Infant baptism biblical?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Hippie

Member
Dec 2, 2022
52
34
18
66
Rossville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There still shouldn't be a baptism for a child till they can tell they can tell the difference between right and wrong. A baby can't admit that Jesus died for his sins. He doesn't know who Jesus is the child doesn't even know who God is.
 
Jan 11, 2023
33
28
18
34
Barbosa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think there are subtle differences between circumcision and baptism, and that's why there is disagreement.

Circumcision was commanded by God for infants in the OT, baptism is not explicitly commanded. Both require the faith of the parents, rather than the faith of the child.

In NT times, some attribute a mystical power to (physical) baptism and believe the ritual puts a child into the family of God (similar as circumcision marked a child in the OT). However, scripture indicates that faith is required for salvation (which an infant is incapable of), and infants are rarely baptised correctly (as some have noted, real baptism requires full immersion).

Some correctly consider baptism to be an outward sign only, but have their infant children baptised as a public sign of faith. However, it's really only a sign at the time of baptism (unlike circumcision), it's rarely done properly (by full immersion), and it might actually serve as a deterrent to believer's baptism when the child is old enough to become a believer, so many others reject infant baptism for this reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim B

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
There still shouldn't be a baptism for a child till they can tell they can tell the difference between right and wrong. A baby can't admit that Jesus died for his sins. He doesn't know who Jesus is the child doesn't even know who God is.
Babies don't commit Original Sin by a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice, in baptism. So your problem is two-fold, a rejection of the Apostolic teaching on Original Sin, (Romans 5) and a denial of the incarnation principle. Both Luther and Calvin, the 2 pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants. It was not a reformist issue, although Calvin disagreed with Luther on baptismal regeneration, and the divisions haven't stopped since. Modernist liberal Protestants don't care what the reformers practiced, nor do they care about the apostolic practices of the early church. Adult only baptism was invented well after the Protestant revolt.
 
Last edited:

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
893
307
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Babies don't commit Original Sin by a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice, in baptism. So your problem is two-fold, a rejection of the Apostolic teaching on Original Sin, (Romans 5) and a denial of the incarnation principle. Both Luther and Calvin, the 2 pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants. It was not a reformist issue, although Calvin disagreed with Luther on baptismal regeneration, and the divisions haven't stopped since. Modernist liberal Protestants don't care what the reformers practiced, nor do they care about the apostolic practices of the early church. Adult only baptism was invented well after the Protestant revolt.
You make no sense. It'd be the same conscience choice required to willfully commit sin which they, infants, cannot do. Therefore, there's nothing to be removed. There's no such thing as origin sin. It's unscriptural man made-up nonsense.
 

Jim B

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2020
5,793
1,797
113
Santa Fe NM
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Babies don't commit Original Sin by a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice, in baptism. So your problem is two-fold, a rejection of the Apostolic teaching on Original Sin, (Romans 5) and a denial of the incarnation principle. Both Luther and Calvin, the 2 pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants. It was not a reformist issue, although Calvin disagreed with Luther on baptismal regeneration, and the divisions haven't stopped since. Modernist liberal Protestants don't care what the reformers practiced, nor do they care about the apostolic practices of the early church. Adult only baptism was invented well after the Protestant revolt.
Infants are incapable of understanding baptism, so it is a waste of time. It may make the parents feel good, but that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amigo de christo

Reggie Belafonte

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2018
5,805
2,896
113
63
Brisbane
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Acts 2:28-39
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
If one came from a Christen Nation then all of such Children should be water baptised as an infant, no excuse for such ignorance !

But for if one was brought up in a family who rejected Christ Jesus and then came to Christ, would be water baptised as of an age of their own calling.

As to the being born again, that's the working of the Holy Spirit in Christ Jesus, God willing.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You make no sense. It'd be the same conscience choice required to willfully commit sin which they, infants, cannot do. Therefore, there's nothing to be removed. There's no such thing as origin sin. It's unscriptural man made-up nonsense.
I made the following points:
  1. Babies don't commit Original Sin by a conscious choice, therefore it can be removed without a conscious choice, in baptism.
  2. So your problem is two-fold, a rejection of the Apostolic teaching on Original Sin, (Romans 5) and a denial of the incarnation principle.
  3. Both Luther and Calvin, the 2 pillars of Protestantism, baptized infants.
  4. It was not a reformist issue, although Calvin disagreed with Luther on baptismal regeneration, and the divisions haven't stopped since.
  5. Modernist liberal Protestants don't care what the reformers practiced, nor do they care about the apostolic practices of the early church.
  6. Adult only baptism was invented well after the Protestant revolt.
Your reply does not address any of the points made. Original sin is not committed. Actual sin is committed which you seem to be hung up on. There is the distinction between original sin and actual sin. The former is much more in a corporate sense, whereas the latter is an individualistic thing. We are fallen creatures – even a baby (because it is human; therefore fallen) – , with original sin.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned—
But you need to synthesize Rom 5:12 with its context and
1 Cor 15:22: 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Note:
“IN Adam,” not “because” of Adam’s original sin, which gave us a propensity, and then we died because of our actual sin,” as you are trying to assert. The Fall is that of the entire human race; we are all in the same boat. Calvin and Luther actually taught a more profound Fall than Catholicism holds, where all free will was destroyed, and man’s very nature became a “sin nature.” Catholics don’t believe that. We think the main effect is concupiscence. (the tendency towards sin) But it is there from the beginning, before actual sin occurs. Death itself is a consequence of this; since no human is physically immortal apart from a supernatural resurrection, we are all therefore fallen (Gen 2:17, 3:1 ff.).
There are a host of biblical proofs for this. King David writes:
Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me (Psalm 51:5)

The context of Romans 5:12 abundantly proves this:

Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass[a] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[b] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Read full chapter

This is clearly teaching that all human beings were affected by original sin, whether we sin actually or not, contrary to your point of view. It is not their own (actual) sin which brings this about, but the sin inherited from Adam and Eve, which constitutes the Fall. We have to be saved from this abnormal state. And this is why most Christians have believed in infant and regenerative baptism, precisely because of the effects of original sin, and the need to counter them.

Again, your view (quite typical of Baptist-type and generic evangelical theology) is excessively individualistic.
This is not the biblical outlook, which is far more communitarian (and which is behind Paul’s thinking in his repeated analogies between Adam and Christ, in the above passage).

Original sin is communal, and in some sense so is salvation, which is why the Bible speaks of whole households being saved, and why we believe that parents can “stand in” for infants. Indeed, in the context of Romans 5, Paul makes the same point, for in Romans 6:2-6 and hinted at after that, he follows through with his analogies by bringing in baptism: we were “buried with him” and then raised with Him in baptism (6:4).

The dominion of the devil is a result of original sin; it caused a catastrophic cosmic disorder (Gen 3:15, Jn 12:31, 14:30, 2 Cor 4:4, Heb 2:14, 2 Pet 2:19). That’s why the theological liberals who deny original sin (if not sin itself) invariably deny the existence of the devil and evil.

The Gnostics and Manichaeans denied original sin by claiming that the moral corruption of mankind came from an external principle of evil. The Pelagians (like you) taught that the sin of Adam was transmitted not by inheritance but merely by the imitation of a bad example. They thought that death, suffering and concupiscence were not punishments for sin, but natural conditions for mankind, which was created in a pure state of nature. And they denied baptismal regeneration and regarded baptism as a sign only. St. Augustine fought against this, and his views were adopted by the medieval Church. Liberal Protestantism denied it.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BreadOfLife

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
893
307
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus was a new born infant too at some point; did he have or was he guilty of so-called "original sin" simply because he was born? Original sin is nonsense. Sin must be committed. It's a transgression.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jesus was a new born infant too at some point; did he have or was he guilty of so-called "original sin" simply because he was born?
A stupid question. God and sin cannot coexist, unless you wish to deny the divinity of Christ.
Original sin is nonsense. Sin must be committed. It's a transgression.
For the third time, Original Sin is not committed. Actual sin is committed.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants: One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, in a sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him, based upon two realities:
  • biologically, we’re his descendants; and
  • theologically, he’s our covenant head.
As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, and people in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternal life is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed; and we contract original sin without consent.
That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

If you were smart, you would stop repeating unbiblical nonsense and back out of this discussion, stop denying the scriptures presented, or support your modernist liberalism with scripture, which you haven't done.
 
Last edited:

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
893
307
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A stupid question. God and sin cannot coexist, unless you wish to deny the divinity of Christ.

For the third time, Original Sin is not committed. Actual sin is committed.

Original sin is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants: One man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men…By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, who have sinned in him. (Rom 5:18-19)

The mystery, of course, is how we sinned in Adam. We sinned in Adam, in a sense, because there is a mystical solidarity we share with him, based upon two realities:
  • biologically, we’re his descendants; and
  • theologically, he’s our covenant head.
As our father, he is our representative in making the covenant with God. Since he broke the covenant, we, his progeny, inherit the consequences. Consider an analogy from human relations: If I mismanaged my business affairs and ended by declaring bankruptcy before passing my estate to my sons and daughter, my creditors could pursue my children, now rendered debtors through our family bond.

In effect, original sin means the loss of sanctifying grace and, therefore, the loss of eternal life. The soul is immortal, and people in hell will live everlastingly, though miserably. Eternal life is more than everlasting. It is God’s life, divine life. God alone is eternal because He utterly transcends time. So when we speak of eternal life, we are talking about sharing in the very being and communion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that is what humanity lost through original sin.

Original sin is hereditary but impersonal. It is contracted, not committed; and we contract original sin without consent.
That is why God can remove original sin without personal consent, as He does with newborn babies on their baptismal day.

If you were smart, you would stop repeating unbiblical nonsense and back out of this discussion, stop denying the scriptures presented, or support your modernist liberalism with scripture, which you haven't done.
No, what's stupid is the unscriptural idea of original sin that man has dreamt up which further propagated other equally stupid ideas such as pouring water on infants as a supposed form of baptism followed by the unscriptural idea of after-the-fact confirmation of belief which is backwards as well. Its ain't in the bible.
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
No, what's stupid is the unscriptural idea of original sin that man has dreamt up which further propagated other equally stupid ideas such as pouring water on infants as a supposed form of baptism followed by the unscriptural idea of after-the-fact confirmation of belief which is backwards as well. Its ain't in the bible.
Please use a biblical argument instead of an emotional one. If there is no original sin, then we don't need baptism and we don't need savior. You're running from post #188 and 189 and now you want to derail with Confirmation because you are unable or won't counter-reply to any of the scriptures I presented. If you refuse to dialogue like an adult, I'll give you the last word and leave you with your modernist liberalism (which you haven't a clue what that means). Good bye.
 

DJT_47

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2022
893
307
63
Michigan/Sterling Heights
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Please use a biblical argument instead of an emotional one. If there is no original sin, then we don't need baptism and we don't need savior. You're running from post #188 and 189 and now you want to derail with Confirmation because you are unable or won't counter-reply to any of the scriptures I presented. If you refuse to dialogue like an adult, I'll give you the last word and leave you with your modernist liberalism (which you haven't a clue what that means). Good bye.
Post 189 is a valid response. Goodbye
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You make no sense. It'd be the same conscience choice required to willfully commit sin which they, infants, cannot do. Therefore, there's nothing to be removed. There's no such thing as origin sin. It's unscriptural man made-up nonsense.

The term “original sin”, likely is a man-made term.
However...
The understanding is...
1) The first male human was (not born) but rather created “with” his own reproducing SEED, and made alive “with” Gods Breath.
2) The first male human was Learning “Good” knowledge from God, Doing “Good” according to his “Good” Learned knowledge...
and then did NOT DO “good”....(by doing according to an other’s Knowledge, rather than God).
3) And THAT was the first ACT of the man “exercising his own Freewill” of choice, WHICH was AGAINST what God had taught him.
4) CONSEQUENCE...
...Separation from Gods Holy Place (Garden)
...Separation from audibly Hearing Gods Voice.
...Corruption of man “reproducing SEED”.
5) The mans “reproducing SEED”...was designed for the man to Reproduce “his” same KIND OF offspring.
6) Yes the mans SEED would reproduce the same KIND of offspring...ie a man.
7) Yes the mans SEED would reproduce the same KIND of offspring...
ie a man LIKE himself:
...”with” Gods Breath of Life
AND
....“Against God”
AND
....”with” Gods Promise
OF
... “Consequences”

Gods Consequences ARE BOTH ... unpleasant and pleasing (for a man).
Unpleasant...Separation From God.
Pleasant.......Forgiveness and Reconciliation With God.

Point being...a mans “reproducing” Seed IS Corrupt.
Point being...a mans “offspring” is naturally Born AGAINST God.


Against God...is neither having heard, known and thus
DOES NOT BELIEVE IN God....Which IS SIN Against God.

IOW, human men (babes) ARE naturally born in Sin...AGAINST GOD


I’m not in agreement with all of @Illuminator teachings.
However what he said about and using the term “original sin”...is spot on.
Humans ARE naturally born...Against God.

The further teaching is ... The Promise ... It begins with the Parents reconciliation WITH God...and teaching their (household) off-spring (born in sin) how they ALSO are Promised, they too can be reconciled WITH God).

* The babe has a process of Learning ABOUT God (surely an individual does not COMMIT to promising something he KNOWS nothing ABOUT).
* Thus the Learning about God...is vested in the Parents duty of their children.
* The Childs Learning about God...thereafter becomes the Childs freewill to BELIEVE what he learns or not.
* NOT a SECRET...learning something NEW...(especially, what one can NOT, see, hear, smell, taste, touch)...is thought about, maybe believed, maybe doubt, wondering...definitely a process.
* The PROCESS...as the child grows, gains knowledge, CONTINUES learning, maturing.....CONTINUES to be the parents duty.
* During the PROCESS...God is Effecting His Promise...
* Gods Promise IS:... one who IS Hearing the Word of God... God SHALL BLESS, that one WITH His gift of “FAITH”.
(It’s a “measured gift”, in that...hear little, Receive little faith, hear more, Receive more faith, and so-forth).

* CHURCHES...that perform Baby Baptism... have Established their Church Doctrine (protocol) to INCLUDE a Promise BY the Parents, TO “their Church”....that they (the Parents)....WILL raise that baby..ACCORDING TO THAT “Churches” taught Doctrine ...
(Beliefs, Rituals, Observances, Etc.)

* The Secondary point of the Baby Baptism... IS it establishes THAT Baby as “A MEMBER of THAT Church”.

* A bit of a overcast there...
...I have no problem with a PARENT choosing to Promise to “their Church”, that the parent will “promise to raise their child according to “That” Churches Doctrines, rituals, observances, etc.)
...I am not in agreement, to MAKING the child (without his knowledge or understanding, agreement or choice), a MEMBER of that Church.

* The Big Picture has relieved the parents of their “duty”...and passed that “responsibility” on to “their” Church.

* The secondary ISSUE, I am not in agreement with...
~ Whether Taught, or Presumed...by the growing child...that the child’s understanding IS having BEEN water, baby Baptized....MEANT he became “INDWELT” with Gods Holy Spirit Baptism...(without his knowledge, without his Belief and without his confession of Belief)...which IS FALSE.

* Churches have their own established Doctrines...individuals adults choose...and individual parents make choices for their children...UNTIL the child becomes an adult to make his own choices.
* Remembering, Abram’s father was a idol maker, teaching Abram the same, Abram doing the same...AND ultimately when Abram was an Adult...he listened, learned, from his Holy Father...and Chose to walk away from the teachings of his earthly father...To the teachings of his Holy Father.

* Baby Baptisms...simply individual “Churches” teachings.

* “Original sin”... is simply being naturally conceived of a mans corrupt SEED and naturally born AGAINST God.


Glory to God,
Taken
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moses_the_younger

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,929
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus was a new born infant too at some point; did he have or was he guilty of so-called "original sin" simply because he was born? Original sin is nonsense. Sin must be committed. It's a transgression.

Jesus was NOT a human brought forth out of the Dust of the Earth, nor “reproduced” by a human mans Seed.

Jesus Christ was, is, shall always BE Spirit, without a Beginning.
Heb 13:
[8] Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Jesus was introduced to the World...in the likeness AS A “Jewish Babe”, lawfully born of the direct ancestry line...of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, AND the House of king David...
(All the necessary (LAWFUL...mans law AND Gods law) qualifications FOR Jesus to:
1) Lawfully be entitled as an Heir to Abraham’s Promised Land.
2) Lawfully be entitled as an Heir to king David’s (everlasting throne IN Jerusalem, that which God established)

(The Throne is not about a CHAIR, rather is about a Governing OFFICE. Presently there is no “earthly” king of the Jews/Tribes/World....however Jesus has the Lawful qualification FOR that position.)

Jesus...called the Son of Man...a Jew...and multiple characteristics about Him revealed, with descriptive words and titles....Son of God, the Word of God, the LIFE, the Truth...etc.

Christ...called the Messiah...Knowledge revealed Jesus IS the Christ...and
The Christ IS; the Power of God, the Wisdom of God, the Seed of God, the Spirit of God...

The FACT IS...
BEFORE “JESUS” (the Word of God) came forth OUT from Marys Womb...
The Word of God was...IN Gods MOUTH.
The Word of God was...SENT forth out from Gods MOUTH.
The Word of God was...PREPARED a BODY, by God.
The Word of God IN .....His Prepared BODY was SENT to Mary’s virgin Womb.
The Word of God...IN the Likeness AS A MAN, was revealed to the world.
AND Later....The Word of God, in the Likeness AS a MAN, was revealed to the world...He IS the Christ.
AND? The World (people of any Nation)...can Believe it...or Not.

That IS NOT the method which Applies to the “reproduction” and “birth” of a Human earthly man.

If you require help in finding IN Scripture...
...in Gods mouth, sent forth, prepared body, Likeness As, revealed IS the Christ...ask me.

Human men are from corrupt human Seeds.
Jesus is not a Human.
Jesus is the Christ, IS the Seed of God.
Jesus HAD no sin.

Glory to God,
Taken
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moses_the_younger

Veronakxm

New Member
Dec 16, 2022
5
2
3
36
Norway
Faith
Christian
Country
Zambia
Добрый день.
Ваш форум мне показался очень привлекательным и перспективным.
Хочу купить рекламное место для баннера в вверху сайта, за $800 в месяц.
Оплачивать буду через WebMoney, 50% сразу, а 50% через 2 недели. И еще, адрес моего блога Последние новости Беларуси 2022 | Beljizn.by - он не будет противоречить тематике? Спасибо!
Напишите о Вашем решении мне в ПМ или на почту [email protected]
 

Veronamvm

New Member
Dec 23, 2022
5
1
3
45
Guatemala
Faith
Christian
Country
Maldives
Доброго времени суток.
Ваш форум мне показался очень привлекательным и перспективным.
Хочу купить рекламное место для баннера в шапке, за $800 в месяц.
Платить буду через WebMoney, 50% сразу, а 50% через 2 недели. И еще, адрес моей страницы Последние новости Беларуси 2022 | Beljizn.by - он не будет противоречить тематике? Спасибо!
Напишите о Вашем решении мне в ПМ или на почту [email protected]
 

Jim B

Well-Known Member
Jun 5, 2020
5,793
1,797
113
Santa Fe NM
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Доброго времени суток.
Ваш форум мне показался очень привлекательным и перспективным.
Хочу купить рекламное место для баннера в шапке, за $800 в месяц.
Платить буду через WebMoney, 50% сразу, а 50% через 2 недели. И еще, адрес моей страницы Последние новости Беларуси 2022 | Beljizn.by - он не будет противоречить тематике? Спасибо!
Напишите о Вашем решении мне в ПМ или на почту [email protected]
Translated, this is an offer to buy ad space. This person should be blocked from the forum.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Post 189 is a valid response. Goodbye
No - post #189 is a textbook example of Scriptural ignorance.
Let's start with Psalm 51, which says:

Psalm 51:5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.


Paul also assures us that we are BORN in sin

Rom. 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned

Jesus wasn’t born in sin because He is GOD – and was God BEFORE His incarnation.
As a Protestant – your reject Mary’s Immaculate Conception. One of the most popular verses used by Protestants to illustrate this “fact” is Rom. 3:

Rom. 3:23
“. . . for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

According to YOUR logic, Jesus is part of “ALL” – is He not?
And if you say, “No” – your point about Original Sin is mo