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.
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!
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.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.
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.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.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.
If one came from a Christen Nation then all of such Children should be water baptised as an infant, no excuse for such ignorance !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.
I made the following points: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.
A stupid question. God and sin cannot coexist, unless you wish to deny the divinity of Christ.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?
For the third time, Original Sin is not committed. Actual sin is committed.Original sin is nonsense. Sin must be committed. It's a transgression.
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.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:
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.
- biologically, we’re his descendants; and
- theologically, he’s our covenant head.
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.
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.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.
Post 189 is a valid response. GoodbyePlease 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.
just a friendly reminder . Never follow the RCC . Never . Course i THINK ya know that . Be blessed my friend .Post 189 is a valid response. Goodbye
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.
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.
Thnx but the warning to me is not necessary. I've been a baptized believer for almost 50yrs.just a friendly reminder . Never follow the RCC . Never . Course i THINK ya know that . Be blessed my friend .
Stay dug in that bible .
Translated, this is an offer to buy ad space. This person should be blocked from the forum.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]
No - post #189 is a textbook example of Scriptural ignorance.Post 189 is a valid response. Goodbye