I was in a discussion the other day, and someone suggested that we get our sinful nature just from our fathers, that it does not come from our mothers. Is anyone familiar with this line of thinking?

Embrace the Grace,

Read

It is written that a man and a woman are one flesh , so there cannot be such an idea.Since they are one flesh then what is born out of them is what they both are!

eve ate the apple first . She was the first to diss obey god and bring sin in. then followed Adam . So its both there faults . We get our sinfull nature because of adam and eve. This originally started all thinks to lucifer who was so full of pride and vanity that he turned against god and tried to over through him.

I think Jesus says some where in the bible that when god the father through lucifer out I. Lucifer was like lightining exiting heaven. Meaning god through lucifer with such power and speed lucifers body resembled that of lightining. That's one hec of a throw...

lucifer started it all . Then lucifer took gods creature the snake to do his biding and get eve and adam to rebel against god as he did. Lucifer was angry he lost the battle with god and failed and he wanted to ruin gods humans and turn them against him...

lucifer has a very sharp toung he has tricked many to fall from god. First he tricked many of gods angels to turn against god and follow himself... he also tricked the snake in the garden to follow him. And the snake with lucifers guidance tricked adam and eve. Lucifers name was changed to satan which means advasary I think...

He met his match in Jesus christ though he tried to do what he did to all others to christ. Only christ was to wise and strong to fall for satans lies. He tempted Jesus in the desert who was fasting and hungry to make stones bread and feed himself Jesus refused... he then told Jesus climb up on a mountain I believe it was and Jump off saying if god loves u he will save u. Jesus replies it is written do not temp the lord thy god... then he told him he would make him a powerful ruler and he would own all the lands and mountains if he bowed down to lucifer. Jesus replied something like it is written you shall have no other gods accept the lord thy god...

sdatan was defeated... satan though will tempt again. The antichrist in the book of revelations is a man who will bring in peace after a great world war... but he becomes greedy with power the devil tempts again as he has done to the angels, the snake and adam and eve he tricks the man. The man sells his soul to the devil.; and becomes the antichrist

See the devil took us from god we actually became sons of the devil many still are sons and daughters of the devil today... he got us through the apple and sin .

god loved man so much. That he himself became a man Jesus christ and took us back from the devil. Was beatn , ripped to pieces beatn by a whip till the bones hang out from his back, made to carry his cross up a hill, mocked spit on, punched in the face , dressed with a mock purple robe , a crown of torns was placed on his head in mock fashion it possibly ripped his forehead open which bled . And they placed a sign above him as he hung on the cross which read Jesus king of the Jews .

not only that he thirsted for water . And a roman soldier gave him vinigar to drink. How horrible is that. They were then fixing to break both of his legs to kill him faster . But he died...

then one of the gaurds to make sure he was dead for certain grabbed a spear and stabed christ with it...

so christ went with a very very hardship to take man back.

And praise the lord he did A-men

Yes, I've heard of this theory that sin comes through ones' father alone.

There is no clear passage saying this. And the Bible often puts all the weight on the man. Of course man also gets the positive side when the Bible almost always calls the redeemed "the sons of God".

On the other side... Jesus did not have a human father.. AND was NOT born in sin.

Personally, I don't teach that sin only comes through the fathers because there is no clear passage saying that. God will explain the whole thing when we see Him face to face. Till then, Qui bono? to pretend we really know which way it is?

Ps 51:5
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me .
NIV

The point is that Jesus could not be born through the male lineage.
He had to be born through Mary's blood line.
The Lineage of Christ: Fulfillment (http://www.themoorings.org/apologetics/prophecy/lineage/fulfill.html)
Jesus had to be have an eternal, sinless nature he couldn't if he was conceived by man. See John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16; and Hebrews 2:14-17.

You might be thinking of St. Augustine who was the first to define the doctrine of Original Sin. He believed Original Sin was transmitted through the semen of the father in sexual intercourse. Later, he changed that to "lust". Aquinas disagreed with him.

Welcome Readtobit,
Glad to see you here.
No, I have not seen that idea before but I think it may come from the fact that in many bible passages the word "man" covers all of mankind, both men and women.
Mary is the only human whose blood line comes through to Jesus.
Her bloodline include many men and women.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

The idea of Original Sin and a sinful nature are two separate issues.

Original Sin is a teaching that we are born into sin, that even without sinning ourself, we receive sin at the time of birth. Thus the reason for baptism of an infant.

A sinful nature is just that the desire to do evil and the sin we do.

But Chuck, Baptism does not guarantee salvation. Until a child is of an age of accountability they are automatically entered into heaven are they not?

But Chuck, Baptism does not guarantee salvation. Until a child is of an age of accountability they are automatically entered into heaven are they not?

According to your denominations teachings,
Those denominations that teach Original sin, Lutheran, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox and a few others I am sure, have the baptism of the infant of the saving grace of original sin, till they re-state their vows though confirmation.

Fr_Chuck.
Again I agree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was in a discussion the other day, and someone suggested that we get our sinful nature just from our fathers, that it does not come from our mothers. Is anyone familiar with this line of thinking?

Embrace the Grace,

Read

Hi,

The Catholic Church defines Original Sin as the deprivation of Original Justice.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 405 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm)

I had heard what you mention in you OP before, but I don't remember who teaches that.

Sincerely,

De Maria.
Thanks for that post.
Fred

The belief that sin nature comes through the father's side only is speculative, and is not taught in scripture. There is a teaching which is an outgrowth of that called generational sin which teaches that the original sin, and the sin of our ancestors is passed down as a curse through the generations. This is not found in scripture. Scripture says that we each pay for our own sin, not the sins of anyone else. There is a point that men, being made the head of the house, bear a greater responsibility for the devotion of the household to true teachings of the Bible and for the spiritual life of the household, but that does not limit the sin nature to man alone.

The sin nature is therefore not sin in and of itself, but rather the tendency or desire to sin, or as Paul states, before we are saved, we are slaves to sin:

Rom 6:5-7
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

When we submit ourselves to Christ as Lord and Saviour, we agree to become bondservants to Christ. Bondservants are not slaves as such but persons who willing chose to bond themselves to that specific master.

Our nature is changed and the curse of the sin nature is broken therefore through the blood of the cross (not as some say, the water of baptism which is only symbolic of our dying and being resurrected into new life in Christ).

The sin nature is therefore the corruption of the perfect creation that Adam and Eve originally were, and the natural desires placed within them. The corruption came from Satan who placed within them a desire, not for God, but for themselves, the central desire being that men could become God or gods,

Gen 3:5-6
5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
NKJV

as Satan himself desired and which drove his rebellion against God.

Isa 14:14
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.'
NKJV

That is why you find the belief that men become God, becomes gods, or in some way is exalted to divinity or godhood in virtually every non-Christian theology or religion.

I've always thought that Augustine (in The City of God) provides a really useful way of thinking about this. The original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, changed human nature (because they *were* human nature, they were the only humans at the time of the Fall). They did this by introducing into human nature something that wasn't part of it before, namely an absence, a turning away from God in sin. This introduced a tear into the fabric of human nature which became hereditary once they had children because their children inherited their nature (i.e. human nature) from their parents. And so the original sin became hereditary (Ps.51.5 has been quoted above: We are conceived in sin, we inherit at the moment of conception a nature which is broken). Baptism marks the beginning of healing, and hence shouldn't be postponed (if your child needs an antibiotic you don't postpone that treatment because you want the healing to begin as soon as possible--this is how Augustine looks at infant baptism: let the healing begin).

As Augustine points out, when God descends into the Garden and asks Adam and Eve, "Where are you?", he does this not because he doesn't know where they are. The question is rather a rebuke, and a challenge: They have fallen, they aren't with God. This absence is not just psychological: They damaged their nature, their souls, by turning from God. Augustine also points out that Adam's first reaction after the first sin is confusion: He is no longer at one with God, and so he is no longer at one with himself. This internal breakdown of unity and harmony within the self or soul is a symptom of a disease which infects human nature, and which is communicable. Just as a child may inherit a physical disease from its parents, so too can it inherit a spiritual disease which afflicts it by virtue of the very humanity, the nature, it receives from them.

I believe that man could not be of the seed of man simply because he had to be part divine and part human. The link I previously used explains how the male line was cut off in the physical.
I believe the idea of original sin is not the same as why Jesus could not have an earthly father. He had to come through HIS Father God for the divine aspect.

Baptism marks the beginning of healing, and hence shouldn't be postponed (if your child needs an antibiotic you don't postpone that treatment because you want the healing to begin as soon as possible--this is how Augustine looks at infant baptism: let the healing begin).

Though this may be Augustine's opinion, it is not substantiated by scripture. The healing (remission of sin and the restoration of our relationship with God) is accomplished on the cross.

it is not substantiated by scripture..

I guess this would be a real bummer if I, or Augustine for that matter, thought that in order to be true there would have to be a Bible verse saying so. Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that view, not least of all because there is no Bible verse that tells me to. There are lots of things that are true that aren't to be found in Scripture: 2+2=4, bleach is a good disinfectant, Pledge makes wood smell lemony fresh. There isn't even a verse in Scripture that says all *theological* truths are contained in its pages. So it isn't obvious to me that I've done something theologically illicit or suspect by saying that I've always found Augustine's thoughts on original sin to be useful. And there certainly isn't a verse in Scripture that says, "Whatever you do, don't baptize infants".

I agree but want to point out that there are at least two schools of thought on original sin.
As far as baptizing infants the Bible does say repent and be baptized and an infant can not repent but that does not mean a baby is not to be baptized. In Acts it said the whole household was baptized. I still believe that even if you were baptized as an infant you should still be baptized when you are an adult.

I guess this would be a real bummer if I, or Augustine for that matter, thought that in order to be true there would have to be a Bible verse saying so.

1 Cor 4:6
6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.
NKJV


Fortunately, I don't subscribe to that view, not least of all because there is no Bible verse that tells me to.

Personally, I would be willing to place my whole faith in doctrine which is taught in God's word, rather than competing doctrines taught by men.

But everyone can make their own choices in that regard.

I agree but want to point out that there are at least two schools of thought on original sin.
As far as baptizing infants the Bible does say repent and be baptized and an infant can not repent but that does not mean a baby is not to be baptized. In Acts it said the whole household was baptized. I still believe that even if you were baptized as an infant you should still be baptized when you are an adult.

Babies can be baptized, but since it does not save adults, it will not save babies. It is, however, a means of dedicating a child, because the term, "baptized" also means to be identified with, and by baptizing an infant, you are identifying that child with the salvation that is in Christ, and dedicating yourself to bring up the child in the truth of scripture, and in the knowledge of the gospel. The Baby will then, in is hoped, grow up to be a m,an or woman of God who will be saved by receiving Christ as save and then desire to participate in believer's baptism as an adult.

NOhelp4U.
Yes I believe an infant should be baptized.
I also believe what the Bible says in several ways that one of the things needed for salvation IS Baptism.
Jesus commanded it to be done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

If baptism is needed for salvation what about the thief on the cross?
The Bible never says infant baptism is a requirement an infant can not make a decision to be saved. The Bible says repent and be baptized in that order. I don't think there is anything wrong with infant baptism but that it is not essential,

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

N0help4u,
That was Jesus doing.
Jesus was the judge in that case.
With God all things are possible.
That does NOT change the fact that Jesus commanded baptisms to be done.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
Excellent.
Thanks for posting that.
Fred

If baptism is needed for salvation what about the thief on the cross?

A good question for which you will never get a good answer.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It is important to read this in context. Let's look at the passage in context

1 Peter 3:18-22
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. 21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

We see three things discussed here:

1) Noah's Ark and its role in saving people through the flood
2) Water baptism
3) The gospel and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage relates these three items by showing how they relate. First Peter speaks the death of Christ on the cross, setting the focus for the passage. As a result of this passage, we know that the focus of the verses that follow are regarding the death of Christ on the cross for our sins.

This death for our sins is then compared, to the flood, with the flood discussed as a symbolic “type” or comparison to salvation which come through the cross of Christ. Then we are told that there is an anti-type, baptism. I often hear the argument that an “anti-type” is the opposite of a type, or as one person recently said, an anti-type being the opposite of a type is “reality”. Unfortunately that argument is not “reality” because in Greek and similar languages, “anti-” often does not mean “opposite” as we understand it in English, but rather means a replacement or a contrast. This when we are told about one type, and then we are told that there is an anti-type, what we see here is a contrasting type of the death on the cross.

an·ti·type n.

One that is foreshadowed by or identified with an earlier symbol or type, such as a figure in the New Testament who has a counterpart in the Old Testament.

An opposite or contrasting type.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Company. All rights reserved.

This understanding also agrees with what Paul said in Romans 6 where he identifies baptism as a “likeness” or symbolic of the death and resurrection on the cross:

Rom 6:3-7
3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
NKJV

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.

Now with that in mind, let's look at the verse which is most often quoted by proponents of baptismal regeneration:

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh,
NKJV

The contrasting types, the ark, which saved Noah and family through the water, and baptism which saves us in the water - as a type. A "type" simply means symbolic, and thus is symbolic of the death and resurrection of Christ through we we are in fact saved.

Now, let's look at the wider context:

1 Peter 3:18
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
NKJV

Salvation came by Christ suffering on the cross for our sins and then we are made alive by the Spirit. Scripture says that there is one baptism, and it is not a baptism that replaces the blood with water, or replaces the spirit with water, but it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Note that by stating that it is water baptism that is essential, what we are in effect being told is that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not essential, and that they choose water to replace the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Consider the implications.

1 Peter 3:21
21 There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.
NKJV

Note that it is water that removes the filth of the flesh, but the water is symbolic of the salvation on the cross. Also note that the substances which cleanses, is the answer of a good conscience towards God. We see a similar reference in Hebrews 9
This passage is very clear regarding the symbolic nature of the various rituals. As pointed out earlier, the reference here to ritual washings is the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament where it is translated as “baptism”.

Heb 9:11-15
11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 1 4 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
NKJV

We see confirmation here that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of Christ sacrificed on the cross.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Yes how can an infant have a good conscience toward God?

A good question for which you will never get a good answer.

I have wrote this before .
Baptism saves us from the authourity of the world and its master.So the thief on the cross was already judged by the world and its master.The world's judgement for him was... death!That was not going to change , he was already on the cross, but he could still save his soul because he was still alive.He turned to Jesus and asked for mercy.Jesus paid for his ( the thief's) sins also, and the thief saved his soul.

Adam.
Thanks for that.
It makes good sense.
And it does not change the fact that Jesus ordered is followers to go out into the world and baptize people.
Peace and kindness,
Fred.

I have wrote this before .
Baptism saves us from the authourity of the world and its master.

It is sin that places under enslavement to sin and the only thing that takes that away is the blood that Jesus shed on the cross:

Rev 1:4-7
Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
NKJV


So the thief on the cross was already judged by the world and its master.The world's judgement for him was... death!That was not going to change , he was already on the cross, but he could still save his soul because he was still alive.He turned to Jesus and asked for mercy.Jesus paid for his ( the thief's) sins also, and the thief saved his soul.

So baptism is not essential for salvation.

Don't be mislead.
P Baptism IS one of the things like faith that are needed for salvation.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Don't be mislead.
P Baptism IS one of the things like faith that are needed for salvation.

Where is that in scripture?

I don't see it as an essential FOR salvation but as a witness OF your salvation. Like your washing your husbands clothes is not essential FOR his love but it bears witness OF your love for him just like works and faith.

Tj3
Baptism is not essential for the salvation of the soul form hell.It is essential for a person to be saved from the world.I am talking about two different kinds of salvation.

Fred
Surely... no doubt... it does not change what Jesus instructed !

Tj3
Baptism is not essential for the salvation of the soul form hell.It is essential for a person to be saved from the world.I am talking about two different kinds of salvation.

There is no concept of salvation from the world in scripture separate from salvation from sin. When we are saved by receiving Christ as Saviour, we receive His righteousness which separates us from the world.

There is nothing in scripture saying that baptism saves us - PERIOD!

1 Cor 1:16-17
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
NKJV

There is no concept of salvation from the world in scripture separate from salvation from sin. When we are saved by receiving Christ as Saviour, we receive His righteousness which separates us from the world.

There is nothing in scripture saying that baptism saves us - PERIOD!

My friend Tj3
But there is a concept of salvation from the world!
Let's think about Noah and his family.They were all saved from the world, but who can tell if they all saved their souls?
I mean those people lived for many years after that , they could have turned away from God if they wanted to.If they did turn away would their souls be saved?But we cannot change the fact that they were saved from the world no matter what !

My friend Tj3
But there is a concept of salvation from the world!
Let's think about Noah and his family.They were all saved from the world, but who can tell if they all saved their souls?
I mean those people lived for many years after that , they could have turned away from God if they wanted to.If they did turn away would their souls be saved?But we cannot change the fact that they were saved from the world no matter what !

I am not sure how you mean saved from the world, but these people were still subject to all of the same worldly desire, all the same worldly threats. Where does scripture say that they were not?

And further, where does it say that baptism saved Noah and his family? It doesn't. It compares their temporary safety from death to baptism as a comparison, nothing more.

Part of the definition of the word holiness is to be separate - to keep ourselves separate from the world. We cannot be holy and thus separate from the world until or unless we have been saved through faith in Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Has Paul lost it here or are we missing something?
He says Christ did NOT send me to baptize but he DID baptize even though a few , but he DID baptize!If Paul thought that baptism is a NO , he wouldn't have baptized no one !
But Paul says what he says about Christ NOT sending him to baptize , because he had another mission.

And that's all for me Tj3 because I have no intention at all to keep this going.I simply said my opinion based as I think better on Scripture.You have your opinion based as you think on Scripture and I respect that.
May the Holy Spirit guide us ! God bless you!

In discussions with proponents of baptismal regeneration, they will often just read out Romans 6:3 and then stop before you get to the verse which describes baptism as a “likeness” of the death and resurrection of Christ. So we find that Romans 6 and 1 Peter 3 are telling us the same thing – baptism is symbolic.


Of course it is symbolic. I've never heard of anyone who claimed that being baptized is literally to die on a cross in Israel and to be resurrected in a tomb. In that sense it is a figure of Christ's death and resurrection. From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace. And if it does, why deny that grace to children? Baptism isn't just a public declaration of my inner belief-state--it isn't narrowly psychological in the way some here have described it: It is a supernatural reality.

And I've never met anyone who thinks that the water itself is salvific, nor that it alone confers grace. Prayers are said over the water precisely for the reason that it is the Holy Spirit, acting in and through the medium of water, who bestows grace. To parse the two as you seem to be doing is totally artificial and leaves you attacking a view that nobody holds--at least, nobody sane.

As an historical aside (Tj, I know you don't like these, but others may be interested): The view that the sacraments, including baptism, are dispensable, was held by some early Christians. It was the view of some of Pelagius's more ardent followers. If the only historical precedent I could find for my view were hyper-Pelagianism, I would seriously wonder whether I hadn't misunderstood some key passages of Scripture. (A version of the view was also held by some Gnostics, who despised anything material and found repugnant the notion that God would act through matter. But, of course, they were docetists who denied that Christ really had a human body.)

Of course it is symbolic. I've never heard of anyone who claimed that being baptized is literally to die on a cross in Israel and to be resurrected in a tomb. In that sense it is a figure of Christ's death and resurrection. From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace.

So far so good. We agree.


And if it does, why deny that grace to children?

You just said that it does not.

"the ritual act does not confer grace"

But if you are saying why deny baptism to children as a symbol of dedicating them to the Lord - I agree - why not?


Baptism isn't just a public declaration of my inner belief-state--it isn't narrowly psychological in the way some here have described it: It is a supernatural reality.

I keep asking the same question - where is this in scripture?


And I've never met anyone who thinks that the water itself is salvific, nor that it alone confers grace.

I have.


Prayers are said over the water precisely for the reason that it is the Holy Spirit, acting in and through the medium of water, who bestows grace.

Where does it say in scriopture that the Holy Spirits does anything through the water?


As an historical aside (Tj, I know you don't like these, but others may be interested): The view that the sacraments, including baptism, are dispensable, was held by some early Christians.

Many ideas were holds by people in the early church. Some were sound, but we find that the NT warns about some errors and heresies even being taught within the early church, even back as early as that. Thus the fact that some views were held within the early church by some professing believers does not endorse a doctrine. Therefore whether this is true, it does not impact the validity of baptism as a means of salvation to whatever degree you choose to claim it.

You just said that it does not.

"the ritual act does not confer grace"

Actually, what Akoue said is:


From this it does not follow that the ritual act does not confer grace.


I keep asking the same question - where is this in scripture?

Several places. It is clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation:

John 3 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Several places. It is clear that Baptism is necessary for salvation:

How many times must we deal with these?


John 3 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.


Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.


Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument.

But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim. First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

I could add that those who believe and have red hair are saved, but those who do not believe are condemned. The truth is that the part about baptism is not an essential according to this passage.


1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Already addressed in this thread (post 27)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/original-sin-292750-2.html#post1439338


Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

What washes us?

Rev 1:5-6
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV


Ephesians 5:25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Notice that this refers to scripture not baptism "..by the word".

How many times must we deal with these?

Am I twisting your arm?


John 3:5-7
5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'
NKJV

Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

He sure is speaking of water Baptism. We know this because further on in the same Chapter, we see both John and the disciples of Jesus baptizing.

Further, we know because water is associated with birth. Water is the visual symbol revealing the Spiritual effect of Baptism.


Mark 16:16
16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
NKJV

The argument is this. If you take the first half of the verse, it says “He who believes and is baptized is saved”, therefore believing and baptism are the essential requirements for baptism. For the believers in this doctrine, that is a slam-dunk argument.

But is it? Let's look at this passage in context and let's see if it really says what they claim. First, it inappropriate to take a verse out of context, let alone cutting a verse in half and only looking at the first half of the verse. What do we know just from this verse alone:

1) If we believe and are baptized that we are saved.
2) If we do not believe, we are condemned (unsaved)

The interesting this is that this does NOT say that if we are not baptized that we are condemned. But it does say that is we do not believe that we are condemned. Why would that be omitted in the second half of the verse?

Because those who don't believe will not be baptized. It is evident. It is faith and works. Without works one doesn't have faith. Without baptism one doesn't have belief.

A person who believes Jesus will be baptized. A person who does not believe Jesus will not.


I could add that those who believe and have red hair are saved, but those who do not believe are condemned. The truth is that the part about baptism is not an essential according to this passage.

That's your INTERPRETATION. But the Scripture is clear. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.


What washes us?

Rev 1:5-6
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,
NKJV

The washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been taking a bath in Jesus' blood.


Notice that this refers to scripture not baptism "..by the word".

Again, the washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been washing in the word

He sure is speaking of water Baptism. We know this because further on in the same Chapter, we see both John and the disciples of Jesus baptizing.

Read again. The whole context of that area of the chapter up to verse 21 is speaking about the gospel. It was not until later, in a different place that they were baptizing":

John 3:22-23
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
NKJV

That is like saying that because I did something in May, that something that I said in April was in context with that event.


Because those who don't believe will not be baptized.

I know a number of people who were baptized because it was the thing to do, and not because they were saved.


A person who believes Jesus will be baptized. A person who does not believe Jesus will not.

Not necessarily true either. I know people who are believers and yet have not been baptized or were not baptized for some time after receiving Christ. Not everyone comes to the realization of the importance of baptism as a symbolic act of obedience at the same time.


That's your INTERPRETATION.

No, it is fact and you have no way to argue against it.


Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.

It does not say that if you are not baptized you won't be saved. You are adding to what scripture says. Indeed you won't find that anywhere in the Bible.]



The washing is a reference to Baptism. Unless you've literally been taking a bath in Jesus' blood.

So even if scripture says nothing about baptism and nothing about water, but speaks about something else entirely - you say that it must be speaking about baptism because your theology demands it. The truth is that you are bending this to fit your theology. Our sins are washed away by the blood on the cross - not by water.

Now, let me asked you a question.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
NKJV

What is the one essential baptism - the Holy Spirit? Or water?

Read again. The whole context of that area of the chapter up to verse 21 is speaking about the gospel. It was not until later, in a different place that they were baptizing":

John 3:22-23
22 After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He remained with them and baptized.
NKJV

That is like saying that because I did something in May, that something that I said in April was in context with that event.

It could very well be in context with that event. I bought a Christmas present in July. The entire reason why John put both in the same Chapter is because they are the same context.


I know a number of people who were baptized because it was the thing to do, and not because they were saved.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. We don't teach faith without works nor do we teach works without faith. They are both needed.


Not necessarily true either. I know people who are believers and yet have not been baptized or were not baptized for some time after receiving Christ. Not everyone comes to the realization of the importance of baptism as a symbolic act of obedience at the same time.

We consider it an "efficacious symbol". A symbol that effects what it symbolizes.


No, it is fact and you have no way to argue against it.

I think I'm doing pretty well.


It does not say that if you are not baptized you won't be saved. You are adding to what scripture says. Indeed you won't find that anywhere in the Bible.

John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.



So even if scripture says nothing about baptism and nothing about water, but speaks about something else entirely - you say that it must be speaking about baptism because your theology demands it. The truth is that you are bending this to fit your theology. Our sins are washed away by the blood on the cross - not by water.

Not MY theology. Jesus said so.


Now, let me asked you a question.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
NKJV

What is the one essential baptism - the Holy Spirit? Or water?

According to Jesus, it is of water and the Holy Spirit.
John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore, you are making a false dichotomy in your question.

It could very well be in context with that event. I bought a Christmas present in July. The entire reason why John put both in the same Chapter is because they are the same context.

Maybe you don't know this, but John did not put the verse and chapter divisions in the book. A simple read will tell any discerning reader the context.



Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Okay so afr.


We don't teach faith without works nor do we teach works without faith. They are both needed.

Works are the evidence of faith. Just as baptism is something we do in obedience after we are saved.


We consider it an "efficacious symbol". A symbol that effects what it symbolizes.

Then you do not understand what a symbol is.


I think I'm doing pretty well.

If you are happy with not providing any rebuttal, then so be it.


John 3
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism. Different topic.

Can't you come up with something new? This has to rank with one of the most commonly and easily refuted passages in scripture, and yet it appears that those who believe in the error of baptismal regeneration quickly have tio resort to repeating these weak arguments because, in reality, they have so little to hang their hat on.


Therefore, you are making a false dichotomy in your question.

No, both are baptisms and scripture says that only one is necessary. Why won't you answer? Which one is essential for our salvation?

I am not surprised at your response. Folk who believe in baptismal regeneration often avoid this like the plague.

Maybe you don't know this, but John did not put the verse and chapter divisions in the book. A simple read will tell any discerning reader the context.

Lets see:

Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus from verse 3 to verse 21. In verse 22, John says:

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.



Works are the evidence of faith.

OK.


Just as baptism is something we do in obedience after we are saved.

After we are saved? Where is that in Scripture.


Then you do not understand what a symbol is.

I'm pretty sure I do.


If you are happy with not providing any rebuttal, then so be it.

Again, I think I'm doing pretty well.


Note that he equates the water with the flesh, being born in the flesh, and being born again with being born in the spirit. This is not speaking about water baptism.

Water is the symbol of birth. Therefore, the water which washes over us, symbolizes the new birth in the Spirit which is actually occurring in Baptism.



Different topic.

Again, it is the same topic. It is your interpretation which is problematic.


Can't you come up with something new?

This stuff is 2000 years old.
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786166/posts)



This has to rank with one of the most commonly and easily refuted passages in scripture, and yet it appears that those who believe in the error of baptismal regeneration quickly have tio resort to repeating these weak arguments because, in reality, they have so little to hang their hat on.

We hang our hat on God's word. Not on our own understanding:

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.


No, both are baptisms and scripture says that only one is necessary. Why won't you answer? Which one is essential for our salvation?

I am not surprised at your response. Folk who believe in baptismal regeneration often avoid this like the plague.

I've given my answer and provided my Scripture. Now its your turn.

That's your INTERPRETATION. But the Scripture is clear. Believe and be baptized and you will be saved. If you do not believe, you won't be baptized and therefore won't be saved.

DeMarie you seem to be contradicting yourself from what I can see
Or do you believe in adult baptism?
You say believe and be baptized. You will not be baptized if you do not believe. So that implies you are saying you are baptized when YOU can make the decision rather than as an infant.

Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus from verse 3 to verse 21. In verse 22, John says:

22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

Yep, that is what I said - you skipped 16 verses, and tried to tie two unrelated events in two different locations at two different times together.


After we are saved? Where is that in Scripture.

The better question is, where do we find baptism as being required before salvation? The answer is nowhere in scripture. But we do have examples of salvation without baptism - indeed most people in the Bible who are shown as being godly persons are in fact not said to be baptised. Here is one specific case:

Acts 10:46-47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV


Water is the symbol of birth. Therefore, the water which washes over us, symbolizes the new birth in the Spirit which is actually occurring in Baptism.

That is your private interpretation. That, unforturnately for your position, is not what scripture says.


This stuff is 2000 years old.
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786166/posts)

Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.


We hang our hat on God's word. Not on our own understanding:

Then where in scripture does it say that unless your are baptized, you are going to hell?

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

Just a brief word about "symbol": The ancients understood a sumbolon somewhat differently than we do today. A symbol was understood to be a falling together (sun + ballein) of a sign and a reality that transcends the sign and which the sign signifies. So, in the case of baptism, the washing with water is the sign and the grace of the Holy Spirit is the reality. The two are one, they coincide in the ritual act itself. So they recognized no distinction between a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Spirit: Baptism in water IS baptism in the Holy Spirit. As I said earlier, the attempt to prise the two apart would have struck them as artificial, as it did when Gnostics did so.

There's been a lot of talk about the temporal order of priority regarding belief and baptism. But here again, we tend to think of belief rather differently than was common in the ancient world, or even before Descartes. We think of belief in terms of individual psychology; but in the ancient world, and among early Christians in particular, it was quite common to talk about numerically the same belief being held by many people, so that various individuals could be in numerically the same belief-state. When an infant is baptized, it is recognized to be a believer, to be initiated into the ekklesia--the community of the faithful--and is credited with the beliefs of the ekklesia until such time as it appropriates those beliefs for itself and receives the sacraments of communion and confirmation or rejects those beliefs and leaves the ekklesia of its own accord. My point, in other words, is that there has been a real tendency throughout the present discussion to slip into anachronism, to assume that doxa and pistis were understood by first century Christians as psychological states in a narrow sense. They weren't (and there's been a ton of work on this over the last century or so to back it up--the words didn't mean to ancient Greeks what their modern English equivalents mean to us).

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

I have not seen anyone debating against baptizing infants as long as it is done scripturally with the understanding that it does nothing to save the child.


Just a brief word about "symbol": The ancients understood a sumbolon somewhat differently than we do today. A symbol was understood to be a falling together (sun + ballein) of a sign and a reality that transcends the sign and which the sign signifies.

So far the word symbol has only been used in our discussion and in the context of our understanding to describe what scripture says.


So, in the case of baptism, the washing with water is the sign and the grace of the Holy Spirit is the reality. The two are one, they coincide in the ritual act itself. So they recognized no distinction between a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Spirit: Baptism in water IS baptism in the Holy Spirit.

There is a specific distinction made in scripture. You cannot simple make a claim regarding the connotation of the a word in the minds of some people at some point in time, and then build a doctrine around that in contradiction to what scripture says. I don't buy that.


When an infant is baptized, it is recognized to be a believer, to be initiated into the ekklesia--the community of the faithful--and is credited with the beliefs of the ekklesia until such time as it appropriates those beliefs for itself and receives the sacraments of communion and confirmation or rejects those beliefs and leaves the ekklesia of its own accord.

That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination. Further, just because tghat is held to be true by some, does not make it fact.

I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that tells us not to baptize infants. There is no real debate about adult baptism: Catholics baptize adults too.

I probably shouldn't even get into the discussion about baptism because it often causes wrangling due to a really great variety of beliefs and arguments. Why?

... It is a mystery of God and our minds, still corrupted by sin, can't fully encompass His mysteries:

Dt 29:29

29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.
NIV

Isa 55:8-9

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
Declares the Lord.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
NIV

God does expect humility about some things we should just following the practices passed down to us from our Christian leaders..... in faith that God will do His work through us.

Ps 131:1-2

My heart is not proud, O Lord,
my eyes are not haughty;
I do not concern myself with great matters
or things too wonderful for me.
2 But I have stilled and quieted my soul;
like a weaned child with its mother,
like a weaned child is my soul within me.
NIV

I do believe, teach and practice infant baptism as well as adult (by sprinkling, pouring or "dunking") because baptism is a means of grace i.e.. A means by which God's grace acts on a person to bring them salvation. Baptism contains the Word of salvation, spoken over the person being baptised. And where the redeeming word of God is spoken, there is power to be saved.

Ro 1:16-17

16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
NIV

Lk 7:29-30

29(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. 30 But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)
NIV

Yep, that is what I said - you skipped 16 verses, and tried to tie two unrelated events in two different locations at two different times together.

There is no skipping. The 16 verses are the end of the very same discussion. Here, let me show you:

John 3
1There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:

A Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Jesus at night to ask a question.

2The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

And Jesus answered:

3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Nicodemus didn't understand being born again:

4Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus explained that one must be born of water and Spirit:

5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

6That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus goes into more detail saying, don't be surprised:

7Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

By now we know that born again means baptism.

8The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?

But Nicodemus remains perplexed.

10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus says, "you're an elder and don't understand baptism?

11Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

12If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

And Jesus reveals that Baptism is a heavenly reality.

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Which He knows about because He has been to heaven.

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Jesus reveals that He must be crucified.

15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

And explains to Nicodemus that he must have faith in Him.

16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Even if he doesn't understand Jesus' words, for Jesus was sent here to save all.


The better question is, where do we find baptism as being required before salvation?

I like the question I asked quite well. Where does it say that one is saved and then Baptized.



the answer is nowhere in scripture. But we do have examples of salvation without baptism - indeed most people in the Bible who are shown as being godly persons are in fact not said to be baptised. Here is one specific case:

Acts 10:46-47
47 Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
NKJV

This is not an example of salvation before baptism. This is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism.


That is your private interpretation. That, unforturnately for your position, is not what scripture says.

No. That is the Church's understanding since the coming of Christ.


Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

But it shows that the people who knew the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles understood the doctrine just as we do today. And since Jesus said:

Matthew 16: 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We believe His promise that the Church will not fall into error.


Then where in scripture does it say that unless your are baptized, you are going to hell?

It doesn't say it in those words. It says in two places:
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:5
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Therefore we believe that Baptism is necessary.

I have not seen anyone debating against baptizing infants as long as it is done scripturally with the understanding that it does nothing to save the child.

It does for the child exactly as it does for the adult. It removes original sin and brings the child into the family of God.


So far the word symbol has only been used in our discussion and in the context of our understanding to describe what scripture says.

OUR understanding doesn't mean just YOUR understanding. An efficacious symbol does as Akoue describes. It effects what it symbolizes.


There is a specific distinction made in scripture. You cannot simple make a claim regarding the connotation of the a word in the minds of some people at some point in time, and then build a doctrine around that in contradiction to what scripture says. I don't buy that.

No one is asking you to buy it. This is a discussion with the purpose of educating whomever wants to accept the knowledge. Just because you deny it doesn't mean everyone will.


That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination. Further, just because tghat is held to be true by some, does not make it fact.

Understood. But the weight of evidence is on our side. We have proved that the early Church understood it that way and you acknowledged it. You even called the Early Church Fathers heretical in that respect. You belittled the ancient truths saying:


Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

But Christianity is not a new invention. It has been around from the time of Jesus Christ.
And just because its old, doesn't make it false.

There is no skipping. The 16 verses are the end of the very same discussion. Here, let me show you:

Yes, and the context has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism. That is the point. You added in commentary forcefitting baptism into it to fits the needs of your theological system, but the context itself has zero to do with baptism.



I like the question I asked quite well. Where does it say that one is saved and then Baptized.

So I guess that you are conceding that there is no scripture which says baptism is required before salvation.

Many references have been given to you showing baptism comes AFTER salvation including specific references in scripture to people saved before or without water baptism, such as Acts 10.



This is not an example of salvation before baptism. This is an example of receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Scripture says that you cannot receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

John 14:16-18
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV


No. That is the Church's understanding since the coming of Christ.

You saying it does not make it so. I will take scripture over the word of men (or women!)


But it shows that the people who knew the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles understood the doctrine just as we do today. And since Jesus said:

Matthew 16: 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

We believe His promise that the Church will not fall into error.

That passage does not promise any such thing, and we have examples of churches even in the NT which fell into error, and we have examples even today.


It doesn't say it in those words.

The problem for your theology is that it does not say it at all.

It does for the child exactly as it does for the adult. It removes original sin and brings the child into the family of God.

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child. You don't have children do you?


O It effects what it symbolizes.

I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.


No one is asking you to buy it. This is a discussion with the purpose of educating whomever wants to accept the knowledge. Just because you deny it doesn't mean everyone will.

I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.


Understood. But the weight of evidence is on our side. We have proved that the early Church understood it that way and you acknowledged it.

I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.


You even called the Early Church Fathers heretical in that respect.

Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

Yes, and the context has nothing whatsoever to do with baptism.

In your opinion.


That is the point. You added in commentary forcefitting baptism into it to fits the needs of your theological system, but the context itself has zero to do with baptism.

I posted the actual Scripture so that anyone can see that Jesus was telling Nicodemus about Baptism and then Jesus' disciples began baptizing.


So I guess that you are conceding that there is no scripture which says baptism is required before salvation.

In those words. But I posted Scripture which says that Baptism is necessary.


Many references have been given to you showing baptism comes AFTER salvation including specific references in scripture to people saved before or without water baptism, such as Acts 10.

Are you conceding that no Scripture says that salvation comes before baptism?


Scripture says that you cannot receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

John 14:16-18
17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

Where does Scripture say that one can't receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism?


You saying it does not make it so. I will take scripture over the word of men (or women!)

The knife cuts both ways. We've agreed on that point several times.


That passage does not promise any such thing, and we have examples of churches even in the NT which fell into error, and we have examples even today.

All except one.


The problem for your theology is that it does not say it at all.

That's a problem for your theology. Remember, we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. For us it is enough if the Scriptures imply the doctrine.

I thought the point I was trying to make we relatively clear and straightforward, but apparently I was mistaken so I'll have another crack at it.


That may be what is held to be the case in your denomination, but you cannot extrapolate that for all professing Christians outside of your denomination

See now, I wasn't aligning myself with a denomination in anything I said. I was trying to help those interested in doing so better to understand the language used in Scripture and by the early Church. So let me sharpen by point a bit so that it won't be misunderstood this time: If you want to claim to be faithful to Scripture, then you have to use words the same way they are used in Scripture (words like "faith" and "belief", among others). My point is that you are not doing so: You are foisting onto Scripture a sense for its own terminology that is alien to it, that is distinctly modern, and so new (a few hundred years old). It is you, then, who are fashioning a doctrine that is not Scripture-based, this because you do not understand the meanings of the words in the language in which they were written. The word "faith" in early twentieth century English does not have the same meaning as the word "pistis" in first century Greek. So too with the words "belief" and "doxa". And the words "symbol" and "sumbolon" (which was frequently used by early Christians as a technical term).

Now, as I say, I was describing the view of infant baptism and belief that was held by early Christians, many of whom were native speakers of the Greek of the NT and not a few of whom were taught by the Apostles themselves. On the one hand I have that. On the other hand, I have a guy writing from Canada who plainly doesn't know Koine all that well telling me that he's got it figured out and that all these early Christians were wrong about Scripture, etc. If this were to be settled in a court of law, and each side was to call its expert witnesses, whom would the court likely certify as expert, the early Fathers or the guy in Canada? Citing Scripture only gets one so far; one has to understand the words that are contained therein in the way they were understood by those who wrote them. If one wants to adhere to Scripture alone, one really is obliged to do the hard work necessary to understand it properly.

Now, I hope my earlier point has been clarified.

Where does scripture say….
absolutely no scripture to back up that claim…
I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

You keep forgetting (is this on purpose?), Catholics don’t need to “back-up their claim with Scripture,” even though they can. You do remember that Christ instituted a Church not a Bible. We don’t accept a man’s opinion; Catholics look to the Church; which is exactly why few should respect your interpretations - not to mention that they are most always wrong. The net result (not the only result mind you) is to reduce the “Jim Jones effect” – now, there was a man who knew his Scripture.

JoeT

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child.

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?


You don't have children do you?

Sure do.


I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.

I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

Are you insinuating that we do?


I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.

Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean the evidence wasn't provided.


Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786166/posts

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

To any reasonable person that means that you are saying that the Church Fathers which I referenced are heretical. But if I'm wrong, please explain what you really meant.

Where does scripture say that infant baptism removes the sin nature from a child.

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?


You don't have children do you?

Sure do.


I note that you have absolutely no scripture to back up that claim. Just your opinion.

I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:


I am glad that you do not expect me to accept man's opinion above the word of God. I won't and many others won't either.

Are you insinuating that we do?


I am still waiting for any evidence, and you have proven nothing of the sort. Except maybe in your own mind.

Just because you don't believe the evidence doesn't mean the evidence wasn't provided.


Oh boy - here we go again with the false accusations. I guess you are falling back on the tried and true approach when all else fails. It is sad to see that some folk feel it necessary to use such approaches. But the real question here is will you follow the opinions of fallible men, or will will you follow the word of God? As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and follow His word.

False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786166/posts)
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

To any reasonable person that means that you are saying that the Church Fathers which I referenced are heretical. But if I'm wrong, please explain what you really meant.

I posted the actual Scripture so that anyone can see that Jesus was telling Nicodemus about Baptism and then Jesus' disciples began baptizing.

You had to add the baptism references every time to try to bend what it says because it is not in the Bible


In those words. But I posted Scripture which says that Baptism is necessary.


I have seen none. Any that you posted were very easily refited by looking at the context.


Are you conceding that no Scripture says that salvation comes before baptism?

Sigh! We even have you specific examples from scripture of people saved before or without being baptized.


Where does Scripture say that one can't receive the Holy Spirit before Baptism?

See my last post.


All except one.

NONE!


Remember, we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. For us it is enough if the Scriptures imply the doctrine.

Exactly - your denomination adds and mixes the word of man as the basis for your theology. I stick with God's word.

You keep forgetting (is this on purpose?), Catholics don’t need to “back-up their claim with Scripture,” even though they can.

No one needs to unless they wish to demonstrate that their doctrines are in alignment with God's word.


You do remember that Christ instituted a Church not a Bible.

Are you denying that the Bible is the word of God?


We don’t accept a man’s opinion; Catholics look to the Church;

The church leadership of your denomination are men.

Who said that Baptism removes the "sin nature" of a child?

Look at your last message.


Sure do.

It didn't seem that you are familiar with their nature.


I already posted it. 1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Your private interpretation of this was already refuted.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/original-sin-292750-4.html#post1439338


Are you insinuating that we do?

You told me that you do.


False accusations? I said:
Quote:
This stuff is 2000 years old.

And I posted the Church Fathers:
The Early Church Fathers on Baptism - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1786166/posts)

You replied:
Many errors or heresies go back much further. The fact that it is old does not make it right.

Yep. I was pointing out that many heresies are quite old and age does not make it sound.

Read more carefully.

Cut and paste , back and forth again, not going anywhere
Closed