Baptism of babies & infants

[ricko]

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.

In the passage in question, “Unless a man…” You agree that “man” includes men and women so that throws out your definition above as “A male human” What a waste of time you cause Parker!!!

OK, I’m ok.

So, now I want you to find in your dictionary where “Man” includes men and women but excludes children!! You won’t find it Parker because such a definition does not exist.

You guys not only twist scripture (to your own destruction) but you do it to the dictionaries too.

“Unless a man be born again…” inlcudes everyone Parker, men, women, children, infants…everybody.

but the connotation I glean from the passages is just as valid as the connotation you have chosen to glean from the passages cite

You got to be kidding me. You’re saying that if you twist the accepted meaning of a word to back up your beliefs, it’s ok. Get me a non-Mormon English teacher here and there is no way they will agree with you.

 

[Philthy]

Hi ParkerD!
ParkerD;:

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.

If you think that this somehow clarifies your statement that sin is not accountable when there is no law and that sin is only sin when we recognize it as such and that this is what St Paul was referring to in his reference to the law in Romans then you are mistaken. Consciences have existed since man was created and human sin has existed since the Fall.

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.

My comment does not confuse the issue, it clarifies the ambiguity of your claims and also exposes your reliance upon an extra-Scriptural tradition that produces the theology that you are presenting since none of this is Scriptural revelation, per se. By what authority do you claim this tradition that of Christ?

The gospel of Jesus Christ includes “laws of conscience” and also “higher laws” which would include “laws of redemption.”

Ibid. Source?

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

No I never said that, I said it was never spoken of as symbolic. I used the word symbolic because you did. You were mistaken in doing so and would be wise to simply retract your claim. The following verses further bolster my claim.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Symbolism??? Compared to??? Do you think you could point it out to me??? It sounds to me like a literal statement: Do you not realize that your were spiritually baptized into the death of Christ? There is no symbolism here - I’ve read the verses for what they say, not what I’ve been told they mean.

4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:

Again: statement of fact we ARE buried with Him by baptism. There is no symbolism alluded to.

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.

Symbolism??? I dont see it.

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.

There is nothing symbolic here either. We ARE new creations, we do not symbolize new creations. It is a literal statement of a spiritual reality, exactly as I said.

Again thank you for your thoughtful replies!

Peace be with you

 

[Philthy]

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:

Have you lost track of the discussion? There was never a question of whether baptism was “of men and women”, nor was there a question of whether baptism was linked to the reception of “gift the holy Spirit”. I believe baptism is for men, women and children. I also believe that we receive the gift of the holy Spirit when we are baptized. So I am not sure why you bring this up, unless you have poorly articulated your intent to claim to illustrate baptism was ONLY of men and women. Is that what you meant to say? That this verse shows baptism is for adults only? I find that hard to believe since you said 8 year olds have reached the age of accountability and therefore can be baptized; yet at the same time who would consider an 8 year old a man or a woman?
I remain confused as to why you brought this up.
It is also further confusing that you now associate the actual reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” with baptism in this post whereas our topic of discussion previously was your claim that baptism was merely symbolic of burial and new life in Christ. You are confusing me!

Blessings!

 

[ParkerD]

Have you lost track of the discussion? There was never a question of whether baptism was “of men and women”, nor was there a question of whether baptism was linked to the reception of “gift the holy Spirit”. I believe baptism is for men, women and children. I also believe that we receive the gift of the holy Spirit when we are baptized. So I am not sure why you bring this up, unless you have poorly articulated your intent to claim to illustrate baptism was ONLY of men and women. Is that what you meant to say? That this verse shows baptism is for adults only? I find that hard to believe since you said 8 year olds have reached the age of accountability and therefore can be baptized; yet at the same time who would consider an 8 year old a man or a woman?
I remain confused as to why you brought this up.
It is also further confusing that you now associate the actual reception of “the gift of the Holy Ghost” with baptism in this post whereas our topic of discussion previously was your claim that baptism was merely symbolic of burial and new life in Christ. You are confusing me!

Blessings!

Philthy,
I had assumed you had read my previous posts when I had cited John 3 as referring to both the baptism of water and the baptism of fire, which comes when one receives the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit and they are renewed by the Spirit. The two are linked in several places in the New Testament, including in the verses in Acts that I had cited about men and women.

The trend of this discussion with you and Ricko illustrates the entire point of a discussion we have had on another thread about how the ordinances and some of the beliefs that were taught in the church could easily have changed within the first 200 years of the original founding of the church. You are both tenaciously persuasive and simply ignore verses that do not support your beliefs even when they are brought up. I don’t feel inclined to enter into an argument about the doctrines or the meaning of words within the connotation of the verses where they are used. I am completely confident of my personal relationship with God, and it makes no sense to me to carry on an argument, being as it is even as Ricko noted, a waste of time for all of us. If I had been in the early church and had been confronted with the kinds of authoritarian statements presented by each of you, I would have simply walked away and been a part of a schism or perhaps been “persecuted” and left town. The stronger the authoritarian position exerted, the more people who may have felt like I do now would have been likely to have kept quiet and said, in effect, “let them do what they want–I’m out of here.”

 

[ParkerD]

In the passage in question, “Unless a man…” You agree that “man” includes men and women so that throws out your definition above as “A male human” What a waste of time you cause Parker!!!

OK, I’m ok.

So, now I want you to find in your dictionary where “Man” includes men and women but excludes children!! You won’t find it Parker because such a definition does not exist.

You guys not only twist scripture (to your own destruction) but you do it to the dictionaries too.

“Unless a man be born again…” inlcudes everyone Parker, men, women, children, infants…everybody.

You got to be kidding me. You’re saying that if you twist the accepted meaning of a word to back up your beliefs, it’s ok. Get me a non-Mormon English teacher here and there is no way they will agree with you.

Ricko,
I am familiar with Spanish but not with Greek. In Spanish, there would not be a word that would be translated into a single word that would mean “adult person of either gender”. However, in Spanish a verb can carry with it the understood “he or she” (either gender) and I would suspect that John 3:5 carried that kind of a verb in the Greek. I doubt that a translator would have necessarily known whether the meaning of Christ from His original teaching meant “adult person of either gender” or meant “any person of any age”, so I would assume that a translator would use the simplest translation, and go with “man”.

But as I said to Philthy, I am not inclined to argue about these issues. I have stated my position using the scriptures as best I could. I feel no doubt or hesitation about my personal relationship with God and Christ, the companionship I have with the Holy Ghost, or the meaning of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. I have plenty of New Testament scriptural support for my beliefs.

You have the authority of the church and the authoritarian approach you have taken with particular words such as “man”. It illustrates how changes can come in doctrine–he who asserts the authority and does not relent (and I am relenting because it serves no purpose to argue) carries the day and becomes the doctrinal authority in that particular church. If I had lived back then, I would simply have walked away knowing that my personal relationship with God did not rely on men’s interpretation of verses of scripture or words within them. I choose to do that in this case… Peace to you. We both have what we want.

 

[placido]

Thank you all for the responses here.

Let’s remain focused on the question at hand. That is the baptism of babies and infants.
Dear ParkerD, in a previous post you claimed infants are already saved and do not need baptism. My question was:
"Placido:

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

Your response was:

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

Firstly, the above did not answer my question.
Secondly, if sin is not applicable until law is applicable, then Cain did not sin when he killed Abel since nowhere before that time did God tell Cain not to kill.
It seems you are relying more, not on Scripture, but on your private interpretation using faulty logic as a foundation.

placido

 

[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.

Gabriel of 12;
Truth when stated, does not matter how one percieves it coming, but how one interprets’ Truth when confronted with Truth. I am not here to win an argument or be nicy, nicy about Truth. I hope to give witness to Truth (my Jesus) and that his teachings when misunderstood, may get revealed and corrected from misunderstandings or misinformed persons about what Jesus taught and revealed to his body the Catholic Church.

I can understand you entering grammar understanding, or linguistic hoops to help in your belief’s. You dont have to do those things here to justify your faith, Let Truth stand on its own. If one has to do linguistic hurdles to come to their truth, then flags should be raised.

I will try and keep it simple then; So what part of the Word “All” do you not understand? Jesus said to his Apostles go out and BAPTISE “ALL”. Not just adults, not just men, and women, Jesus himself states go out and BAPTISE “ALL”… From your linguistic hurdles and mind reading, can you truly interpret Jesus excluding infants from baptism when he uses the Word “ALL”?

Here is another example from scripture by Jesus this time from a negative.
Jesus states to Nicodemus;
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you,** no one **can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Jesus states “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without being born “baptized” of water and “the Holy” Spirit. Does this mean according to your interpretation of infants that Jesus lied, and meant that “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without baptism, only unbaptised infants can enter kingdom of God? Again, What part of “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without baptism that you dont understand?

If you can convince me that Jesus (lied) and did not mean to include “All” or that “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom without baptism, excluded infants? Then all of Christianity has a problem from anyone who follows Jesus. Then maybe Joseph Smith’s idelogy can become of interest. But if you cannot prove Jesus lied, or did not mean to include “ALL” or “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God with out water baptism. Then your teachings become suspect?

Peace be with you

 

[ParkerD]

I will try and keep it simple then; So what part of the Word “All” do you not understand? Jesus said to his Apostles go out and BAPTISE “ALL”. Not just adults, not just men, and women, Jesus himself states go out and BAPTISE “ALL”… From your linguistic hurdles and mind reading, can you truly interpret Jesus excluding infants from baptism when he uses the Word “ALL”?

Here is another example from scripture by Jesus this time from a negative.
Jesus states to Nicodemus;
John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you,** no one **can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Jesus states “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without being born “baptized” of water and “the Holy” Spirit. Does this mean according to your interpretation of infants that Jesus lied, and meant that “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without baptism, only unbaptised infants can enter kingdom of God? Again, What part of “NO ONE” can enter the kingdom of God without baptism that you dont understand?

Peace be with you

Gabriel of 12,
I don’t know what verse you were referring to in noting the word “all” as in BAPTIZE “all.”

John 3:5 was spoken in either Aramaic or Hebrew, and is a translation. The words “No one” are definitely a translation, and as I stated to Ricko earlier, I don’t think we know what connotation Jesus was conveying because this verse is translated in several different ways and there was no English equivalent of a simple word that means “adult person of either gender” nor of a simple word that means “accountable person of either gender.” The verse can be interpreted to mean what you have said–I certainly agree that it can. I disagree with that interpretation, and that is my right. We will not come to an agreement about the meaning of that verse. Peace to you always.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you all for the responses here.

Let’s remain focused on the question at hand. That is the baptism of babies and infants.
Dear ParkerD, in a previous post you claimed infants are already saved and do not need baptism. My question was:

Your response was: (It was longer than the part you quoted.)

Firstly, the above did not answer my question.
Secondly, if sin is not applicable until law is applicable, then Cain did not sin when he killed Abel since nowhere before that time did God tell Cain not to kill.
It seems you are relying more, not on Scripture, but on your private interpretation using faulty logic as a foundation.

placido

Placido,
Children and youth are subject to spiritual death when they sin. I had said that before. They gain spiritual life by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Adults who have not yet been baptized also gain spiritual life by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you don’t think Adam and Eve taught their children about God and His laws, then we have a complete disconnect. If you don’t think when Cain heard the words “sin lieth at the door” that he understood and was being held accountable by God, then again, we have a complete disconnect. If you don’t think a conscience or the Light of Christ “that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” would have also told Cain that it was a sin to kill Abel (in addition to his parents having taught him), then we have a complete disconnect.

 

[placido]

Placido,
Children and youth are subject to spiritual death when they sin. I had said that before. They gain spiritual life by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

You have just conceded that children gain spiritual life by being baptized. In other words, you are saying refusing them baptism is tantamount to refusing them spiritual life. That is all I wanted to hear from you.

placido

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12,
I don’t know what verse you were referring to in noting the word “all” as in BAPTIZE “all.”

John 3:5 was spoken in either Aramaic or Hebrew, and is a translation. The words “No one” are definitely a translation, and as I stated to Ricko earlier, I don’t think we know what connotation Jesus was conveying because this verse is translated in several different ways and there was no English equivalent of a simple word that means “adult person of either gender” nor of a simple word that means “accountable person of either gender.” The verse can be interpreted to mean what you have said–I certainly agree that it can. I disagree with that interpretation, and that is my right. We will not come to an agreement about the meaning of that verse. Peace to you always.

Gabriel of 12;
Apparently by your post we will begin to discuss what others have already revealed to you through scriptures. IF your going to take the position of “I dont think we know” stuff by speaking for me, then we begin to leave the discussion of reason. So I will conclude with a question from Jesus from Matthew 21:25 Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or human origin?

John the baptist was the first infant to be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the waters of his mothers womb (see Luke 1:39-42) during the mystery of the Visitation. John the baptist was born without sin, saved in his mothers womb as an infant. If God can save John the baptist by baptizing him as an infant in his mothers womb, why cant God save infants by baptism today?

Does not God have the power to save infants as well as men and women, including the mental and physical disabled? How can one limit God’s saving power to mere men and women, excluding infants and the disabeled? I include mental disabeled due to disabilities of reason, understanding just as infants are.

So, can you answer Jesus question? Where was John’s baptism from? from heaven or human origin?

Peace be with you and may God keep you always.

p.s I find your reasoning of scripture attentive to the complications of word translations instead of the context of the whole of how Jesus reveals the Old Testament in the New Testament and how the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament (St.Augustine). If you really want to get to the heart of the translation or interpretations may I suggest a look into the early church fathers from the second century on… But maybe your church does not allow you the freedom to see into these witnesses and martyrs who gave their lives in testimony for Jesus. What you will find is not only first century interpretations but “all” of these were Catholic Christians teaching the same teachings as taught by the Catholic Church today.

 

[ParkerD]

You have just conceded that children gain spiritual life by being baptized. In other words, you are saying refusing them baptism is tantamount to refusing them spiritual life. That is all I wanted to hear from you.

placido

Hi, Placido,
To clarify again, I used the word children meaning not infants, but children who run and play and talk and reason and listen and are accountable for their actions.

 

[ParkerD]

Gabriel of 12;
Apparently by your post we will begin to discuss what others have already revealed to you through scriptures. IF your going to take the position of “I dont think we know” stuff by speaking for me, then we begin to leave the discussion of reason. So I will conclude with a question from Jesus from Matthew 21:25 Where was John’s baptism from? Was it of heavenly or human origin?

John the baptist was the first infant to be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in the waters of his mothers womb (see Luke 1:39-42) during the mystery of the Visitation. John the baptist was born without sin, saved in his mothers womb as an infant. If God can save John the baptist by baptizing him as an infant in his mothers womb, why cant God save infants by baptism today?

Does not God have the power to save infants as well as men and women, including the mental and physical disabled? (ABSOLUTELY, YES–THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID BEFORE, AND WILL SAY IT AGAIN.) How can one limit God’s saving power to mere men and women, excluding infants and the disabeled? I include mental disabeled due to disabilities of reason, understanding just as infants are.

So, can you answer Jesus question? Where was John’s baptism from? from heaven or human origin?

Peace be with you and may God keep you always.

p.s I find your reasoning of scripture attentive to the complications of word translations instead of the context of the whole of how Jesus reveals the Old Testament in the New Testament and how the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament (St.Augustine). If you really want to get to the heart of the translation or interpretations may I suggest a look into the early church fathers from the second century on… But maybe your church does not allow you the freedom to see into these witnesses and martyrs who gave their lives in testimony for Jesus. What you will find is not only first century interpretations but “all” of these were Catholic Christians teaching the same teachings as taught by the Catholic Church today.

Gabriel of 12,
Matthew 21:25 was talking about the baptizing that John the Baptist did to others, not about whether he was baptized in his mother’s womb. He could have the Holy Ghost bear witness of Christ while in his mother’s womb, and yet not have been “baptized.”

Here is Matthew 21:25-27 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Jesus was talking about his own authority, and compared it with John the Baptist’s authority to baptize. John the Baptist’s authority to baptize was from heaven (in answer to your question). Hence, the baptism of John, whence was it? Answer: “from heaven”.

Your question about infants and the disabled shows we have not communicated at all here. I have said infants and those with mental disabilities are saved, period, without baptism, without any action on their part or the part of their parents. It is a done deal (to use a common everyday expression for emphasis), through Christ’s atonement. They go to heaven if they die before reaching an age of accountability and before committing sin. They are born into a sinful world, but they do not bring sin with them into the world nor do they carry “sin” with them as infants. They are sinless, period, and Christ’s atonement has saved them until such time as they are capable of sinning on their own, by their own choices, meaning they have reached an age of accountability.

 

[placido]

Hi, Placido,
To clarify again, I used the word children meaning not infants, but children who run and play and talk and reason and listen and are accountable for their actions.

According to your reasoning, humanity consists of three classes: 1) babies and infants, 2) children and 3) men & women (or adults). According to you, only humans in classes 2 & 3 need baptism. But where does the Bible say that?

placido

 

[ParkerD]

According to your reasoning, humanity consists of three classes: 1) babies and infants, 2) children and 3) men & women (or adults). According to you, only humans in classes 2 & 3 need baptism. But where does the Bible say that?

placido

Placido,
I personally would not use the word “classes”. I would use the words “stages of growth.” So babies and infants are in a “stage of growth” where the atonement has already saved them.

As to your question of “where does the Bible say that,” I have cited relevant scriptures about that subject already during this thread. I’m not sure if you’re asking me to cite them again, or to come up with one that says “infants do not need baptism to be saved by free grace.” If the latter is what you’re looking for from me, then the Bible does not include a verse like that so I will not cite one. You can infer that verses say that everyone needs to be baptized, but I don’t agree with that inference and I have cited verses that demonstrate that the Savior did not teach that infants needed baptism nor did the apostles.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here is Matthew 21:25-27 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.
27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

Jesus was talking about his own authority, and compared it with John the Baptist’s authority to baptize. John the Baptist’s authority to baptize was from heaven (in answer to your question). Hence, the baptism of John, whence was it? Answer: “from heaven”.

Gabriel of 12;
I was not giving an interpretation of Johns baptism from Matt.21:25. I was giving a believed teaching that John the baptist was born without sin.IF his baptism is from heaven, Then when and where does he recieve this power from God to baptize, If his baptism was from heaven, do you accept that John the baptist was born without sin?

Y
Parker D;
our question about infants and the disabled shows we have not communicated at all here. I have said infants and those with mental disabilities are saved, period, without baptism, without any action on their part or the part of their parents. It is a done deal (to use a common everyday expression for emphasis), through Christ’s atonement. They go to heaven if they die before reaching an age of accountability and before committing sin. They are born into a sinful world, but they do not bring sin with them into the world nor do they carry “sin” with them as infants. They are sinless, period, and Christ’s atonement has saved them until such time as they are capable of sinning on their own, by their own choices, meaning they have reached an age of accountability.

Gabriel of 12;
Oh yes, we have communicated very clear here; One you have not made it clear whether or not if you accept the New Testament Christian teaching of orginal sin? As taught from the book of Romans and Corinthians scriptures of which I provided for you. Rejecting this ancient first Century Christian teaching of original sin, only reveals your opinion from this 20th century interpretation which comes from a “Sola Fe” theology watered down. If you accept the Apostolic Teaching of orginal sin, then your opinion of interpretation offered here about infants and the mental disabled conflicts with scripture tremendously.

So infants and the mental disabled are sinless? and in order to be saved one has to make a “Choice” at the age of accountability? Conflicting with Jesus Teaching that “No one” can enter the Kingdom of God with out first Water and the Spirit (baptism). I believe you have a good heart in wishing these infants and disabled to be saved without recieving the Grace of God from baptism as told by Jesus himself, and take it as a given. But Scripture from the Old covenant to the New Covenant does not and never teaches such a thing. This is a new invention from Evangelical circles from the theology of “Sola Fe” which is a man made invention. You may not accept this “Sola Fe” man made invention in its totality, but your belief of salvation lends to this man made theology.

 

[placido]

I have said infants and those with mental disabilities are saved, period, without baptism, without any action on their part or the part of their parents.

It is a done deal (to use a common everyday expression for emphasis), through Christ’s atonement.

They go to heaven if they die before reaching an age of accountability and before committing sin.

They are born into a sinful world, but they do not bring sin with them into the world nor do they carry “sin” with them as infants.

They are sinless, period, and Christ’s atonement has saved them until such time as they are capable of sinning on their own, by their own choices, meaning they have reached an age of accountability.

You are peaching “another gospel” based on your private & fallible opinion. There is simply no Scripture to back up all you said above.

placido
placido

 

[ParkerD]

Gabriel of 12;
Oh yes, we have communicated very clear here; One you have not made it clear whether or not if you accept the New Testament Christian teaching of orginal sin? As taught from the book of Romans and Corinthians scriptures of which I provided for you. Rejecting this ancient first Century Christian teaching of original sin, only reveals your opinion from this 20th century interpretation which comes from a “Sola Fe” theology watered down. If you accept the Apostolic Teaching of orginal sin, then your opinion of interpretation offered here about infants and the mental disabled conflicts with scripture tremendously.

So infants are and mental disabled are sinless? and in order to be saved one has to make a “Choice” at the age of accountability? Conflicting with Jesus Teaching that “No one” can enter the Kingdom of God with Water and the Spirit (baptism). I believe you have a good heart in wishing these infants and disabled to be saved without recieving the Grace of God, and take it as a given. But Scripture from the Old covenant to the New Covenant does not and never teaches such a thing. This is a new invention from Evangelical circles from the theology of “Sola Fe” which is a man made invention. You may not accept this “Sola Fe” man made invention in its totality, but your belief of salvation lends to this man made theology.

Gabriel of 12,
I do not agree about your statement that says “if you accept the New Testament Christian teaching of original sin”, because I do not agree that the New Testament teaches the concept of “original sin.” But even if it did (which Christ did not teach and Paul did not teach and Peter did not teach and John did not teach and James did not teach), then the Old Testament teachings about the sacrificial lamb and the sacrificial goat teach that the blood sacrifice atones for the sins of the people, representative of Christ’s atonement.

I have already disagreed and still disagree with your statement that said “Jesus teaching that No one can enter the Kingdom of God without Water and the Spirit.” I have already written why I disagree completely with the translation you have used for that verse.

 

[ParkerD]

You are peaching “another gospel” based on your private & fallible opinion. There is simply no Scripture to back up all you said above.

placido
placido

Placido,
When Paul wrote about preaching “another gospel,” I have no doubt that this kind of doctrinal change was among the kinds of changes he was writing about. The Bible backs up all that I said above. You just don’t happen to see it. The Holy Ghost and its confirming witness also “backs up all that I said above.” You just don’t happen to have asked, or to have received an answer if you did ask in prayer about these specific doctrines.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Placido,
Children and youth are subject to spiritual death when they sin. I had said that before. They gain spiritual life by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Adults who have not yet been baptized also gain spiritual life by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If you don’t think Adam and Eve taught their children about God and His laws, then we have a complete disconnect. If you don’t think when Cain heard the words “sin lieth at the door” that he understood and was being held accountable by God, then again, we have a complete disconnect. If you don’t think a conscience or the Light of Christ “that lighteth every man that cometh into the world” would have also told Cain that it was a sin to kill Abel (in addition to his parents having taught him), then we have a complete disconnect.

Didn’t you argue in the thread on original sin that God had not taught Adam and Eve about sin? If God did not teach them, how did they teach their children? ie, your question was along the lines, where in the Bible did God teach them that disobedience was a sin?