The Apostles taught Infant Baptism!

[Jason0047]

Before Moses ever lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, all of the Israelites partook of the Passover lamb (a "type" of the crucified Christ), they all passed through the Red Sea (a "type" of water baptism) and they were all led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night (a "type" of being baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire). Again, there are three which agree on this earth:

The Spirit, the water and the blood and we'd be wise not to ignore any of them.

I've already addressed Romans 10:9 on this thread. Again, if you truly believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, then you'll be water baptized in that such is the answer of a good conscience towards God. If one refuses water baptism? Well, that's an answer, too, but it's the answer of a bad conscience against God.

I love what you have written here. Great stuff. I believe a true believer will be baptized in time when he finds those right body of believers he wants to have fellowship with. I believe it is difficult for many today to be baptized because so many churches today are focused on putting on a dazzling show rather than getting to know and teach people in love. I know I had a challenge for a long time in finding the right church. I desperately wanted to be baptized for a long time. But I never found that right group of believers. To me, being baptized by some group that was not truly committed to God or true with Him was important to me. I am a cautious man. Especially when it comes to spiritual matters. I do not take salvation lightly. It is not a game to me nor is it secondary for my life.

Anyways, in time, I did find a church that I liked and I had gotten baptized. Not for salvation, but because I already had a good conscience towards God already. If I were to have died before being baptized, I still would have been saved by God's grace. However, true believers will live righteously and bring forth fruitful works. It is only natural because God lives within them. But works and holiness are not done for salvation, they are just the proof in the pudding that they have been saved.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

I love what you have written here. Great stuff. I believe a true believer will be baptized in time when he finds those right body of believers he wants to have fellowship with. I believe it is difficult for many today to be baptized because so many churches today are focused on putting on a dazzling show rather than getting to know and teach people in love. I know I had a challenge for a long time in finding the right church. I desperately wanted to be baptized for a long time. But I never found that right group of believers. To me, being baptized by some group that was not truly committed to God or true with Him was important to me. I am a cautious man. Especially when it comes to spiritual matters. I do not take salvation lightly. It is not a game to me nor is it secondary for my life.

Anyways, in time, I did find a church that I liked and I had gotten baptized. Not for salvation, but because I already had a good conscience towards God already. If I were to have died before being baptized, I still would have been saved by God's grace. However, true believers will live righteously and bring forth fruitful works. It is only natural because God lives within them.

Many years ago (20 something), I was asked by my church at that time to teach what they called a "Care and Share" which was a Bible study which took place in the house of certain church members in which they could invite the lost to hear God's Word or those who might not normally feel comfortable doing so in a normal church setting or environment. Well, needless to say, we came to the point in our study where I taught extensively on water baptism and it's significance and EVERYBODY in the Bible study (it was a small group...10 people on an average night) wanted to get water baptized in obedience to the Lord, but nobody and I mean NOBODY wanted to get water baptized at the church because they didn't like the pastor there (with good reason, btw) and they didn't agree with a lot of things which transpired in that church either (again, for good reasons). Anyhow, I approached the Pastor of the church and told him of the situation and asked him if these people could be baptized in a neutral setting...a pool, a lake, a stream...whatever. He emphatically told me "NO!"...simply because he wanted to inflate his church membership and not because he cared the least bit about the people at that study. I'm sorry to say that, but that's simply the way that it was. Anyhow, I hear what you're saying, BUT we were never supposed to be "baptized" into a church or into a denomination, but rather INTO CHRIST. In fact, this whole being "baptized" into a denomination is what Paul was actually addressing here:

I Corinthians chapter 1

12] Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[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.

Whereas some people will "wrest" Paul's words by seeking to teach that Paul downplayed the importance of water baptism here, such is truly NOT the case. No, rather, Paul was simply saying that he rarely did the water baptizing himself so that none might say that he had "baptized anybody IN HIS OWN NAME". Again, Paul was fighting against "denominationalism" here in that the word "denomination" basically means to "designate by a name". At that time, there were those who were carnal (even as there are multitudes of the same today) who were saying, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ". We were always supposed to be only "OF CHRIST", but, again, "denominationalism" (I'm a Baptist, I'm a Luteran, I'm a Pentecostal, I'm a Wesleyan, etc., etc.) runs rampant today even as I type.

 

[SeaBass]

Catholics do not believe that people are born with a sin nature - Pelagianism, that there isn't something inherently wrong with human beings, I don't know how you get infant baptism and pelagianism together

I posted Catholics believe in original sin. Therefore they baptize infants,

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I posted Catholics believe in original sin ...

Same thing. Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. Catholics reject it. Therefore, you have put together two unrelated issues.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Same thing. Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. Catholics reject it. Therefore, you have put together two unrelated issues.

Are you saying that Catholics "reject" the doctrine of "original sin"? If you are, then you're greatly mistaken:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Fall

Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.[SUP]261[/SUP] We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin",[SUP]262[/SUP] by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,[SUP]263[/SUP] knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

 

[thecreationtutor]

I posted Catholics believe in original sin. Therefore they baptize infants,

even if they baptized babies on this train of thought: Just because the response their response is wrong, does not mean the argument the Bible makes for the sin nature is wrong

 

[JesusistheChrist]

even if they baptized babies on this train of thought: Just because the response their response is wrong, does not mean the argument the Bible makes for the sin nature is wrong

The Bible does teach that we were all "BY NATURE the children of wrath"...

Ephesians chapter 2

[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
[3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

...but, again, the question is:

When do we become accountable for the same?

I mean, even in what we just read, Paul spoke of "the children of disobedience". Can a newborn infant "disobey"? Paul also spoke of "our conversation", an Old English word, or our "manner of life" or "behavior" in times past in which we FULFILLED "the lusts of our flesh" or "the desires of the flesh and of the mind". Again, can a newborn infant truly do the same? Elsewhere, Paul wrote:

Romans chapter 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Again, even though sin entered into the whole world through Adam, sin simply is not imputed when there is no law or nothing which convicts us of actual sin in the first place. Granted, this same Paul had previously written of something INTERNAL which also convicts us of sin or of our own God-given consciences:

Romans chapter 2

[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another):
[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Again, the word "conscience" literally means "with (con-) knowledge (science)", but when does such actually kick in? Is a newborn infant convicted by its own conscience? From what I read in scripture, God only holds us accountable for that which we know and I've already posted some verses in a previous post in relation to the same.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Are you saying that Catholics "reject" the doctrine of "original sin"? If you are, then you're greatly mistaken:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Fall

all that says is that Adam is the source of sin. That is very vague - says nothing about - in Adam - we all die, we all are sinners by nature and by choice - you have some more specifics in that. There is no mystery to Christ - he's quite plain to all

we are not talking about saying the Adam was the originator of sin, but in him we have a sin nature, corrupted - sorry if this repeats, tried to clarify

 

[thecreationtutor]

The Bible does teach that we were all "BY NATURE the children of wrath"...

Ephesians chapter 2

[1] And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[2] Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
[3] Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

...but, again, the question is:

When do we become accountable for the same?

I mean, even in what we just read, Paul spoke of "the children of disobedience". Can a newborn infant "disobey"? Paul also spoke of "our conversation", an Old English word, or our "manner of life" or "behavior" in times past in which we FULFILLED "the lusts of our flesh" or "the desires of the flesh and of the mind". Again, can a newborn infant truly do the same? Elsewhere, Paul wrote:

Romans chapter 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Again, even though sin entered into the whole world through Adam, sin simply is not imputed when there is no law or nothing which convicts us of actual sin in the first place. Granted, this same Paul had previously written of something INTERNAL which also convicts us of sin or of our own God-given consciences:

Romans chapter 2

[12] For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
[13] (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
[14] For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another):
[16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Again, the word "conscience" literally means "with (con-) knowledge (science)", but when does such actually kick in? Is a newborn infant convicted by its own conscience? From what I read in scripture, God only holds us accountable for that which we know and I've already posted some verses in a previous post in relation to the same.

There is no set time period - God is just to do what He wills. God will not treat a baptized baby any different then a non-baptized baby. That is the consequence of having children - you don't know what path they will go on, they may reject God, they may come to know Christ

Actually you should read Romans 1-3

I don't liken God's morality to what I think is moral

also - a lot of people use "I was baptized catholic" as it means something when it absolutely means nothing

 

[JesusistheChrist]

all that says is that Adam is the source of sin. That is very vague - says nothing about - in Adam - we all die, we all are sinners by nature and by choice - you have some more specifics in that. There is no mystery to Christ - he's quite plain to all

we are not talking about saying the Adam was the originator of sin, but in him we have a sin nature, corrupted - sorry if this repeats, tried to clarify

There is a "mystery of Christ" which is NOT "quite plain to all":

Ephesians chapter 3

[1] For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
[2] If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to youward:
[3] How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
[4] Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
[5] Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
[6] That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
[7] Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
[8] Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
[9] And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
[10] To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
[11] According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
[12] In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

We needed said "mystery" to be explained to us by God's "holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" and we, in turn, ought to be explaining the same to others.

Colossians chapter 4

[2] Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving;
[3] Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
[4] That I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak.

 

[thecreationtutor]

Romans chapter 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Again, even though sin entered into the whole world through Adam, sin simply is not imputed when there is no law or nothing which convicts us of actual sin in the first place. Granted, this same Paul had previously written of something INTERNAL which also convicts us of sin or of our own God-given consciences:

Then why should we preach the Gospel? Is it better that they never knew?

Sin is passed to all men - sin nature, the flesh in terms of the anti-God, everything devoid of the Spirit of God. This is why a baby can scream at its mother for not feeding him fast enough. Did he learn that by modeling by someone? Or is there something in him that is inherently sinful.?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

There is no set time period - God is just to do what He wills. God will not treat a baptized baby any different then a non-baptized baby. That is the consequence of having children - you don't know what path they will go on, they may reject God, they may come to know Christ

Actually you should read Romans 1-3

I don't liken God's morality to what I think is moral

also - a lot of people use "I was baptized catholic" as it means something when it absolutely means nothing

I've read Romans 1-3 many, many times. What do you suppose that I've missed?

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Romans chapter 5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Again, even though sin entered into the whole world through Adam, sin simply is not imputed when there is no law or nothing which convicts us of actual sin in the first place. Granted, this same Paul had previously written of something INTERNAL which also convicts us of sin or of our own God-given consciences:

Then why should we preach the Gospel? Is it better that they never knew?

Sin is passed to all men - sin nature, the flesh in terms of the anti-God, everything devoid of the Spirit of God. This is why a baby can scream at its mother for not feeding him fast enough. Did he learn that by modeling by someone? Or is there something in him that is inherently sinful.?

We should preach the gospel because Christ commanded us to.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

Sin is passed to all men - sin nature, the flesh in terms of the anti-God, everything devoid of the Spirit of God. This is why a baby can scream at its mother for not feeding him fast enough. Did he learn that by modeling by someone? Or is there something in him that is inherently sinful.?

What makes you so sure that an infant crying for its mother's milk is a sign of said infant being "inherently evil"? I mean, we read:

I Peter chapter 2

[2] As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
[3] If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

I have three children and my wife breastfed all three of them. Although I've always had a hearty appetite for God's Word since the first day that I got saved, when I saw how much and how often my own three children DESIRED my wife's milk, I actually got TERRIBLY CONVICTED by the same. IOW, as much as I have always DESIRED God's Word, I couldn't really match the level with which my own children DESIRED my wife's breast milk.

Anyhow, an infant's DESIRE to be fed isn't "inherently evil"...unless you believe that God likened our own DESIRE for His Word to that which is "inherently evil". You don't believe THAT, do you? I hope not.

I've got news for you all:

I CRY to the Lord DAILY...and NOT because I'm "inherently evil".

 

[Jabberjaw]

does that mean one should not be immersed in H[SUB]2[/SUB]O publicly, as a testament of your good conscious toward God? of course not.
but my faith is not in a shadow; it is in the substance.

You keep saying this, nowhere does the bible teach baptism is a outward showing of an inward faith, this is a mix mash of man made doctrine contrived of cherry picked "parts" of verses....

Mark 16:16 says it requires faith "and" baptism, therefore one must have faith, but are not "saved" until "baptized", this verse is 100% verification that "no one thing will save you".

Babies are not capable of knowing enough to have "faith" in Christ therefore cannot be "baptized".

 

[Word_Swordsman]

The OP is Catholic doctrine. They take Irenaeus’ comments as approved doctrine, which includes the the moment spiritual regeneration comes at water baptism. They replaced "circumcision" of the law concerning the rite done 8 days after birth, with baptism to be done for infants in the same time period. That makes water baptism a required work accomplishing initial salvation (regeneration). They also teach that Jesus came having to experience every phase of human growth to be able to fully sanctify every age group, so by being an infant could arrange for saving of infants, himself circumcised at the age of 8 days.

The Bible doesn't teach Jesus came for that purpose. Besides, Jesus never experienced middle age or the life of a senior, the larger group of people needing to be sanctified.

Those Church Fathers engaged in such debates as whether to water baptize infants before the 8 days. It was based on a fear they might die before then.

There isn't a single event of infant or child water baptism in the New Testament. Notions of that are taken from comments from those debates, which have been incorporated into RCC doctrine. No apostle is on record as promoting that in the slightest.

The closest we can get to dealing with sanctification of children is 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

The example given is a Christian wife dealing with an unbelieving husband, and vice versa. One or the other, by their devotion to spouse and child, lives a clean life to the sanctification, that is to consecrate or lead into holiness, by his or her "conversation", that is behavior or manner of living pleasing to the Lord. By that the children are not left "unclean" but clean (holy) as a parent is holy before God. Disciples, not infants, are commanded in 1 Peter 1:13-16 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP] Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
[SUP]14 [/SUP] As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
[SUP]15 [/SUP] But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
[SUP]16 [/SUP] Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

Holiness for us is moral blamelessness, kept in the holiness of Christ in us. It means saints of God living moral lives for the sake of honoring the holiness of God, and by commandment of Jesus and the apostles. None of that applies to abilities of infants needing to be holy by their own obedience to commandments, that belong to God anyway. Parents should take an attitude that infants are treasures on loan from God, entrusted to parents to be kept holy, parent and child, preferably mother and father, trained up in the way he or she should go.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

This answers the heresy of infant baptism and that of baptismal regeneration.

The theme throughout the New Testament is clear: Only believers are baptized. Children are incapable of understanding the Gospel, therefore, if baptism was the final saving mechanism then we would be guilty of baptizing unbelievers by insisting that children be baptized. They can't be, but the parents can commit to raising their child in a Christian home, in a faithful church, and many churches use a parental commitment ceremony of sorts for parents to publicly proclaim that as their intent and promise before God.

The Bible is clear that faith in Christ alone saves. Romans 10:9 states, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” The famous passage, John 3:16, is clear here as well—“whosoever believes will be saved.” If this were not the case, then infants could be baptized, and if water baptism were necessary to complete the process, certainly both Paul and particularly Jesus would have stated it as such.


Some believe that salvation occurs, not when we believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but when immersed in water. Granted, many of the early church fathers did embrace baptismal regeneration. They also taught that the Holy Spirit was a created being, the salvation of all (including Satan), infant baptism, purgatory, and so on. For that reason, appeals to what the ECF believed fall on deaf ears with me. They did more to harm the Gospel than they did to spread it. We must look at what the scriptures say. They are the only authority we have.

 

[SeaBass]

Same thing. Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. Catholics reject it. Therefore, you have put together two unrelated issues.

Some think there is a difference between original sin and sin nature/total depravity. Alike or different, neither one is biblical.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

This answers the heresy of infant baptism and that of baptismal regeneration.

The theme throughout the New Testament is clear: Only believers are baptized. Children are incapable of understanding the Gospel, therefore, if baptism was the final saving mechanism then we would be guilty of baptizing unbelievers by insisting that children be baptized. They can't be, but the parents can commit to raising their child in a Christian home, in a faithful church, and many churches use a parental commitment ceremony of sorts for parents to publicly proclaim that as their intent and promise before God.

The Bible is clear that faith in Christ alone saves. Romans 10:9 states, “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” The famous passage, John 3:16, is clear here as well—“whosoever believes will be saved.” If this were not the case, then infants could be baptized, and if water baptism were necessary to complete the process, certainly both Paul and particularly Jesus would have stated it as such.

Some believe that salvation occurs, not when we believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, but when immersed in water. Granted, many of the early church fathers did embrace baptismal regeneration. They also taught that the Holy Spirit was a created being, the salvation of all (including Satan), infant baptism, purgatory, and so on. For that reason, appeals to what the ECF believed fall on deaf ears with me. They did more to harm the Gospel than they did to spread it. We must look at what the scriptures say. They are the only authority we have.

Again, if anybody truly BELIEVES that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9), then they will be water baptized as the answer of a good conscience towards God in relation to the same. Similarly, if anybody truly BELIEVES that Jesus Christ is God's "only BEGOTTEN Son" (John 3:16) or that God has raised Jesus from the dead, then they will be water baptized as the answer of a good conscience towards God in relation to the same. It never ceases to amaze me how some people regularly cherry-pick isolated passages of scripture and, even then, they don't even consider what said cherry-picked isolated passages actually say.

Hebrews chapter 6

[1] Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
[2] Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Whether anybody here or elsewhere likes it or not, the foundational principles of the doctrine of Christ are as follows:

1. Repentance from dead works.
2. Faith towards God.
3. The doctrine of baptisms, PLURAL (water and Spirit).
4. The laying on of hands.
5. The resurrection of the dead.
6. Eternal judgment.

Deal with it.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Some think there is a difference between original sin and sin nature/total depravity. Alike or different, neither one is biblical.

Go argue with Paul ...

Romans 10, NASB
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13 "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS ";
14 "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS ";
15 "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18 "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God;
20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
​

All flesh is condemned. Righteousness only comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and it is not our righteousness, but His, imputed to us by His death and resurrection, that God sees.