Baptizm

[jmacvols]

Let me ask you one simple question. What did Jesus have need to be baptized of?

Did He have to be baptized to wash away "original sin"? Did He have anything to repent of? Did He have to have the "Holy Ghost?"

Jesus was baptized to fullfill all righteousness, Mt 3:15, so Christ gave us an example in obedience to God. It also identified Him as God's Son, Mt 3:17 cf Jn 1:31.

Show me where it say by baptism you are saved alone?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Baptism alone does not save, nor does faith alone alone save. See post #52.

 

[bella1955]

Because of original sin, we are born without grace in our souls, so there is no way for us to have fellowship with God. Jesus became man to bring us into union with his Father. He said no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is first born of "water and spirit" (John 3:5)--this refers to baptism. Through baptism we are born again, but this time on a SPIRITUAL level instead of a physical level. We are washed in the bath of rebirth (Titus 3:5). We are baptized into Christ's death and therefore share in his resurrection (Rom 6:3-7).
Baptism cleanses us of sins and brings the holy Spirit and his grace into our souls (Acts 2:38, 22:16) and the apostle Peter is perhaps the most blunt of all: "Baptism now saves you". (1 Pet 3:21). Baptism is the gateway into the church.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Is baptism necessary for salvation? The answer is a very firm yes. We must not trifle with God and His ordained means of salvation. But, we must be just as unwilling to deny that God may work salvation in anyone who is unbaptised. This is His prerogative, but the norm is that you must be baptised. It is a command and to disobey it is a clear sign of unbelief. To reject baptism is to reject what it offers (remission of sins and initiation into the covenant and family of God).

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Water baptism is only for those capable of believing. Infants are innocent and have no sins to remit.

To say this reveals a misunderstanding of sin. Sin is not primarily to be understood individually but corporately. We all sinned in Adam's sin, and this condemns us and now sin defines human existence. Individual sins are simply a conformity to our sinful nature. Thus we are sinful and condemned even in infancy, and in need of salvation.

 

[jmacvols]

Thank you for the response. First of all, I really couldn’t disagree more with this portion of your post:



To believe that sin is inherited from Adam (Romans 5) is really foundational to all the rest of theology. In Psalm 51, David is saying that he was born naturally or inherently sinful as a child or wrath (Ephesians 2:3) because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5), not that he was born innocent into a world of sin. Each individual is responsible for his own individual acts of sin. This does not mean that a person is born sinless and is innocent until they commit their first sin in youth.

Perhaps I do not fully understand your beliefs regarding original sin?

To help you understand my position on the so called "inherited sin": it is false, completely to its core.

Rom 5:12 says death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. It does NOT say death passed upon all men for all men inherited Adam's sin. Each person is responsible for his own sins, the soul that sinneth it shall die, Eze 18:4,20, which refutes their false proverb of v2 that the fathers ate sour grapes and set the children's teeth on edge>Eze 4:20.

Again David use poetic, figurative language in Psa 51. He did not say with sin I was conceived. He was saying he was born into a world full of sin. In Psa 58:3 David says they "go astray" he does not say they are "born astray" Again, he is employing figurative not literal language. The figurative language has to harmonize with the literal. Sin begins in ones youth, Gen 8:21 and one cannot discern right from wrong till he reaches a point of maturity, Isa 7:15,16. If David inherited sin from his earthly mother, then Jesus must have inherited sin from his earthly mother also. (The 'immaculate conception" was developed as a way to get around this.)

EPh 2:3 the word nature here means haibit; see Strongs #5449>>>a mode of feeling or acting which by long habit has become nature. In v2 they had walked by the course of this world so long it became haibt i.e., part of their nature. This was not something they were born with, it became part of their nature by their habitual practice of it, (walking in it), v2.

The soul is not inherited by the child from its parents, God gives the soul Eccl 12:7, God forms the spirit of man within him, Zec 12:1 so at birth the spirit would be as pure as it source and maker, God.

One must became as child to enter the kingdom of heaven, Mt 19:14. If children are born vile sinners then one must become as a vile sinner to enter the kingdom? No, one must obtain the innocent quality of a child.

In Jer 19:4: 22:3 they were offering children as sacrifices and these children are referred to as innocents.

 

[jmacvols]

To say this reveals a misunderstanding of sin. Sin is not primarily to be understood individually but corporately. We all sinned in Adam's sin, and this condemns us and now sin defines human existence. Individual sins are simply a conformity to our sinful nature. Thus we are sinful and condemned even in infancy, and in need of salvation.

Infants are born innocent, see my post #65

 

[HereIStand]

To help you understand my position on the so called "inherited sin": is it false, completely to its core.

Rom 5:12 says death passed upon all men for that all have sinned. It does NOT say death passed upon all men for all men inherited Adam's sin. Each person is responsible for his own sins, the soul that sinneth it shall die, Eze 18:4,20, which refutes their false proverb of v2 that the fathers ate sour grapes and set the children's teeth on edge>Eze 4:20.

Again David use poetic, figurative language in Psa 51. He did not say with sin I was conceived. He was saying he was born into a world full of sin. In Psa 58:3 David says they "go astray" he does not say they are "born astray" Again, he is employing figurative not literal language. The figurative language has to harmonize with the literal. Sin begins in ones youth, Gen 8:21 and one cannot discern right from wrong till he reaches a point of maturity, Isa 7:15,16. If David inherited sin from his earthly mother, then Jesus must have inherited sin from his earthly mother also. (The 'immaculate conception" was developed as a way to get around this.)

EPh 2:3 the word nature here means haibit; see Strongs #5449>>>a mode of feeling or acting which by long habit has become nature. In v2 they had walked by the course of this world so long it became haibt i.e., part of their nature. This was not something they were born with, it became part of their nature by their habitual practice of it, (walking in it), v2.

The soul is not inherited by the child from its parents, God gives the soul Eccl 12:7, God forms the spirit of man within him, Zec 12:1 so at birth the spirit would be as pure as it source and maker, God.

One must became as child to enter the kingdom of heaven, Mt 19:14. If children are born vile sinners then one must become as a vile sinner to enter the kingdom? No, one must obtain the innocent quality of a child.

In Jer 19:4: 22:3 they were offering children as sacrifices and these children are referred to as innocents.

As you pointed out from Isaiah, while there is an age of where one is able to discern right from wrong, this in no way means that a person is innocent or sinless before reaching this age.

[FONT=&quot]Writing in On Original Sin (Chapter XLVII), St. Augustine, drawing from the works of St. Ambrose, notes the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: “I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam – so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may also be justified in Christ.” Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: “We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’"[/FONT]

Lutheran theologian John Theodore Mueller writes:

‘That the guilt of Adam is imputed to all his descendants is taught in Rom. 5,18: “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation”; v.19: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” The hereditary corruption of all descendants of Adam is clearly taught in Ps. 51,5: “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”; John 3,6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” That the word flesh [Greek omitted] here denotes corruption (corrupt flesh) is proved by v. 5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Therefore the term is here used precisely as in Rom 8,7: “the carnal mind” [Greek omitted].’ (Church Dogmatics, 216).

Additionally, Mueller writes:

‘Original corruption [Latin omitted] is transmitted to all man through the ordinary mode of generation, Ps. 51, 5; John 3,6. Since Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Luke 1,35, His nature was not corrupted by sin (immaculate conception). However, for Mary, His mother, no immaculate conception can be claimed, since she was born according to the ordinary mode of generation, Luke 1,27, and was therefore in need of a savior herself, Luke 1,47.’ (p. 218)

And:

‘In consequence of His supernatural conception Christ was free from both original sin [Latin omitted] and actual sin [Latin omitted]. This truth we derive from all passages that describe Christ’s absolute sinlessness, Heb. 7, 26. 27; 1 John 3,5, as well as from those which affirm that he became man not after the order of nature [Latin quote from Luther omitted], but through the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1,18; Luke 1,35. Since Christ did not descend from sinful seed, He was free from hereditary corruption [Latin omitted] and from hereditary guilt [Latin omitted], which is imputed to all men begotten of sinful flesh, John 3, 6; Rom. 5, 16.19.’ (p.260)

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Good quotes, HereIStand. I'd also like to quote one of our Reformed theologians, Herman Ridderbos. After noting that "flesh," depending on the context, can describe either man in his humanness, weakness, and transitoriness, or the corruption/sinfulness of man, in his Paul: An Outline of His Theology he examines Rom. 5, explaining that "the intention of Romans 5:12-21 is to point out that the connection that exists between the righteousness of Christ and the life of his people has its prefiguration or type in the connection between Adam's sin and the death of his descendants." (p. 95)

Ridderbos further writes:

"In order to make this clear to his readers, Paul comes to the pronouncement so important for the whole structure of his doctrine of sin and redemption: 'Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned...' (Rom. 5:12).

"The meaning of this much discussed pronouncement, if one takes into consideration the whole context of Romans 5, in our opinion cannot be in doubt. One man has given sin access into the world; he has, as it were, opened the gate of the world to sin. So sin has entered in, here represented as a personified power (cf., e.g., v. 21); through and with sin death has come in as the inseparable follower and companion of sin. The words then follow: 'and so [i.e., along this way opened by the one man] death passed unto all men, for the reason that all sinned.' The final words give a further explanation as to how death, through one man, has passed and could pass unto all men. This happened because 'all sinned,' namely, on acount of their connection with the one man; therefore Adam's sin was the sin of all, and in that sense it can hold for them that they all sinned. This union of all with and in the one is, as we have already seen, the governing idea of this pericope, and it is in that idea that Paul indicates the typical significance of Adam with respect to the Coming One.

"Many wish to understand the words, 'for the reason that all have sinned,' as referring to the later personal sins of all. This is impossible, however, for more than one reason. First of all, even the words 'and so death passed unto all' point to the entering in of and granting of passage to sin and death into the world through the one man. Were one to understand the concluding words of verse 12 of the personal sins of all, then this passage of death would rest once again on the sins of all, and 'and so' would lose its exclusive reference to what precedes. That this is not the meaning of the text appears from the following considerations:

"(a) From the argumentation of verses 13 and 14, Paul appeals here to the period before the giving of the law, because the death of men then living cannot be explained from their 'own,' personal sin, but must have had its cause in the sin of Adam. There was sin then, too: 'for until the law [came] there was sin in the world.' The sanction of the law (death) did not as yet apply, however. For where there is no law, there is also no transgression (cf. 4:15), and 'sin is not imputed when there is no law.' Nevertheless, at that time also, death reigned over those who did not transgress in the same manner as Adam with the divine command and sanction on it. It is thus apparent that it was not their personal sin, but Adam's sin and their share in it, that was the cause of their death. The final words of verse 12b cannot thus be understood otherwise than in this corporate sense.

"(b)That in the sin of all (v. 12) it is not a matter of the personal sins of Adam's descendants but of the one, fixed, first transgression that was the sin of all by virtue of their relation to the first Adam, is also unmistakably apparent in the sequel. Paul speaks here repeatedly of the one transgression or the transgression of the one, which resulted in death for all:

"... for if by the trespass of the one the many died (v. 15).
... for the judgment led upon the ground of one [trespass] to condemnation (v. 16).
... for if by the trespass of the one death came to reign (v. 17).
... as by the trespass of one it came to condemnation for all (v. 18)." (p. 96-97)

 

[jmacvols]

As you pointed out from Isaiah, while there is an age of where one is able to discern right from wrong, this in no way means that a person is innocent or sinless before reaching this age.

John says, for sin is transgression of the law, 1 Jn 3:4. Infants cannot comprehend "right" or "wrong", they're unable to transgress, they are innocent until they mature and reach a point where they can discern between the two. James 4:17.

[FONT=&quot]

Writing in On Original Sin (Chapter XLVII), St. Augustine, drawing from the works of St. Ambrose, notes the following:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"In the work which the saintly Ambrose wrote, Concerning the Resurrection, he says: “I fell in Adam, in Adam was I expelled from Paradise, in Adam I died; and He does not recall me unless He has found me in Adam – so as that, as I am obnoxious to the guilt of sin in him, and subject to death, I may also be justified in Christ.” Then, again, writing against the Novatians, he says: “We men are all of us born in sin; our very origin is in sin; as you may read when David says, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.’"[/FONT]

Lutheran theologian John Theodore Mueller writes:

‘That the guilt of Adam is imputed to all his descendants is taught in Rom. 5,18: “By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation”; v.19: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” The hereditary corruption of all descendants of Adam is clearly taught in Ps. 51,5: “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”; John 3,6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.” That the word flesh [Greek omitted] here denotes corruption (corrupt flesh) is proved by v. 5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Therefore the term is here used precisely as in Rom 8,7: “the carnal mind” [Greek omitted].’ (Church Dogmatics, 216).

Additionally, Mueller writes:

‘Original corruption [Latin omitted] is transmitted to all man through the ordinary mode of generation, Ps. 51, 5; John 3,6. Since Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, Luke 1,35, His nature was not corrupted by sin (immaculate conception). However, for Mary, His mother, no immaculate conception can be claimed, since she was born according to the ordinary mode of generation, Luke 1,27, and was therefore in need of a savior herself, Luke 1,47.’ (p. 218)

And:

‘In consequence of His supernatural conception Christ was free from both original sin [Latin omitted] and actual sin [Latin omitted]. This truth we derive from all passages that describe Christ’s absolute sinlessness, Heb. 7, 26. 27; 1 John 3,5, as well as from those which affirm that he became man not after the order of nature [Latin quote from Luther omitted], but through the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1,18; Luke 1,35. Since Christ did not descend from sinful seed, He was free from hereditary corruption [Latin omitted] and from hereditary guilt [Latin omitted], which is imputed to all men begotten of sinful flesh, John 3, 6; Rom. 5, 16.19.’ (p.260)

I don't accept the ideas of these uninspired men as truth. Jesus or any inspired apostle never said anything remotely about infants being born sinners. One false idea (origianl sin) can only lead to another false idea (immaculate conception).

Rom 5:18 is mentioned in one of your above quotes. In this verse Paul is using a 'if this is true, then this is also true' type statement. So if it is true that by the offence of one that condemnation came to all men, then it is also true that the righteousness of one brought justification to all men. If all are automatically born sinners because of Adam, then all are automatically justified because of Christ? This verse does not say 'all men have sinned in Adam'.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

John says, for sin is transgression of the law, 1 Jn 3:4. Infants cannot comprehend "right" or "wrong", they're unable to transgress, they are innocent until they mature and reach a point where they can discern between the two. James 4:17.

We all, even infants, have transgressed in Adam's transgression of the law. If infants are innocent, we should expect that death has not come to them. Infants die, so it is clear that they are sinners just like the rest of us. We aren't sinners because we sin (infants do not commit personal acts of sin, although it is also clear that no one needs to teach them to sin), but we sin because we are sinners. It is our identity in Adam.

I don't accept the ideas of these uninspired men as truth. Jesus or any inspired apostle never said anything remotely about infants being born sinners. One false idea (origianl sin) can only lead to another false idea (immaculate conception).

These uninspired men have dedicated their lives to the study and defense of the Christian faith, and have preserved the faith for us to inherit, even as the world violently opposed Christ's gospel and His church. They were far more devoted, far more thoughtful and far greater in ability than you or I. They may not be right about everything, and they may not be inspired Scripture-writers, but they are to be respected. If not, if we should ignore their insights, why should we accept the ideas of you, an uninspired man far less accomplished and qualified to expound the Scriptures?

Rom 5:18 is mentioned in one of your above quotes. In this verse Paul is using a 'if this is true, then this is also true' type statement. So if it is true that by the offence of one that condemnation came to all men, then it is also true that the righteousness of one brought justification to all men. If all are automatically born sinners because of Adam, then all are automatically justified because of Christ? This verse does not say 'all men have sinned in Adam'.

Again, as Ridderbos writes, this passage is not intended to give an explanation of the universality of sin. The main doctrine concerned with is the Adam-Christ parallel (and contrast). Adam and Christ are both the federal heads of their people. Thus in Adam all sinned, and in Christ all those who are His are righteous. The contrast is in their actions for their people, Adam breaking the law and opening the way for sin and death into the world, and Christ fulfilling the law and bringing salvation to His people, but the contrast is also in the much greater work done by Christ which brings justification, forgiveness of sins, and sanctification to believers. More explicit statements on the universality of sin can be found elsewhere in the Bible (and I believe some have previously been provided) but here we see explained our solidarity in sin through Adam.

 

[jmacvols]

We all, even infants, have transgressed in Adam's transgression of the law. If infants are innocent, we should expect that death has not come to them. Infants die, so it is clear that they are sinners just like the rest of us. We aren't sinners because we sin (infants do not commit personal acts of sin, although it is also clear that no one needs to teach them to sin), but we sin because we are sinners. It is our identity in Adam.

All people, which includes infants, die physically as a consequence of Adam's sin, not because they inherited any sin from Adam.
A person may be driving home late one night and meets a drunken driver that crosses the center line and hits the innocent driver head on and hurts or maybe kills the innocent driver. The innocent driver suffers the consequences of the drunken driver, but he certainly does not inherit the drunken drivers' sin.
You say 'infants do not commit personal acts of sin..' John says whosoever committeth sin also transgresseth also the law, for sin is transgression of the law. Infants cannot commit or transgress therefore are unable to sin. From Rom 9:11. before they were born, Jacob nor Esau had done no works, good or evil, they were in a state of innocence.

These uninspired men have dedicated their lives to the study and defense of the Christian faith, and have preserved the faith for us to inherit, even as the world violently opposed Christ's gospel and His church. They were far more devoted, far more thoughtful and far greater in ability than you or I. They may not be right about everything, and they may not be inspired Scripture-writers, but they are to be respected. If not, if we should ignore their insights, why should we accept the ideas of you, an uninspired man far less accomplished and qualified to expound the Scriptures?

None were probably more zealous towards a religion than Saul(Paul), but he found out he was wrong. These who you say are far more 'thoughful', having 'greater ability' than others is simply conjecture on your part. Myself being uninspired, I do not make something right or wrong, the bible determines this. So I go by what inspired writes say, and I cannot find where an inspired writer ever says that people are born depraved. You may respect the unispired men, who as you say 'were not right about everything', but I will continue to respect the inspired writers that were correct about everything. I'll put my trust in the bible, others can choose to put their trust in uninspired men; everyone has a choice to make.

Again, as Ridderbos writes, this passage is not intended to give an explanation of the universality of sin. The main doctrine concerned with is the Adam-Christ parallel (and contrast). Adam and Christ are both the federal heads of their people. Thus in Adam all sinned, and in Christ all those who are His are righteous. The contrast is in their actions for their people, Adam breaking the law and opening the way for sin and death into the world, and Christ fulfilling the law and bringing salvation to His people, but the contrast is also in the much greater work done by Christ which brings justification, forgiveness of sins, and sanctification to believers. More explicit statements on the universality of sin can be found elsewhere in the Bible (and I believe some have previously been provided) but here we see explained our solidarity in sin through Adam.

Again Rom 5:18 does not say 'all sinned in Adam'. Mr Ribberdos has simply added this to the verse to get it teach what he erroneously believes. Paul's main point in this context is found in Rom 5:12 which says death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. It does not say death passed upon all men for all have inherited Adam's sin. The idea here in v12 is that men commit their own sin, it is not inherited from anyone else.

 

[spiritwarrior37]

Again Rom 5:18 does not say 'all sinned in Adam'. Mr Ribberdos has simply added this to the verse to get it teach what he erroneously believes. Paul's main point in this context is found in Rom 5:12 which says death passed upon all men, for all have sinned. It does not say death passed upon all men for all have inherited Adam's sin. The idea here in v12 is that men commit their own sin, it is not inherited from anyone else.

As by one man sin entered into the world. All that came about by Adam disobeying God was that sin was able to enter the world. I agree with you here. We did not inherit Adams sin. Its sorta to each his own type deal. The only sin we all have in common is not knowing Jesus, which I am glad to say I repented of long ago.