I would term it Sin (consciousness) sprang to life in Paul. For before a person accepts Christ they commit sin but are not conscious they are doing so. The law makes us conscious of our sin Rom 3:20
But I like much of this post
Last edited:
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I would term it Sin (consciousness) sprang to life in Paul. For before a person accepts Christ they commit sin but are not conscious they are doing so. The law makes us conscious of our sin Rom 3:20
But I like much of this post
When I got saved in 1997, I started attending a church that baptized babies. After five years, I wondered if I found the truth or not.
I asked the pastor why we baptized babies.
I couldn't believe the pathetic answers. At that point, I KNEW the correct answer.
As to the original poster, am I supposed to believe these non-Apostles who, like so many today, think their commentary is equal to the Bible?
I asked the pastor why we baptized babies.
I couldn't believe the pathetic answers. At that point, I KNEW the correct answer.
As to the original poster, am I supposed to believe these non-Apostles who, like so many today, think their commentary is equal to the Bible?
J
JesusistheChrist
Guest
Actually, the term "ben adam" occurs more than 100 times in the underlying Hebrew of the Old Testament where it is translated as "son of man", but it could rightly be translated as "son of Adam". In some of those instances, it is referring to Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, I told a forum member privately earlier today that I'm so tired that my head is almost spinning, so I really shouldn't be posting in this condition. When I come back to my own senses and I'm thinking more clearly, I'm probably going to have to retract part of what I said to SeaBass earlier. For crying out loud, I've long known that Luke's genealogy pertains to Mary, but I obviously am not thinking straight at the moment. Anyhow, when my head's more clear, there will more than likely be coming a partial apology from me.
Sorry.
If Christ is not a physical descendant of Adam, how can Christ be of the seed of Abraham and physical descendant of David?
There is no verse that says men inherit Adam's sin therefore Christ was born of the human race without sin.
Romans 5:12 pretty well illustrates the point.
The blood line passes from the father to the son. In the case of Jesus Christ His body was through Mary who was descended from the line of David. His blood line was passed from His Father Who is God.
Jesus Christ was unique. Fully man through Mary and fully God through Jehovah.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
True. Jesus is a descendant of Adam. His physical genealogy (Which is only on his mother's side) can be seen in Luke chapter 3.
In Adam all die. In Christ all are made alive. Adam imputes his sin to all of mankind. When a person repents and accepts the Lord, then Christ imputes His righteousness to them.
Christ was born without sin because sin is passed down thru the male seed. That is why Jesus had a virgin birth. For in the Garden, Adam and Eve's eyes were not open to their nakedness (sin) until Adam ate of the wrong tree.
F
forsha
Guest
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
Here we see historical evidence for infant baptism. If the Apostles thought it was ok I think it's ok aswell!
Irenaeus
"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).
Hippolytus
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Origen
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
"Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth. . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letters 166:8:23 [A.D. 412]).
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
My suggestion is that you stay from man's teachings and stick with the inspired words of the bible. There are no firm indications of infant baptism in the scriptures.
yogosans,
I think you are only proving that the ECF were not exempt from doctrinal error.
Scripture clearly states that belief and repentance must preceed baptism. Anything or anybody who contradicts Scripture is WRONG.
the word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo meaning immerse. I don't believe that anyone has put infants under water from apostolic times till now.
I think you are only proving that the ECF were not exempt from doctrinal error.
Scripture clearly states that belief and repentance must preceed baptism. Anything or anybody who contradicts Scripture is WRONG.
the word baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo meaning immerse. I don't believe that anyone has put infants under water from apostolic times till now.
This is exactly how i explained it to my students at school, directly addressing a catholic student, not sure if he got it, but good apologetic to my students
Catholic! LMBO!!!
You obviously don't understand that God is all welcoming to those who love Him and glorify His name. Baptizing an infant is an expression of the deepest love one could have for God -- to ask God to sanctify one's child for all eternity. You think God is going to turn His Spirit against such love and devotion? How sad. Oh well, carry on in your limited view of God's love, sanctifying power and very real presence in our lives.
D
DesiredHaven
Guest
What any of your ongoing replies so far has to do with your accusation of me of slapping God in the face I sure dont know.
Gods presence wasnt in my life then and I wasnt going to lie about it simply to have my word agree with yours.
And you came to this conclusion/interpretation by what means? Personal interpretation? Remember, the Bible says not to rely on private interpretation of Scripture (2 Peter 1:18-21; Eph.1:22)
Catholic understanding of this passage is as follows:
In this passage Paul uses the first person singular in the style of diatribe for the sake of argument. He aims to depict the disastrous consequences when a Christian reintroduces the law as a means to attain the objective of holiness pronounced in Rom.6:22. Also, The apostle defends himself against the charge of identifying the law with sin. Sin does not exist in law but in human beings, whose sinful inclinations are not overcome by the proclamation of law.
I also noticed you failed to to show where given the silence of the New Testament, why not assume Christian baptism is only for adult converts? And where it says in Scripture that Baptisim is strickly for adults only. Whys is that?
Pax Christi
"because he has looked upon the humiliation of his servant. Yes, from now onwards all generations will call me blessed' ---Luke 1:48
Speak for yourself, or let "Wayne Jackson" come to the floor.
Thayer's comment wouldn't apply either, "If one participates in an activity for a long time, it become part of his nature. " Natural habit isn't in the context, else one could just follow Jesus around by habit because of believing he is a mighty majician, by that habit become saved without having faith in the gospel message.
Scripture in context is apparently lost on you. I'll try this way. The Bible reason man could not save himself from sin is because he is by nature of natural flesh born of the physical seed of Adam. No man of his seed could then possibly be savior, all disqualified at conception because of his sin. The promise of Christ began in the garden to Eve, through her seed, which was not of Adam, but of special creation. All people on earth came by way of Adam's seed, except Jesus, born of a virgin, carrying Eve's original seed. God is his Father. Both the woman and Jesus have legal genealogy back to Adam, Jesus' line by proper legal adoption through Joseph the husband of Mary whose lineage was direct to David, then Adam. Mary had a direct lineage to David then Adam, but all women carry the precious seed of Eve, perhaps indeed accurately the "mitochondrial Eve" in nature.
Having that lineage gave God the legal route to destroy the works of the Devil, which stood intact until Christ came. It had to be legal and proper since man (Adam) chose another god, the Devil, making all his male offspring wholly "Children of the Devil". God didn't take the initiative to force man to return to him. Most people choose to remain with Satan as Lord. Man's redemption had to rest upon man's decision to choose God instead, through faith, in his Son Jesus, a legal proper man on earth, the "second man Adam", yet was not of legal lineage to Adam in the flesh. The rest of us all have legal lineage back to Adam, all disqualified from being Messiah, Lord Christ. Jesus alone was both 100% man genetically, while 100% God in the flesh, and it was entirely legal in the court of Heaven.
Going deeper, Abraham fathered a fraction of people on earth, notably the 12 princes of Ishmael and 12 tribes of Israel, father of the branch of Hebrews that were chosen by God to be Israel. Jesus was in his loin not by direct male genealogy, but through faith of Abraham who believed God. Again, Jesus' connection is recorded through Joseph, by adoption according to the Law.
"Original sin" is why people are the way they are until in Christ, and Christ in them. Being born clean of sin, then working hard to be sinners by nature, would make it possible to reverse the trend and work yourself clear of sin again, saved by your own effort. Instead God made a way for us to escape something we were born into, slavery to sin, through Jesus, who was born free, servant of Father God.
If infant baptism meant anything spiritually, particularly involving salvation, then there would be no need for the child to grow up to believe the gospel, not bothering to learn a thing about Jesus, supposedly secure in whatever way he chooses. That flies against all the gospel.
Infant baptism is a tradition of some, not taqught in scriptures. Every baby needs to grow up, respond to God by his or her own volition when called to do that, choosing Jesus as Savior and Lord. If that person rests upon something his parents had done at age 8 days, hell is his destiny.
That's the Bible understanding of Romans 6:22 alright, consistent with context of the chapter and adjacent chapters.
But your question of adult baptism is on shaky ground. Technically baptism could be meaningful to a grade school child that knows the gospel way of salvation can and often does understand their need for salvation, then acts upon that if the Father is calling them. Then water baptism is their first work of public confession for Christ. It makes no sense to assign A spiritual significance to a baby that could not possibly answer the call of God, deciding to follow Jesus. That no child should be turned away from wanting to follow the Way like parents does inclusion of the very young is supported by scriptures, but not for infants. The act is obviously something that meets the needs of the infant's family as a matter of dedication, a sign of their dedication of the child to the way of Christ, though wise to also train the child up in the way he should go. Water baptism replaced circumcision among Jews, something Gentile believers have often assumed applied to them too. It couldn't save anyone either, being a sign.
This is all apparently yet another intrusion of Catholic indoctrination here, warned against in a sticky thread at the top of this forum. It's there for a reason, an alert to the many heresies of the RCC in particular. Infant baptism is just one of them, a man's tradition, not in the slightest taught by Jesus or an apostle. For the first seven years of Church history all believers were also Jews who would have recognized this heresy as completely foreign to the gospel of Christ, faith in Jesus, the means of cleansing by the blood, dying to sin before rising saved. Water does not wash sin away. No tradition can help God cleanse anyone. He does it through faith, so make sure not to teach baptism benefits an infant that can't believe, repent, and follow Jesus.
God is a righteous Judge full of grace and mercy. Jesus points to humble little children as a goal for men to attain likeness, rather than strong self willed men, an attribute of the kingdom of Heaven population. From Mat 18:1-10 and 19:14 we can have comfort the children belong to God until able to choose whom they will serve, without mention of keeping them saved through baptism.
IMO a child who can demonstrate understanding of the concepts of belief repentance and confession should by all means be baptized. My daughter demonstrated such understanding before her 5th birthday.
"Mental assent" belief acknowledges "that there is one God" (James 2:19) and even acknowledges the existence and historical facts about Christ but falls short of saving belief in Christ which believes/entrusts your spiritual well being to Christ; has faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. That's what it means to truly believe/have saving belief in Christ.
The word translated believe is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: pisteuō which means "to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), that is, credit; by implication to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well being to Christ)." The word "believe" can describe mere "mental assent belief," as in (James 2:19) or also include "trust and reliance in Christ for salvation," as in (Acts 16:31). The word translated faith is found in the Greek lexicon of the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and is defined as follows: #4102; pistis; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
As I have said numerous times before, in James 2:19, nobody is questioning the fact that the demons also believe "mental assent" that "there is one God" but they do not believe/entrust their spiritual well being to Christ; have faith/reliance upon Christ for salvation. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works. I believe "mental assent" that George Washington existed and I also believe in the historical facts about George Washington, but I am not trusting in George Washington as the means of my salvation. See the difference? Saving belief/faith is more than just an "intellectual acknowledgment" to the existence and historical facts about Christ. Saving belief/faith trusts exclusively in Christ's finished work of redemption as the all sufficient means of our salvation.
It's one thing to believe that the death, burial and resurrection of Christ "happened" (believe in your head) and another thing to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the all sufficient means of your salvation (believe in your heart). Unfortunately, many "professing" Christians today believe "mental assent" in Christ yet their trust and reliance is in WORKS as the means of their salvation.
Repentance is the missing key on your list. If a person just believes Jesus as their Savior and yet they are not sorry for their sin in the fact that they don't acknowledge their sinful condition before God and or ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins, then they are not saved. For Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation (2 Corinthians 7:10). Jesus said, repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. He also said the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation for they repented at the preaching of Jonah. In Jonah 3, we learn that they turned from their evil ways as a part of their repentance.
In other words, I believe it is wrong to say a person can just have a mental acknowledgment alone. If there is no seeking to be forgiven from the Savior, then how is one forgiven? For can a man cheat on his wife and have any hope to be forgiven by her if he refuses to say he is sorry to her?
In other words, I believe it is wrong to say a person can just have a mental acknowledgment alone. If there is no seeking to be forgiven from the Savior, then how is one forgiven? For can a man cheat on his wife and have any hope to be forgiven by her if he refuses to say he is sorry to her?
In other words, it's about trust indeed. I can believe that a chair is going to hold me up. But until I sit in that chair, I am never going to show that I actually believed that the chair is going to hold me up. Meaning, if I am truly sorrowful about my sin, then I am goiing to truly take the appropriate step in seeking God's forgiveness (And put my trust in Him). If there is no seeking of forgiveness and you just believe Jesus is the Savior, then how are you saved? How are you trusting in Him. A mental acknowledgment of certain facts about Jesus is not salvation. For there is a worldly sorrow and a Godly sorrow. One of them works unto death and the other works repentance unto salvation.
Paul makes a great comparison of this in 1 Corinthians 15:22, Romans 5:12, and Romans 5:15-19. It is sort of like he has two tennis balls in his hand and he is talking about each of them as having different effects. One ball brought death and the other ball brought life.
Repentance is not missing with saving belief/faith in Christ. Those who trust in Christ for salvation have already repented in the process of changing their mind and choosing to trust in Christ for salvation. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. Mark 16:16 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable in receiving salvation.
No Godly sorrow/no repentance = no saving belief/faith in Christ, no salvation.
In Matthew 12:41, when God saw their works, that they turned from their wicked way, then God "relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them." In Jonah 3:4, we see that Jonah told the people of Ninevah that the city of Ninevah would be overthrown in 40 days if they do not repent of their wickedness (Jonah 1:2). The people of Ninevah repented "changed their minds" at the preaching of Jonah, believed God, and "turned from their evil ways" "fruit of repentance" (Jonah 3:5,10; Matthew 3:8). Keeping with Strong's designation, the Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. Repentance is a "change of mind" and the context must determine what is involved in this change of mind. For the people of Ninevah, the object of their repentance was changing their mind about continuing in their wicked ways, not trusting in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to save them. The content of their faith was believing that God would overthrow Ninevah, not trusting in Christ's finished work of redemption for salvation. When we repent we change our mind about our self trust in works, our sinful position and need for Christ to save us and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Believers turn from practicing sin to practicing righteousness (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 John 3:9-10).
We are forgiven when we repent and believe the gospel. Practicing adultery accompanied by no Godly sorrow is practicing sin which is not the fruit of repentance.