Infant Baptism.

[turnorburn]

You said: "Theologians universally teach we are higher/better than John the Baptist. They are universally wrong."
Prove that every last theologian who ever was taught or now teaches that "we are higher/better than John the Baptist."
Then prove that every last theologian who ever was taught or now teaches is wrong and YOU are right.
Go ahead.
I'll wait.

Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

 

[GodsGrace]

Can you demonstrate how the word "and" used here implies an order of occurrence? Scripture didn't say believe then be baptized. At least not in any version I've read it from.

Hi WIP,
I don't understand why you're asking...
Isn't it common knowledge that one should believe first and then be baptized??
Why would I be baptized but not be a believer??

 

[Mike]

I don't think anyone here needs to be trained in theology to have an opinion on the topic.

Agreed, and this is something everyone needs to consider. In all facets of life, there are people who go further into subject matter than most people have time to. We do what we can to collect information on our own, but almost everyone gets to the point where they need to lean on the work of others.

I've always viewed CFnet as a place for laypeople, and no one should be made to feel that their interpretation of scripture or their perspective is lesser than because they haven't traveled as far as others down certain paths.

 

[WIP]

I can't remember if my studies showed innocence of children was believed back at the time of the Temple administration of the Kingdom or not. We must remember that when Christ was baptized, He was a Jew practicing a Jewish ritual. I believe the Church ( Body of Christ) inherited the practice of baptism and I believe God honors baptism for believers.

Why did He wait until He was 30 years old? Why not do it when He reached the age of accountability? Isn't that what the Jewish custom was?

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP,
I don't understand why you're asking...
Isn't it common knowledge that one should believe first and then be baptized??
Why would I be baptized but not be a believer??

This verse is often used to argue against infant baptism but in order for it to be a valid argument, the word "and" must denote an order of occurrence and not just one of the conditions.

 

[GodsGrace]

This verse is often used to argue against infant baptism but in order for it to be a valid argument, the word "and" must denote an order of occurrence and not just one of the conditions.

Oh, I see.
Personally, I understand why the CC baptizes babies, but I never did agree with the concept.

A baby is born with the sin nature but he has not committed any personal sins.
And I do believe in an order of occurrence. I believe that one must come to believe first, and then be baptized.

Thanks for the reply...

 

[GodsGrace]

Agreed, and this is something everyone needs to consider. In all facets of life, there are people who go further into subject matter than most people have time to. We do what we can to collect information on our own, but almost everyone gets to the point where they need to lean on the work of others.

I've always viewed CFnet as a place for laypeople, and no one should be made to feel that their interpretation of scripture or their perspective is lesser than because they haven't traveled as far as others down certain paths.

"Like"

I couldn't agree more with all you've said.
In fact, I'd say that the more we learn,
the less we know...
There's so much to know that we'll never know everything.
This is a sobering thought and should keep one humble as he does the best he can --- with learning, I mean.

We should know enough to know we know very little.

 

[Jim Parker]

Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

That's what Jesus said so it's true.
My challenge was with reference to the statement that ALL (every last one) theologians teach the opposite.

 

[billybalke]

Oh, I see.
Personally, I understand why the CC baptizes babies, but I never did agree with the concept.

A baby is born with the sin nature but he has not committed any personal sins.
And I do believe in an order of occurrence. I believe that one must come to believe first, and then be baptized.

Thanks for the reply...

The word and is a conjunction joining to things of equal importance together, much like the connection of two railway cars. This is seen in Mk 16:16. "he that beliveth AND is baptized shall be saved--". Babies are not born with the guilt of Adam's sin and babies cannot believe.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God bless,
Billy

 

[GodsGrace]

The word and is a conjunction joining to things of equal importance together, much like the connection of two railway cars. This is seen in Mk 16:16. "he that beliveth AND is baptized shall be saved--". Babies are not born with the guilt of Adam's sin and babies cannot believe.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVINIST
ROM.16:16
God bless,
Billy

Actually I can't agree with your statement.
Babies ARE born with Adam's sin.
That's why some churches baptize babies, to remove Original Sin, even though the effects of O.S. remain.

I believe we're born with the effects of O.S. -- this would be the sin nature.
There's some controversy as to whether we're imputed with the sin of Adam.
From my understanding I'm not sure it's correct to use the word "impute".

I learned some years ago that we are not responsible for Adam's sin in a personal way, however since he was the head of manking and represented every man, every man born is born with the stain of O.S. and the sin nature.

Even the CC now teaches that if a baby dies unbaptized, he is not going to hell because we must trust God to be a just God and a merciful God.

Limbo was never an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Here is the official statement for unbaptized babies:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[GodsGrace]

That's what Jesus said so it's true.
My challenge was with reference to the statement that ALL (every last one) theologians teach the opposite.

Hi Jim
Turnorburn was referencing Mathew 11:11 above.

Would you care to comment on my understanding of this verse?

Jesus said John the Baptist was the best Prophet ever from the O.T.
However, the least in the Kingdom of God will be better than him.

Although Kingdom of God and Kingdom of heaven is used interchangeably in the NT, I believe in this case Jesus means heaven, not the earthly Kingdom of God which is present right now and unseen, and that we will be perfect by then and so even the least there will be better than John, who was the best Prophet.

I don't think Jesus could have meant the Kingdom of God here on earth, because no man right now could be better than John. This will only happen in heaven.

 

[Jim Parker]

The word and is a conjunction joining to things of equal importance together, much like the connection of two railway cars. This is seen in Mk 16:16. "he that beliveth AND is baptized shall be saved--".

As I see it:
Mark 16:16 states that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation.
It does not state that belief is required BEFORE one may be baptized.
So an infant may be baptized and later, when (s)he is able to understand the Gospel, believe.

Babies are not born with the guilt of Adam's sin and babies cannot believe.

No one is born with Adam's guilt.
Rather, all of mankind is born with a damaged nature due to Adam's sin.
And all of mankind sin sooner or later. (Usually sooner)

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

As I see it:
Mark 16:16 states that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation.
It does not state that belief is required BEFORE one may be baptized.
So an infant may be baptized and later, when (s)he is able to understand the Gospel, believe.

This is also what the CC teaches.
Infants are baptized to remove the stain of O.S.
Then, at some point in the life of the child (most probably as an adult)
must "accept" their baptism and salvation and a sanctified life.

snipped

 

[Jim Parker]

Hi Jim
Turnorburn was referencing Mathew 11:11 above.

Would you care to comment on my understanding of this verse?

Jesus said John the Baptist was the best Prophet ever from the O.T.
However, the least in the Kingdom of God will be better than him.

Although Kingdom of God and Kingdom of heaven is used interchangeably in the NT, I believe in this case Jesus means heaven, not the earthly Kingdom of God which is present right now and unseen, and that we will be perfect by then and so even the least there will be better than John, who was the best Prophet.

I don't think Jesus could have meant the Kingdom of God here on earth, because no man right now could be better than John. This will only happen in heaven.

That seems like a good understanding to me.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

This is also what the CC teaches.
Infants are baptized to remove the stain of O.S.
Then, at some point in the life of the child (most probably as an adult)
must "accept" their baptism and salvation and a sanctified life.
snipped

I don't accept the Roman teaching on "original sin." The Orthodox refer to the condition as "ancestral sin." Because of Adam's sin, the nature of man, which God created in His own image and likeness, was damaged resulting in all of Adam's offspring (everyone) being subject to the deception of Satan and the desire to be one's own god.
(For a good discussion, see: The Ancestral Sin by John S. Romanides, Zephyr Publishing)

iakov the fool

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't accept the Roman teaching on "original sin." The Orthodox refer to the condition as "ancestral sin." Because of Adam's sin, the nature of man, which God created in His own image and likeness, was damaged resulting in all of Adam's offspring (everyone) being subject to the deception of Satan and the desire to be one's own god.
(For a good discussion, see: The Ancestral Sin by John S. Romanides, Zephyr Publishing)

iakov the fool

Jim,
What you call Ancestral sin sounds like the sin nature --- which is the effect of Original Sin.

O.S. just means the first sin committed.
The effect of O.S. is the sin nature.

I do believe that the way the CC explains O.S. causes some confusion.
Especially as to imputation.
So it teaches that it's not a personal sin, which of course it isn't.

I find that Protestantism explains some concepts in a clearer way...
however, that is off balanced by all the incorrect teaching I read.
It seems Christianity is getting watered down and losing its way.
Sometimes the CC is starting to look good again.

 

[billybalke]

As I see it:
Mark 16:16 states that both belief and baptism are necessary for salvation.
It does not state that belief is required BEFORE one may be baptized.
So an infant may be baptized and later, when (s)he is able to understand the Gospel, believe.

No one is born with Adam's guilt.
Rather, all of mankind is born with a damaged nature due to Adam's sin.
And all of mankind sin sooner or later. (Usually sooner)

iakov the fool

I prefer the order given by the scripture. Scriptural order is believe first, then baptism.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW OR CALVANIST
ROM.16:16
God bless

 

[Jim Parker]

What you call Ancestral sin sounds like the sin nature --- which is the effect of Original Sin.
O.S. just means the first sin committed.
The effect of O.S. is the sin nature.

Part of the teaching of OS is that everyone bears the guilt of Adam's sin.
That is contrary to scripture.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

I find that Protestantism explains some concepts in a clearer way...

It seems to me that the Protestant churches, for the most part, follow Rome's teaching on Adam's sin in that all of mankind bears Adam's guilt and that God punishes man for sin by death.
The Ezekiel passage above contradicts that notion that guilt is transmitted from the father to the son and that the transmitted guilt is punishable by death.
And Paul's statement ,"The wages of sin is death." points to the fact that it is not God who inflects death but man inflicts it on himself by separating himself from God through self-willed sin.
God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen 2:17) God did NOT say, "In the day that you eat of it, I will kill you."

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

I prefer the order given by the scripture.

Scripture does not give any order.
That is your erroneous perception.

 

[GodsGrace]

Part of the teaching of OS is that everyone bears the guilt of Adam's sin.
That is contrary to scripture.
Eze 18:20 The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

It seems to me that the Protestant churches, for the most part, follow Rome's teaching on Adam's sin in that all of mankind bears Adam's guilt and that God punishes man for sin by death.
The Ezekiel passage above contradicts that notion that guilt is transmitted from the father to the son and that the transmitted guilt is punishable by death.
And Paul's statement ,"The wages of sin is death." points to the fact that it is not God who inflects death but man inflicts it on himself by separating himself from God through self-willed sin.
God said, "...of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen 2:17) God did NOT say, "In the day that you eat of it, I will kill you."

iakov the fool

We bear the sin because we suffer from the effects.
However, the CC does not teach that we are imputed with that sin.

You might find this interesting. It's not an easy concept for me to explain.
O.S. is propogated, not imputed. (as you said above).
This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.