T
Tezza
Guest
I’m assuming he would respond to this by saying it is still only an assumption that children were included, and that the New Covenant was unlike anything from the Old.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Does he believe that all mankind is born with original sin?
T
Tezza
Guest
Not originally, but has been slightly more open to the idea after reading something from scripture about man being in Adam’s image (sorry I don’t know the particulars). Overall, though, I’d say no, thus no need for baptism for the remission of sins until we start sinning.
M
Mickey
Guest
The Old and New Testaments are unified in that they were both written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they both contain the same central theme concerning God’s plan for the salvation of the human race and they both point in the same direction—the coming of the kingdom of God. The Bible, then, contains one revelation in two dispensations. And the key to the unity of Holy Scripture: Jesus Christ. He is the central figure in the divine plan of salvation revealed in God’s written Word. From the Christian point of view, the Old Testament is a promise of, and a preparation for the coming of the Messiah, of the Christ through whom the salvation of mankind will be effected; and in its proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the New Testament affirms the fulfillment of the Old Testament message of salvation: in and through Jesus Christ, God has saved mankind and the world.
From: The Message of the Bible by George Cronk, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, NY 1990
M
Mickey
Guest
Aha! That is a problem.Not originally, but has been slightly more open to the idea after reading something from scripture about man being in Adam’s image (sorry I don’t know the particulars). Overall, though, I’d say no, thus no need for baptism for the remission of sins until we start sinning.
“… through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.” (Romans 5:12) For this reason " … there are none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not infants). (Romans 3:10)
T
Tezza
Guest
Yes, and I’m sure he’ll give it right back to me when I claim Mary was conceived without sinAha! That is a problem.
“… through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.” (Romans 5:12) For this reason " … there are none righteous, not even one" (i.e. not infants). (Romans 3:10)
He would also say the blood offering of Christ removed the curse of original sin.
T
Tezza
Guest
Hi Pleed.
I’m guessing AoG doesn’t believe in Infant Baptism? Is there any belief in original sin? I’m curious about the similarities between CoC and AoG.
Thanks!
Tezza
M
Mickey
Guest
Interesting. He believes that everyone is born without original sin?
T
Tezza
Guest
Yes
M
Mickey
Guest
Then I would not expect him to believe in Infant Baptism. It is interesting how one heresy leads to others.
T
Tezza
Guest
Yes.Then I would not expect him to believe in Infant Baptism. It is interesting how one heresy leads to others.
My head is spinning from what he wrote here, but maybe someone else could decipher it:
Place Adam in the garden of Eden as an infant when God created the world. There he is in paradise 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, etc., God tells the 6 month old Adam, “In the day you eat of the tree you die”. What would Adam do? He would not violate the law of sin and of death for he would not be able. Note Romans 5:13, “…sin is not IMPUTED when there is no law”. The Law is there, but Adam would not understand. Incapable. To the babies belongs the kingdom of God. Adam was a full grown man when created and to compare babies to Adam and say babies need salvation? The truth is that infants today bear the consequences of Adam’s sin “thorns and thistles” in other words sickness, disease, cancer, accidents, but Adam’s personal sin has not been imputed unto their souls. Babies break fellowship with God the same way Adam would have if he had been created as an infant. When they grow to full understanding.
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
However, we dont adhere to “dual covenant” theology. It would appear the OT did not revealed Christ, but instead “veiled” Him, which is why some of the Jews rejected. The old was not abolished, but fulfilled.He is totally stuck on this verse being indictive of the New Covenant and it’s complete deviation from the OT with it’s practice of circumcision. From his email:
To conclude, the new covenant is not like the old. The old cov was a national covenant for a precise purpose- to bring Christ into the world. Where the Jews were born into covenant relationship at birth and then educated to the relationship they had with God, the new covenant is the opposite. "You will not go to your neighbor and say know(come to know) the Lord, for all shall know(settled knowledge) Me(Hebrews 8:11). Infant baptism has infants brought into covenant relationship just as the old, not knowing it, then educated to the terms of the covenant. Jeremiah and the Hebrew writer state this is not true.
I would think, young Jewish children didn’t require age of consent for circumcision, further more the infant Baptism is “foundational” and further teaching and instruction to foster the growth of Love for our Lord is a parental responsibility. One we accept when bringing our Children to be baptized.
D
DrPiano
Guest
By his logic, evangelisation - telling ANYONE to know God - is a ridiculous concept because they already know him. After all, your neighbor includes the athiest down the street (or any other non-Christian, or non CoC member). By his logic EVERYONE already knows God so it isn’t necessary to tell ANYONE. For that matter, why have baptism at all?He is totally stuck on this verse being indictive of the New Covenant and it’s complete deviation from the OT with it’s practice of circumcision. From his email:
To conclude, the new covenant is not like the old. The old cov was a national covenant for a precise purpose- to bring Christ into the world. Where the Jews were born into covenant relationship at birth and then educated to the relationship they had with God, the new covenant is the opposite. "You will not go to your neighbor and say know(come to know) the Lord, for all shall know(settled knowledge) Me(Hebrews 8:11). Infant baptism has infants brought into covenant relationship just as the old, not knowing it, then educated to the terms of the covenant. Jeremiah and the Hebrew writer state this is not true.
In context, that passage seems to be specifically talking about the sacraficial system of the Old Covenant (not Circumcision… remember, there were a LOT of Covenants in the OT) and the chapter is in the context of discussing the superiority of Jesus as High Priest.
In context of the quote from the OT (Jeremiah 31:31-34), it is the act of the Lord that makes knowing him possible. Note what comes first: “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” It is this that makes it possible for everyone to Know God.
But the question is - how does this happen? How does God do this? Perhaps another trip to an OT prophecy will help:
God cleanses his people (by sprinkling clean water on them), and THEN gives them a new heart and new spirit that make it possible for them to know Him and obey his commands.
M
Mickey
Guest
He is quite innovative in his theology.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Hi
Question; Does CoC mean Church of Christ?
Assemblies of God doesn’t practice infant baptism. More here:
ag.org/top/beliefs/gendoct_11_accountability.cfm
Years ago I did become godfather of my niece in an infant baptism in a Lutheran church. I personally don’t have any problem with practicing the ritual, but it doesn’t seem important to me.
AoG does believe in original sin. From the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” page on the official AoG web site:
The Fall of Man
Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God.
So original sin is separation from God of all humanity, and the resulting physical death that accompanies. However, we believe that children, especially infants, who aren’t intellectually able to understand right and wrong, are not held responsible for their sin. I don’t think this is much different from Catholic teaching, is it?
In any event, I’d point out that this verse indicates that some have not sinned:
**Romans 5:14 **- Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.
Not sure who that would apply to other than infants, or whoever isn’t able intellectually to understand right from wrong, e.g. young children, mentally disabled, etc.
BTW, whatever this person says to you, I’m not sure you can assume it is the belief of all members of the CoC. I think it’s a lot like AoG in that there is some latitude in what individual church pastors might teach on some issues.
M
Mickey
Guest
St. Paul tells us that Adam is a type of the future Adam (Romans 5: 14). All Christians are descendants of both the first Adam and the last Adam. From the first we inherited death, from the last we inherited life. (1 Corinthians 15: 45-50). It is this Apostolic teaching of the two Adams which was developed by the Fathers and formed the nucleus of the Church’s teaching on the salvation of mankind.
Fr. Panagiotes Carras
P
PLeeD
Guest
Who are the people Paul refers to who “did not sin”? Only Jesus? Seems like there must have been others. Maybe all ‘men’ have sinned, that is, all adults, but not all children?
M
Mickey
Guest
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)
T
Tezza
Guest
Agreed. They are autonomous, though some beliefs are across the board, such as baptism for the remission of sin and the rejection of infant baptism.Hi
Question; Does CoC mean Church of Christ?
Yes.
AoG does believe in original sin. From the “Statement of Fundamental Truths” page on the official AoG web site:
The Fall of Man
Man was created good and upright; for God said, “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.” However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God.
So original sin is separation from God of all humanity, and the resulting physical death that accompanies. However, we believe that children, especially infants, who aren’t intellectually able to understand right and wrong, are not held responsible for their sin. I don’t think this is much different from Catholic teaching, is it?
In any event, I’d point out that this verse indicates that some have not sinned:
**Romans 5:14 **- Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression.
Not sure who that would apply to other than infants, or whoever isn’t able intellectually to understand right from wrong, e.g. young children, mentally disabled, etc
**Thanks for the info. I suppose our belief differs in that infants aren’t accountable for sin but are heirs none the less and Baptism is efficacious in the removal of the stain of original sin.
As for Romans 5:14, maybe Paul is talking about Jesus AND Mary
BTW, whatever this person says to you, I’m not sure you can assume it is the belief of all members of the CoC. I think it’s a lot like AoG in that there is some latitude in what individual church pastors might teach on some issues.
T
Tezza
Guest
Thanks, Elisa! I tried to emphasize the nature of our relationship with God as a result of the incarnation being one of great intimacy that could never have been accomplished without God’s becoming man, that the veil has been lifted and that is what is refered to in Heb 8. I like very much your verse from Ezekial:thumbsup:
- Status