 12,
I think infants are already saved by the grace of Christ’s atonement, without the need for baptism, and that this concept is validated in the writings of Paul as well as the teaching of Christ that I already noted.

But I agree that “baptism” replaced circumcision as the new token or outward symbol of the new covenant or inward commitment to Christ and the person’s intent to follow Him. Paul never taught that infants needed baptism.

Just because circumcision happened at a certain age, does not mean that baptism would need to happen at that same age, since baptism was about making a commitment to the new covenant community of the followers of Christ, rather than about being received into the old covenant “community” of Israel.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12,
I think infants are already saved by the grace of Christ’s atonement, without the need for baptism, and that this concept is validated in the writings of Paul as well as the teaching of Christ that I already noted.

But I agree that “baptism” replaced circumcision as the new token or outward symbol of the new covenant or inward commitment to Christ and the person’s intent to follow Him. Paul never taught that infants needed baptism.

Just because circumcision happened at a certain age, does not mean that baptism would need to happen at that same age, since baptism was about making a commitment to the new covenant community of the followers of Christ, rather than about being received into the old covenant “community” of Israel.

Gabriel of 12;

We must not confuse the flesh with the Spirit;
Man is born of original sin from Adam and Eve our first parents. This fall from Grace has affected humanity since the fall. Baptism removes the stain of original sin of infants and actual sins including original from adults. The old covenant also presented their first born son to the Lord in the temple as well as circumcised infants into the covenant of God which included naming the child. Now this circumcision was limited to the male offspring only. Women were excluded, but were included through their males.

The New Covenant includes both Gentile and Jew, both male and female, including slaves and infants who were of the “Whole household” of Israel when the apostles baptized them “ALL”.

Baptism is not making a commitment to a body of believers. Baptism is the infusion of Grace into the soul of any man, where the name of God is placed on the forhead forever (sealed by the Father’s seal), never to be removed. This death that takes place at baptism, renews the baptized into a true child of God. Where not even an angel can harm him/her. Baptism is where the Word of God becomes incarnate to the believer. The New Testament identifies these baptized as those who died to self and raised in Jesus Christ from the baptismal waters, where we are no longer of the flesh but of the Spirit. The flesh dies where as the Spirit is eternal.

Now when you talk about a “Commitment” to the body of Jesus Christ, the sacrament that completes the Christian intitation into the kingdom of God is called the Sacrament of “Confirmation” in this post baptismal sacrament the baptized recieve the anointing in the Holy Spirit, when he/she in the new covenant makes a decision to follow Jesus Christ and proclaim “Christ crucified” or the Lords death until he returns. In some Catholic Rites all three sacraments baptism, communion and confirmation all given to infants at the same liturgy.

 

[ParkerD]

Gabriel of 12,
Thanks for explaining the Catholic belief. I appreciate it, and appreciate the conversations here.

 

[ParkerD]

To Gabriel of 12 and others,
I suppose that I should explain why it seems important to me that it be scripturally correct to identify whether baptism represents a commitment to a covenant and to the joining of the body of believers, versus baptism representing “the infusion of grace into the soul”.

If one were to think about the act of being baptized by immersion under the water, letting the priest doing the baptizing place this newly converted person submerged in the water, then one has a very visible symbol of “burial” and “newness of life” as the converted person is raised back up out of the water. They made the commitment on their own, of their own volition, freely and with faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. They joined with all those others who have made a similar commitment. Their covenant becomes very meaningful and symbolic and memorable for them. I think God intended this to be the way baptism was to be administered. It makes sense symbolically, scripturally, and spiritually. It squares with the doctrine of the Bible in every conceivable way.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To Gabriel of 12 and others,
I suppose that I should explain why it seems important to me that it be scripturally correct to identify whether baptism represents a commitment to a covenant and to the joining of the body of believers, versus baptism representing “the infusion of grace into the soul”.

If one were to think about the act of being baptized by immersion under the water, letting the priest doing the baptizing place this newly converted person submerged in the water, then one has a very visible symbol of “burial” and “newness of life” as the converted person is raised back up out of the water. They made the commitment on their own, of their own volition, freely and with faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Redeemer. They joined with all those others who have made a similar commitment. Their covenant becomes very meaningful and symbolic and memorable for them. I think God intended this to be the way baptism was to be administered. It makes sense symbolically, scripturally, and spiritually. It squares with the doctrine of the Bible in every conceivable way.

Gabriel of 12;
You may have a point here, Baptism includes in its totality both examples of “community” and “infusion of Grace”, because in the baptism a profession of faith is made. This profession is made by the person being baptized, and the profession of faith is proclaimed by the parents and God parents of infants, until the Child reaches the age of reason in his/her confirmation this profession of faith is made by the baptized in his/her confirmation.

What is included in the baptismal promises or profession, is a “public rejection of the evil one (father of lies) and all his works”. This act of profession is called officially " Exorcism". This faith is practiced and professed by the baptized themselves, and for infants by their parents and God parents. This practice comes to us since antquity.

What is interesting here is; that many Christians outside the Catholic church with a valid baptism do not realize it, but are part of the body of Jesus Christ in his Catholic Church. Another note to consider that many of these baptized Christians who reject Catholicism, find that they cannot remove their Catholic Baptism, for what God has joined together “let no man put assunder”. That is why if a Catholic leaves the Church to be a JW, will find that there name will not be removed from the book of life, from their baptism in heaven. Yet they still have their freewill to reject the Grace of God or recieve it.

Your welcome

 

[placido]

think infants are already saved by the grace of Christ’s atonement, without the need for baptism,

That is interesting. Will you please tell us when, why and how the already saved infants lose their salvation, thereby creating the need for baptism?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

That is interesting. Will you please tell us when, why and how the already saved infants lose their salvation, thereby creating the need for baptism?

placido

Hi, Placido,
Very good question. If you will look at Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13 and Romans 6:6, 16 & 17 you will note that sin is not applicable until the law is applicable, and a person becomes the “servant of sin unto death” or of “obedience unto righteousness” (v. 16) when they “obeyed from the heart…” (v. 17)

An infant or a young child is not obeying from the heart until they are capable by their age and self-will, of making choices whether to obey or to disobey, and that is the age at which by disobeying (sinning) they become subject to spiritual death because of their having begun to sin. This is the age at which they need baptism to be freed from that spiritual death by making their own choice of “obedience unto righteousness.” The LDS belief is that the “age of accountability” is age eight unless a child has learning disabilities, in which case they would still be under “free grace” until such time as they are accountable by making knowledgeable choices.

 

[Philthy]

Very good question. If you will look at Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13 and Romans 6:6, 16 & 17 you will note that sin is not applicable until the law is applicable, and a person becomes the “servant of sin unto death” or of “obedience unto righteousness” (v. 16) when they “obeyed from the heart…” (v. 17)

 

[ParkerD]

“Sin is not applicable until the law is applicable”? Uhhh - when exactly do you think “the law” came into effect? And when was the first sin committed? Was Cain’s killing Abel “not applicable”?

But the very chapter of Romans you quote says that “all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God”

Reasonable enough to the mind. The only problem is that the age and concept are entirely an extrabiblical fabrication and have no basis in the practice of the early Church. Such a claim therefore requires divine authority to implement. Who has that authority and from whom did they get it and how do we know it?

Hi, Philthy,
“The law” for Cain came into effect when he understood his choices, including whether to offer a righteous sacrifice to God or an unrighteous one. After he had offered an unrighteous sacrifice, he became extremely disobedient in the horrific act he committed against Abel; thus he showed the effect of having not repented for his earlier disobedience by sinning in that horrific way. He was already spiritually dead by his disobedience in the first instance. His killing of Abel showed that when one is spiritually dead, they can be easily deceived by Satan into horrific acts against humankind and against their own conscience.

Romans 3:23 does say that. If you want to build a religion around that one verse, I suppose that you can. Other places Paul explained his meaning more fully.

I think that you do not know the practices of the “original church” by the apostles and by Jesus Himself. I think that you cannot cite one verse in the Bible that says an apostle or Christ baptized an infant. However, you can find many verses in the New Testament that show that baptism was symbolic of “burial” and a “second birth” or a “newness of life.” The symbolism clearly is represented by a burial in the water by immersion to cover the sinful body of the person who is baptized and bring them forth with a “second birth” into a “newness of life.” Of course that cannot be done to an infant–they don’t know to hold their breath nor do they have any concept of being buried and coming into a “second birth.”

A person is not buried by sprinkling dirt on their head. But again, for an excuse to believe “free grace” does not apply to infants, you can use Romans 3:23 and justify the religious practice based on that verse by implying that an infant has sinned, even though Christ said “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi, Philthy,
“The law” for Cain came into effect when he understood his choices, including whether to offer a righteous sacrifice to God or an unrighteous one. After he had offered an unrighteous sacrifice, he became extremely disobedient in the horrific act he committed against Abel; thus he showed the effect of having not repented for his earlier disobedience by sinning in that horrific way. He was already spiritually dead by his disobedience in the first instance. His killing of Abel showed that when one is spiritually dead, they can be easily deceived by Satan into horrific acts against humankind and against their own conscience.

Romans 3:23 does say that. If you want to build a religion around that one verse, I suppose that you can. Other places Paul explained his meaning more fully.

I think that you do not know the practices of the “original church” by the apostles and by Jesus Himself. I think that you cannot cite one verse in the Bible that says an apostle or Christ baptized an infant. However, you can find many verses in the New Testament that show that baptism was symbolic of “burial” and a “second birth” or a “newness of life.” The symbolism clearly is represented by a burial in the water by immersion to cover the sinful body of the person who is baptized and bring them forth with a “second birth” into a “newness of life.” Of course that cannot be done to an infant–they don’t know to hold their breath nor do they have any concept of being buried and coming into a "second birth."

A person is not buried by sprinkling dirt on their head. But again, for an excuse to believe “free grace” does not apply to infants, you can use Romans 3:23 and justify the religious practice based on that verse by implying that an infant has sinned, even though Christ said “for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

When the Orthodox baptize infants they fully immerse them.

And having more recently come from water through birth they may have an understanding

 

[ParkerD]

When the Orthodox baptize infants they fully immerse them.

And having more recently come from water through birth they may have an understanding

Hi, Zaffiroborant,
Thanks for that information. I didn’t know that about Orthodox baptisms. I appreciate the clarification.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi, Philthy,
I think that you do not know the practices of the “original church” by the apostles and by Jesus Himself. I think that you cannot cite one verse in the Bible that says an apostle or Christ baptized an infant. However, you can find many verses in the New Testament that show that baptism was symbolic of “burial” and a “second birth” or a “newness of life.” The symbolism clearly is represented by a burial in the water by immersion to cover the sinful body of the person who is baptized and bring them forth with a “second birth” into a “newness of life.” Of course that cannot be done to an infant–they don’t know to hold their breath nor do they have any concept of being buried and coming into a “second birth.”

Gabriel of 12;

Apostolic Tradition has infant baptisms, the New Testament never discounts infant baptism.] Baptism of infants is implied in the New Testament for “you and your children” not to mention the Old Testament qualifies infant baptism from the prophets.

Baptism removes the stain of orginal sin from infants. The biblical doctrine of original sin is what you might be questioning not salvation of infants by baptism?

1 CorinthiansChapter 15
21 9** For since death came through a human being**, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being.
22 For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life,
23 but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is another scripture that explains we all are destined to die an eternal death from from Adams original sin, but the second Adam redeems humanity back to God from the fall of original sin, which begins at every Baptism, of which includes “All” infants to the person on a death bed, Baptism saves Now.

1 PeterChapter 3
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Why do Catholics baptize infants?
RomansChapter 5
8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
9 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.
10 Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
11 Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 4 **Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned **5 –
13 for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
14 But **death reigned **from Adam to Moses, **even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.
15 But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. **16 And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal.
17 **For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. **19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, **so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. **

 

[ParkerD]

Here is another scripture that explains we all are destined to die an eternal death from from Adams original sin, but the second Adam redeems humanity back to God from the fall of original sin, which begins at every Baptism, of which includes “All” infants to the person on a death bed, Baptism saves Now.

1 Peter 3
20 who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God 7 for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

Why do Catholics baptize infants?
RomansChapter 5
8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.
9 How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.
10 Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life.
11 Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 4 **Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned **5 –
13 for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
14 But **death reigned **from Adam to Moses, **even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come.
15 But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. **16 And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal.
17 **For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. 18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. **19 For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, **so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. **

Hi, Gabriel of 12,
I prefer to compromise on using a Bible translation that I think is closer to the original intent of the writer. I use the KJV myself, but for purposes of this discussion I think the Douay-Rheims will do. I will post the text, then follow up with comments in a second post.

Here are the texts you have cited, in Douay-Rheims translation:

1 Peter 3:18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. 21 Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 22 Who is on the right hand of God, swallowing down death that we might be made heirs of life everlasting: being gone into heaven, the angels and powers and virtues being made subject to him.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his charity towards us: because when as yet we were sinners according to the time. 9 Christ died for us. Much more therefore, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 And not only so: but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just. 20 Now the law entered in that sin might abound. And where sin abounded, grace did more abound. 21 That as sin hath reigned to death: so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[ParkerD]

Gabriel of 12,
May I first say that I respect your beliefs, and this discussion is about what was intended by the apostles and by Christ in their teachings and writings, not about whether your beliefs are worthy of respect. I think the particular belief in infant baptism was a natural transition from belief in the law of circumcision to belief that baptism replaced circumcision under the “new covenant” gospel, with the “logical” assumption that the age of baptism should be the same age as the age of circumcision. But the question becomes whether infants were baptized in the original church established by Christ Himself.

Looking at the texts you cited, but as translated in Douay-Rheims, we note:

1–Peter says “baptism … now saveth you also: … the examination of a good conscience towards God…”

(Note also verse 22 that is specific about the resurrected Jesus Christ “on the right hand of God”.)

Does an infant have the capability of having an “examination of a good conscience towards God”? I don’t think that is a valid comparison if applied to infants.

2–Paul says in Romans 5:12 that “death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” The use of the words “all men” followed by the use of the word “all” immediately after, is grammatically a repetition of the same sense of the two uses, meaning that in place of the second word “all” a grammarian would understand that that particular word means “all men.”

This meaning of “all men” is continued in verse 18.

 

[Philthy]

Hi ParkerD!

ParkerD:

“The law” for Cain came into effect when he understood his choices, including whether to offer a righteous sacrifice to God or an unrighteous one.

Uhhh, once again I don’t recall this as part of Scriptural revelation. In addition, it makes no sense. You are claiming two entirely unChristian concepts:
First - that all who sin apart from a knowledge of the law are not actually sinning.
Second - that if one commits, say, adultery but “understands” adultery to be “righteous” then the individual has not actually sinned before God and is not in need of a saviour.

If either of those premises were correct, the last thing we should be doing is teaching people about sin - better they remain ignorant and therefore not under the law. And furthermore, why would we want people reaching the age of accountability anyhow?

Romans 3:23 does say that. If you want to build a religion around that one verse, I suppose that you can. Other places Paul explained his meaning more fully.

I didnt build a theology around a verse - I merely used it to expose the inconsistency in your presentation of Romans 6 with the concept that everyone is born saved and therefore baptizing them is unecessary.

I think that you do not know the practices of the “original church” by the apostles and by Jesus Himself.

How could you possibly know that? I think you like to believe that, but we have a very good idea what the early Church practiced. All of their writings were reviewed by the Bishops of the Catholic Church to determine which were inspired and which were not.

I think that you cannot cite one verse in the Bible that says an apostle or Christ baptized an infant.

And I know that you cannot verify the Bible as being the Word of God except by the trustworthiness and authority of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I dont live under the illusion that the entire faith is contained in Scripture - and Scripture itself validates my position.

However, you can find many verses in the New Testament that show that baptism was symbolic of “burial” and a “second birth” or a “newness of life.”

I cannot think of a single one that uses the term or implication that Baptism is a symbol, and therefore I reject your premise that Scripture presents Baptism as “symbolic”. The language is always literal - spiritual of course, but literal.

The symbolism clearly is represented by a burial in the water

There is nothing about water which symbolizes burial. Burial is in dirt. What is symbolized is the cleansing of sin which is accomplished by Baptism.

I noticed you never addressed the authoritative issues that I raised. Sometimes when one chooses to say nothing they have actually said quite a lot.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments and may God continue to richly bless you…

 

[ParkerD]

Hi ParkerD!

Uhhh, once again I don’t recall this as part of Scriptural revelation. In addition, it makes no sense. You are claiming two entirely unChristian concepts:
First - that all who sin apart from a knowledge of the law are not actually sinning.
Second - that if one commits, say, adultery but “understands” adultery to be “righteous” then the individual has not actually sinned before God and is not in need of a saviour.
If either of those premises were correct, the last thing we should be doing is teaching people about sin - better they remain ignorant and therefore not under the law. And furthermore, why would we want people reaching the age of accountability anyhow?

How could you possibly know that? I think you like to believe that, but we have a very good idea what the early Church practiced. All of their writings were reviewed by the Bishops of the Catholic Church to determine which were inspired and which were not.
And I know that you cannot verify the Bible as being the Word of God except by the trustworthiness and authority of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, I dont live under the illusion that the entire faith is contained in Scripture - and Scripture itself validates my position.

I cannot think of a single one that uses the term or implication that Baptism is a symbol, and therefore I reject your premise that Scripture presents Baptism as “symbolic”. The language is always literal - spiritual of course, but literal.
There is nothing about water which symbolizes burial. Burial is in dirt. What is symbolized is the cleansing of sin which is accomplished by Baptism.

Thank you for your thoughts and comments and may God continue to richly bless you…

Hi, Philthy,
In Genesis 4 we read:
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

The Lord had told Cain that “sin lieth at the door” because what he had done was evidently “not accepted.” Cain had sinned by not giving an acceptable offering “unto the Lord.”

---

In answer to your question about the law: In John 1:9 we read “That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” This Light is the Light of Christ, often called the conscience. Your comment about adultery confuses the issue because adultery is against conscience or the Light of Christ, therefore it is against the basic “law” that every man and woman would be accountable to live by. The gospel of Jesus Christ includes “laws of conscience” and also “higher laws” which would include “laws of redemption.”

Your assertion that since a person is “condemned by the law” they should not be taught the law, reminds me of a quote you may have heard by Thomas Gray: “where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.” Of course, ignorance is not bliss–it is remaining innocent, but it is remaining in a state of no wisdom and no knowledge. This is not to say that a person can reach adulthood without their conscience being or having been a part of their life, because to say that would be to deny what John said in John 1:9. Conscience “lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”

Progress in life requires gaining knowledge and wisdom through learning and through experiences. To say that all young children should not reach the age of accountability just so they could be “saved by grace” is to deny the efficacy of the atonement for people who do reach the age of accountability who through their repentance can “become as a little child” and be forgiven of their sins. There was purpose planned for this life, including that the atonement would be part of the Plan of Salvation, and that humankind would have the “higher law” given to them as a benefit to them, and the Holy Spirit given to them as a benefit, in order for them to make progress toward all the virtues and the faith, hope and charity that Paul often wrote about and that Christ taught about.

---

If you’re saying that baptism is never compared with “burial”, then I guess you havent read the following verses in the Bible:

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

I’ll continue with one other passage that I think illustrates the points here, in a post to follow.

 

[ParkerD]

Philthy,
As a final verse of scripture to illustrate that baptism was of men and women and was followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost, here is a passage in Acts 8:

12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

 

[ricko]

Parker, I see in many of your posts that you are not using the standard definition for some words but are applying your own definition to backup your beliefs.

When Jesus said “Unless a man be born again…” you accept that “man” can also mean women but you exclude children/infants. What kind of English do they teach yall over there in Utah? Let’s try to educate yall Mormons a little…

Man…human race: the human race in general, adult male human:

Mankind…all human beings: human beings considered collectively

Now I looked up the above definitions in other books and I would say the good ole US of A agrees with the above. No where did I find that children were not part of “man” as is used in the bible.

When “Man” is used in the bible as in “Unless a man…” it means EVERYONE Parker.

So how 'bout trying to stick with the standard definitions of words as the world sees them.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, I see in many of your posts that you are not using the standard definition for some words but are applying your own definition to backup your beliefs.

When Jesus said “Unless a man be born again…” you accept that “man” can also mean women but you exclude children/infants. What kind of English do they teach yall over there in Utah? Let’s try to educate yall Mormons a little…

A–Man…human race: the human race in general, adult male human:

B–Mankind…all human beings: human beings considered collectively

Now I looked up the above definitions in other books and I would say the good ole US of A agrees with the above. No where did I find that children were not part of “man” as is used in the bible.

When “Man” is used in the bible as in “Unless a man…” it means EVERYONE Parker. (According to RICKO).

So how 'bout trying to stick with the standard definitions of words as the world sees them.

Ricko,
The first definition that is listed in the Merriam Webster Collegiate dictionary is
"an individual human; especially: an adult male human.

The dictionary is written to tell us the commonly understood meanings of words, and dictionaries always show that there are different connotations for many words, including this word “man.” The dictionary does not decide for us which connotation we are to assume from a particular usage. We have to decide based on the usage in the passage.

There are college entrance exams that explore connotations and usage of words, and sometimes there are passages that a reader is asked to read and then figure out the connotation of the word that was used. I am going to assume you are familiar with what I am talking about.

You and I disagree as to the usage or connotation of the word “man” in several verses of the Bible. It is not a Utah thing or a USA thing, but it is an English language thing, and we evidently simply will not agree, but the connotation I glean from the passages is just as valid as the connotation you have chosen to glean from the passages cited.