A thought or two about Infant Baptism

[The Liturgist]

There can be a variety of ways to talk about original sin. The article quoted was talking about the idea that everyone sinned in Adam, based on a translation of Rom 5:12 that matches the KJV. About all that can be said is that most modern commentaries thibk that was a mistake. I checked with Moo’s commentary. He is considered a moderately traditional Reformed scholar. One can still appreciate the corporate nature of sin without that particular exegesis of Rom 5:12. You may be interested to read Calvin’s commentary:

“There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned.”

Calvin says that the consequence of the fall is that our nature is corrupted, so we sin, but we are blamed for our sin, not Adam’s. The Heidelberg Catechism reflects this. The Westminster Catechism sees Adam as our covenant head, and so he sinned on our behalf.

Neither of these positions is Pelagian, although they are based on different understandings od Romans 5:12

This is really interesting. Out of curiosity would you know what position on this issue is taken by those Continental reformed churches that followed the Belgic Confession?

 

[hedrick]

This is really interesting. Out of curiosity would you know what position on this issue is taken by those Continental reformed churches that followed the Belgic Confession?

No. I‘m not very familiar with Reformed doctrine outside the Presbyterian tradition, and even there my knowledge is limited.

The Belgic confession speaks of original sin as corruption, and generally suggests Calvin’s view, but is not explicit in rejecting the idea that we are guilty of Adam’s sin. They allude to, but are not very explicit about, Calvin’s idea that this corruption makes us unacceptable to God even before we commit an actual sin. (This seems to go beyond Rom 5:12.)

I think Westminster is due to the development of covenant theology. It sees Adam as a covenant head. Obviously Calvin speaks of covenants, but this seems to go beyond Calvin.

The issue is interesting to me because a literal Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and yet surely original sin is one Christian idea that is obviously true. That we are by nature incapable of moral perfection is consistent with Calvin, but imputation of Adam’s guilt seems to make no sense without an actual Adam.

 

[Markie Boy]

No literal Adam? So no Cain or Abel? How far do you go? I wouldn't be so sure.

 

[The Liturgist]

No. I‘m not very familiar with Reformed doctrine outside the Presbyterian tradition, and even there my knowledge is limited.

The Belgic confession speaks of original sin as corruption, and generally suggests Calvin’s view, but is not explicit in rejecting the idea that we are guilty of Adam’s sin. They allude to, but are not very explicit about, Calvin’s idea that this corruption makes us unacceptable to God even before we commit an actual sin. (This seems to go beyond Rom 5:12.)

I think Westminster is due to the development of covenant theology. It sees Adam as a covenant head. Obviously Calvin speaks of covenants, but this seems to go beyond Calvin.

The issue is interesting to me because a literal Adam and Eve didn’t exist, and yet surely original sin is one Christian idea that is obviously true. That we are by nature incapable of moral perfection is consistent with Calvin, but imputation of Adam’s guilt seems to make no sense without an actual Adam.

Thank you so much, this has been very illuminating.

 

[hedrick]

Thank you so much, this has been very illuminating.

I did try, but the resources I have on history don’t talk about differences between continental and Presbyterian ideas on original sin. So about all I have is the confessions. I’ve also seen implications that federal theology was characteristic of Westminster, but nothing explicit about who might have disagreed. To go further would be a research project. Here’s what Britannica says Covenant theology | Protestant theology. It implies that there was some influence on continental Reformed. But Ursinus is cited as an example, and he did not appear to hold us guilty of Adam’s sin.

See also https://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcpi/fulltext/ctj/2009-442-226.pdf. This describes disputes about Calvin’s meaning. The author agrees with me, but he describes people who think imputation of Adam’s sin is implied by Calvin even though not stated. The problem, as pointed out there, is that the texts they use are saying something different. It is not unusual that debates among Reformed play out as debates about Calvin.

 

[The Liturgist]

I did try, but the resources I have on history don’t talk about differences between continental and Presbyterian ideas on original sin. So about all I have is the confessions. I’ve also seen implications that federal theology was characteristic of Westminster, but nothing explicit about who might have disagreed. To go further would be a research project. Here’s what Britannica says Covenant theology | Protestant theology. It implies that there was some influence on continental Reformed. But Ursinus is cited as an example, and he did not appear to hold us guilty of Adam’s sin.

Are you familiar with the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, that have as their denominational symbol the blue flag saying “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant”, practice a capella exclusive Psalmody, and if so, how they relate to the historical introduction of Covenant Theology into Presbyterianism?

Would you be open to a deep dive conversation in a new thread on Calvinism and Presbyterianism? You know more about it than anyone else in this forum, and also bring a fresh perspective owing to your specific theological preferences which one would not get, for example, talking with a Fundamentalist. I would really appreciate conversing with you and learning from you. I realize we have some differences of opinion, however, what is clear is that you have a great deal of love and compassion, which the Holy Apostle Paul reminds us are of paramount importance in 1 Corinthians ch. 13, the first verses of which can be summarized as “No matter what posessions or abilities I have, without charity, I am nothing.”

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you familiar with the Covenanting Presbyterians of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, that have as their denominational symbol the blue flag saying “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant”, practice a capella exclusive Psalmody, and if so, how they relate to the historical introduction of Covenant Theology into Presbyterianism?

Would you be open to a deep dive conversation in a new thread on Calvinism and Presbyterianism? You know more about it than anyone else in this forum, and also bring a fresh perspective owing to your specific theological preferences which one would not get, for example, talking with a Fundamentalist. I would really appreciate conversing with you and learning from you. I realize we have some differences of opinion, however, what is clear is that you have a great deal of love and compassion, which the Holy Apostle Paul reminds us are of paramount importance in 1 Corinthians ch. 13, the first verses of which can be summarized as “No matter what posessions or abilities I have, without charity, I am nothing.”

As information I refer to this answer provided by Microsoft's "Co-Pilot" in Edge.

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, original sin may be taken to mean two things: (1) the sin that Adam committed and (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. From the earliest times, the latter sense of the word was more common 1.​

​

Original sin is an important doctrine within the Catholic Church and it is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God 2.​

​

The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand 3.​

 

[Andrewn]

The issue is interesting to me because a literal Adam and Eve didn’t exist,

Adam and Eve are mentioned so many times in the NT that it is difficult to say they didn't exist. They are mentioned by Christ himself. I don't particularly see how they could be the first human beings, but there is no escape that Adam existed and had federal headship. I can neither reject the NT nor evolutionary evidence.

and yet surely original sin is one Christian idea that is obviously true. That we are by nature incapable of moral perfection

That we are incapable of moral perfection does not have to be attributed to an inherited sin or a sinful nature (defined as genetic and biological factors). If we believe our nature is flawed, we attribute failure to God and may feel powerless to change something we believe was determined before birth.

The Jewish concept of yetzer hara, the so-called “evil inclination,” is perhaps the origin of Freud's "Id." Yetzer hara is not a sinful nature that pushes a person to do evil but rather a drive toward pleasure or property or security, which if left unlimited, can lead to evil. When properly controlled, the yetzer hara produces many socially desirable results, including marriage, business, and community.

Yetzer hará is not sinful (full of sin, morally wrong, or wicked).

 

[hedrick]

Adam and Eve are mentioned so many times in the NT that it is difficult to say they didn't exist. They are mentioned by Christ himself. I don't particularly see how they could be the first human beings, but there is no escape that Adam existed and had federal headship. I can neither reject the NT nor evolutionary evidence.


That we are incapable of moral perfection does not have to be attributed to an inherited sin or a sinful nature (defined as genetic and biological factors). If we believe our nature is flawed, we attribute failure to God and may feel powerless to change something we believe was determined before birth.

The Jewish concept of yetzer hara, the so-called “evil inclination,” is perhaps the origin of Freud's "Id." Yetzer hara is not a sinful nature that pushes a person to do evil but rather a drive toward pleasure or property or security, which if left unlimited, can lead to evil. When properly controlled, the yetzer hara produces many socially desirable results, including marriage, business, and community.

Yetzer hará is not sinful (full of sin, morally wrong, or wicked).

I didn’t give a whole account of anthropology, but I agree that our inability to be morally perfect is a result of something that is a strength. We are an adaptable soecies. we do this in part by trial and error. Inevitably we make errors, but if we pay attention to consequences and repent when necessary, the damage can normally be overcome. I don’t agree with all of Calvin’s theology. In particular, I don’t see this as a corruption of human nature, but it is a danger that needs to be dealt with carefully. Traditionally, this would involve humility and repentance.

 

[hedrick]

Adam and Eve are mentioned so many times in the NT that it is difficult to say they didn't exist. They are mentioned by Christ himself. I don't particularly see how they could be the first human beings, but there is no escape that Adam existed and had federal headship. I can neither reject the NT nor evolutionary evidence.


That we are incapable of moral perfection does not have to be attributed to an inherited sin or a sinful nature (defined as genetic and biological factors). If we believe our nature is flawed, we attribute failure to God and may feel powerless to change something we believe was determined before birth.

The Jewish concept of yetzer hara, the so-called “evil inclination,” is perhaps the origin of Freud's "Id." Yetzer hara is not a sinful nature that pushes a person to do evil but rather a drive toward pleasure or property or security, which if left unlimited, can lead to evil. When properly controlled, the yetzer hara produces many socially desirable results, including marriage, business, and community.

Yetzer hará is not sinful (full of sin, morally wrong, or wicked).

Paul refers to Adam. I haven’t found a reference by Jesus. Luke includes Adam in the genealogy, but that’s not a quote from Jesus.

 

[Andrewn]

Paul refers to Adam. I haven’t found a reference by Jesus. Luke includes Adam in the genealogy, but that’s not a quote from Jesus.

This is what I had in mind:

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?


In these statements, Jesus quoted Genesis in reference to Adam:

Gen 1:27 So God created Adam in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.

Gen 5:1 This is the Book of the Genealogies of Adam: When God created Adam, in the likeness of God He made him. 2 Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and called their name “Adam” when He created them.

Gen 2:23 Then Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she will be called Woman, for she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore, a man will leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

 

[The Liturgist]

As information I refer to this answer provided by Microsoft's "Co-Pilot" in Edge.

According to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, original sin may be taken to mean two things: (1) the sin that Adam committed and (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam. From the earliest times, the latter sense of the word was more common 1.​

​

Original sin is an important doctrine within the Catholic Church and it is an Augustine Christian doctrine that says that everyone is born sinful. This means that they are born with a built-in urge to do bad things and to disobey God 2.​

​

The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand 3.​

St. John Cassian did a better job of explaining original sin, explaining it as inherited rather than as St. Augustine suggested, transmitted through concupiscience in reproduction. Indeed the Roman church initially like the Orthodox church preferred St. John Cassian, and his Conferences were widely read in early Benedictine monasteries, before we see a shift in the period leading up to the Great Schism with the Orthodox Church.

Obviously everyone of the traditional Christian faith agrees that Pelagius “Brito” as St. Augustine derisively nicknamed him was a heretic and an heresiarch par excellence and Pelagianism is a particularly pernicious heresy.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

St. John Cassian did a better job of explaining original sin, explaining it as inherited rather than as St. Augustine suggested, transmitted through concupiscience in reproduction. Indeed the Roman church initially like the Orthodox church preferred St. John Cassian, and his Conferences were widely read in early Benedictine monasteries, before we see a shift in the period leading up to the Great Schism with the Orthodox Church.

Obviously everyone of the traditional Christian faith agrees that Pelagius “Brito” as St. Augustine derisively nicknamed him was a heretic and an heresiarch par excellence and Pelagianism is a particularly pernicious heresy.

I am content with the notion that the transmission of Original Sin is a mystery.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am content with the notion that the transmission of Original Sin is a mystery.

Well I think to a large extent so am I, and the problem with the Augustinian/Scholastic approach is that they weren’t.

 

[Andrewn]

St. John Cassian did a better job of explaining original sin, explaining it as inherited

Do you have an online reference for this? I'm somewhat surprised that St John Cassian believed in inherited guilt.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Do you have an online reference for this? I'm somewhat surprised that St John Cassian believed in inherited guilt.

CCEL has pretty much everything from the church fathers online

Work info: Conferences of John Cassian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

 

[Andrewn]

CCEL has pretty much everything from the church fathers online

I tried looking for this book on Scribd. Not there!

I know that the EO do not believe in the concept of original sin/inherited guilt. Is their view similar to what I presented in post #348 regarding the "evil" inclination?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I tried looking for this book on Scribd. Not there!

I know that the EO do not believe in the concept of original sin/inherited guilt. Is their view similar to what I presented in post #348 regarding the "evil" inclination?

Morning all, here is a statement from What is "Original Sin?' | Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

In the Orthodox view, guilt can only result from an act which one has committed. We can’t sin for another person. We believe that we need a savior to overcome death and our separation from God, to be forgiven our own transgressions, but not to be forgiven for Adam’s transgression. For Adam, sin came first then death. We inherit death from Adam and our sin follows.

Death is a significant burden for us to carry. Our lives are dominated by the fear of death and our struggle to survive. In this struggle we tend to become self-centered. As a result we can be separated from God. Our salvation involves a transformation from this fearful autonomous state. For eternal life we must be in communion with God and one another.

As for CCEL, go to CCEL.org and there you will find pretty much all of the church fathers translated into English.