True, and all that this proves is that those verses in which we see someone preaching to an adult (who then is baptized) do not cover infants or young children. The speaker is addressing an adult about his decision. It does not show that anyone else is excluded from Baptism.
Peter was addressing the men of Israel who had committed sin (crucifying the Christ) Acts 2:22-35. Concluding his words in Acts 2:36 with "
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,..." . And in verse 41 "
Then they that gladly received his word.."
Peter was addressing adults that 1) committed a sin and 2) had the cognitive skills to "know" and "receive" what Peter preached. "Know" is
ginōskō meaning to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of. They would not have received Peter's word if they did not know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Why, how would they been have been baptized (verse 41) if they could not know/understand what Peter was saying?
It is evident, obvious that Peter was not addressing infants for 1) infants cannot commit sin and 2) do not have the ability to know/understand/perceive what Peter was saying. Infants do not even have a grasp of language skills much less cognitive skills required to know/understand/believe. It would also exclude those with severe mental disabilities for they are in an innocent state as infants not capable of sinning for they are not capable of knowing/understanding.
And since baptism is for the remission of sins and infants have no sins, then logic dictates that baptism is not for infants.
Albion said:
That's rather a stretch, but what about "whole households" being baptized? Is there a special excuse for that verse and that situation?
It is very common in the bible that descendants, future generations are referred to as children. Israel is referred to as Abraham's 'children' but the nation of Israel was not a nation of infants.
Isaiah 59:21 "
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Infants are not being considered as the future seed but the seed refers to future generations.
Even Albert Barnes says of Acts 2:39 (my emp) "
In these and similar places their descendants or posterity are denoted. It does not refer merely to children as children, and should not be adduced as applicable exclusively to infants. It is a promise to parents that the blessings of salvation shall not be confined to parents, but shall be extended also to their posterity. Under this promise parents may be encouraged to train up their children for God; they are authorized to devote them to him in the ordinance of Christian baptism, and they may trust in his gracious purpose thus to perpetuate the blessings of salvation from age to age."
Albion said:
It certainly does. See below.
David did not say he was born a sinner. The NIV perverts the verse.
KJV - Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
NIV - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
A world of difference between a accurate translation as the KJV and a purposefully corrupt translation as the NIV. The NIV should not even be seen as the bible, God's word. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to change God's doctrines, an attempt to force Calvinism into God's word.
"Shapen in iniquity" is NOT the same as "I was sinful at birth"
The bible describes the world as a place full of sin and iniquity. Therefore everyone has been shapened, conceived, born into an environment full of iniquity and sin. My mother could have given birth to me while on a trip to China. I would have been born into an environment full of Chinese customs, language, food and people but being born in China would not make me Chinese no more than being born into an environment full of sin and iniquity makes me a sinner.
Similar language in Acts 2:8. After the Apostles spoke in various languages verse 8 says "
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" If I had been there at that time, I would have said I heard the Apostles speak in the English language wherein I was born. This does not mean I was born speaking the English language, but I was born in an environment where English was spoken and in time I learned to speak it myself. Likewise we are born into a sinful world not knowing right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) but in time upon learning right from wrong one becomes accountable to God's laws and THEN sins by transgressing that law.
Furthermore, John says sin is transgression of the law. Sin is not a gene passed from one to another nor a sickness no just an idea that is passed from one to another. A transgression must be committed for sin to exist. This makes the idea of original sin impossible. A new born must have committed a transgression for it to be a sinner. What transgression did the new born commit? Lie? Steal? Adultery? Murder? Infants are not capable of sinning therefore the NIV is corrupt and put words into David's mouth he never said.
Lastly;
in sin did my mother conceive me
David is talking about the sin of his mother here if anything at all.
in sin did my mother conceive me
in a drunken rage a husband beat his wife
Who was in sin? The mother not the infant. Who was in a drunken rage? the husband, not the wife. The NIV perverts the verse by taking the sin from the mother and putting upon the the infant.
Psalms 139:14 "
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
David was NOT praising God for making him a vile, lost reprobate at birth.
Albion said:
Then, by being born, you are automatically changed from in sin to being sinless? What sense is there in that theory?
I asked the following "
Psa 51 speaks of conception. Psalms 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are 2 distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin were true, when does one become a sinner? At conception? At birth? In one becomes a sinner at conception he cannot become a sinner at birth for he already is a sinner. If one does not become a sinner until birth, then he is not a sinner at conception."
Therefore if Psa 51:5 and Psa 58:3 teach original sin then does one become a sinner at conception or does one not become a sinner until he is born?
Once you decide if one becomes a sinner at conception or at birth, then we can discuss what transgression was committed a conception or at birth making one a sinner.