Posted on 03/07/2015 12:04:48 PM PST by Colofornian
In fact, this verse argues the exact opposite of what you are putting into it:
"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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many" (Rom 5:12-15)
So if death enters "by sin," but if there is no law there is no sin, why then do people die who have no law? The "neveretheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses," would imply that there must have been some law prior to the coming of Moses of which they were all being destroyed for. And that can only be the "offense of one" which was being imputed upon all the descendants of Adam. This also does not speak of merely having the "ability" to sin, but condemns them for "all have sinned," including children, which can only be true if all humanity was involved in the sin of Adam.
It certainly isn't impossible. I read Augustine, and became a Calvinist, because Calvinism is just Augustinianism.
Provide it, and also with a link so we can see what Catholic website is promoting it. I have a nasty surprise for you when you post it.
Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
The point is: if you (or a baby) has no knowledge of the law (or natural law) there is no sin accounted to you (or a baby)...
Sprinkling a baby will do no more for the baby that it will do for your petunias when you sprinkle them...Actually the petunias will benefit more...
Sprinkling a baby will do no more for its soul than sprinkling an avowed muzlim, or hindu...
No one gets saved in the bible except that they first turn to Jesus, whether they get water baptized or not...
That is one of the penalties of the original sin of Adam and Eve...Whether we sin or don't sin, we still have to work and die (and then the judgment)...The sin or no sin question determines our destination after death...
Well, #1...when I hear you complain about the Mormons making 12 yo part of their Aaronic priesthood...well, then I'll know this may really be of concern to you.
#2...It's almost as if you haven't dug into your Bible very thoroughly:
For example, these Passages (note the bold-face):
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for. 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2)
Who do you think "you" who are the "chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation" are?
What? You think married Peter was referencing a "nation" of batchelor priests?
Tell ya what: Google "priesthood of all believers"
Here's another verse:
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has MADE US to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! (Revelation 1:5-6)
But this point ignores the problem: the sin and death that has passed on all men, including babies who perish.
As for baptism-- we do not believe in baptismal regeneration. The point of baptism is that children, who are not free from sin, and are not free from faith either (like John the Baptist in the womb!), are just as worthy of baptism and into the full life of the church and all its privileges as anyone else. It is not true that there is an "age of accountability," or that confessional baptism is superior, because as valid members of the church (for Peter says that the promise is to us AND our children in Acts), they should not be restrained from receiving its rights.
An unbelieving adult who spouts "making a decision for Christ" isn't anything but an adult with false security reinforced by a church failing to disciple him or her
Wanna ensure people see this kind of "logic" in action:
There are some common things that are required for salvation...One is God's grace...The next is repentance (turning to Jesus), and the last is Faith (not in a religion)...
OK, 3 requirements, says Iscool:
1. God's grace
2. Repentance (turning to Jesus)
3. Faith (beyond faith in a religion)
Now, let's review the six Biblical passages that Iscool selected to critique baptism...and apply them to #1 above:
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
There's Matthew's version...
Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
That's Luke's version...No...
Act 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Conversion without
Act 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
No...
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Again, no...
Act 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,
Act 20:21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance and Faith...Obviously...
Does this properly represent Paul's expressions on grace?
No.
This is an outright attempt at cherry-picking deception.
And all I had to do was change Iscool's use of the word "baptism" to "grace" to show you who the author of that deception was.
Yeah, well, I would hope we would all know Ephesians 2:8-9, which says: 8 For it is BY GRACE you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
As Iscool says in post #64, grace is indeed an essential "requirement" for salvation.
Yet I review your cherry picking of the chapters of Scripture -- in this case Acts 3 -- please show any verse in Acts 3 which talks about grace.
By your deceptive logic, grace wouldn't be a "requirement" for that which we've been discussing.
#1) I guess I should have added a sarcasm tag to my post, you seem to have missed I was being sarcastic....I thought it would be obvious.
#2) I don’t have to Google priesthood of all believers, I am one and I preach it from the pulpit. I case you haven’t figured it out yet I am an Evangelical born again believer, I am not a Catholic.
Peace and chill out! LOL
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
BTW..I do not baptise children who do not understand what baptism is and are unable to make such a decision to give themselves fully to the Lord. The youngest we have baptized was 8 but normally not under 12. I have however baptized lots of adults.
Well indeed apparently Paul didn't do many baptisms...we know he baptized the household of Stephanas -- 1 Cor. 1:16...and of course, the anti-baptists folks like yourself would need to need to prove that no children were living in that household...'cause really all it would it take is for Paul to have baptized one young child...and poof...there goes the total anti-paedo baptism argument.
But let's review your logic for a moment:
1. Paul says not sent to baptize.
2. Therefore, you claim, baptism is NOT the Gospel
3. "Those passages are difficult to understand if water baptism is necessary for salvation."
4. "If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved."
5. Baptism is not efficacious for salvation (repeating your pt #2)
OK. Who said the following?
34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW... (Matthew 10:34-35)
OK, I think some of us might recognize that as Jesus.
So, let's apply your logic -- as applied to Paul -- this time to Jesus
1. Jesus says not sent to bring peace
2. Therefore, especially in light of all the family conflict mentioned in Matt. 10:35 by Jesus, peace and reconciliation is not the Gospel
3. Those passages in Matthew 10 are difficult to understand if the peace-on-earth, goodwill-to-men special type of peace & reconciliation brought by Jesus is necessary for an eternal community living forever together in heaven
4. If peace & reconciliation were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Jesus to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom, but not bring peace & reconciliation in the process? No one would have been ever reconciled -- either to God or to fellow mankind
5. Peace & reconciliation is not efficacious for salvation
And yet...what part does Paul say that reconciliation is part of the Gospel??
Do you realize what was recorded in that Acts 3 sermon was less than 350 words? (Of which over 80 of them were 3 letters or less?)
A good chunk of posts on threads like these are over 350 words.
What? Do you think the Biblical accounts were manned by stenographers and its leaders' sermons covered to the nth degree like C-Span?
I'm not sure who I should give out a new FREEPER award on this thread to -- you or Iscool.
I'll call the award, the "John 3:16 Critique Award"
Tell you what. You both can compete for it.
All you have to do is list the 1800 million things we know that are of God that Jesus failed to mention in John 3:16.
You each have til the time change kicks in within your time zone.
(Gentleman, good luck!)
Well, thanks for clarifying!
And contributing to the thread!
All souls who have inhabited a body proceeding out of Adam's DNA must suffer physical death; that is, separation of the soul and spirit from a no-longer-functioning meat body system. That is the kind of death that the new-born infant must suffer sometime after birth. He is born to die. Even Jesus was. That is the kind of death brought in by Adam's sin.
But Adam's sin also caused spiritual death--the inability of man's spirit to communicate with God's Spirit. Unless that baby is rescued, he/she will the suffer Eternal death, the Lake of Fire.
When sin is not imputed, as with the babe who is not conscious of the law, the babe might have to experience an early physical death, but its original sin will be overlooked, and its soul and spirit will be given both Eternal and spiritual life: he will come under The Blood.
Neither the blood of bulls, nor of goats, nor of the water of human visible baptism can take away sins. Only Jesus' Blood can do that. And after being made aware of sin, of righteousness, and of imminent judging by God, the person who fails to appropriate Jesus' work and resurrection power will also die physically, remain spiritually dead, and be given over to Eternal but conscious death, ultimately in the lake of fire.
One who responds to this awareness by admitting his depravity and casting himself on God's unfailing mercy will experience the graceful spiritual covering and cleansing of Jesus' blood shed for him, and will have Jesus' righteousness imputed to him, and will pass immediately into spiritual life and communication with God and His Son through the Holy Spirit, will receive Eternal, abundant Life immediately, never to cease; and at an appropriate time chosen by The Father, will also have a new never-dying flesh body to house his/her preserved soul and spirit.
And in that Paradise, there will be individuals who, as babes, never committed sin and to whom the original sin transmitted with their temporary tent of Adam's flesh was never imputed to their account by God.
In this all, the proper use of water baptism, as a visible external announcement of an internal change by faith in Christ and His Blood, has no effect one way or the other. It only relates to the authorized enlistment of a person into His Church and into His service while on earth.
Water baptism can never take away sins. To think otherwise is both intellectually and spiritually foolish.
Two thoughts:
1) It's an assumption on your part that "original sin" will be overlooked. In fact, if "all have fallen short" of the glory of God, and if "no one can see the Kingdom of heaven" unless they are born again, then it is absolute that God overlooks no sin, even original, for all sin is heinous in the sight of God.
2) The scripture makes not just physical death, but spiritual "condemnation" universal by imputation of Adam, in parallel to the justification that is imputed by Christ to believers:
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
If eternal life is a matter of justification, then "judgment and condemnation" must not refer merely to physical death, but to an entire condemnation entirely.
Furthermore, going back to the point that Paul made: where there is no law, there is no sin; nevertheless, from Adam to Moses death reigned. Clearly these men who were not under any law were subject to death and sin, and this can only be through the condemnation of Adam that passed onto all men, not their "many offenses," but "one offense" passing on death and judgment and condemnation to all.
Of couse it can, because it has not at birth been employes to commit sin--there is no sinning to be accounted for. And where there is no conscious awareness of law, natural or Mosaic, there is no sin imputed after birth. Tjis is not an assumption.
2) The scripture makes not just physical death, but spiritual "condemnation" universal by imputation of Adam,
Where there is no sin committed nor imputed, there is no blockage of spiritual life with its concomitant communication, AFIK. Of course, considering the transmission and consciousness of law:
"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:
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;) . . ." (Rom 2:14-15 AV).
Though any babe has the law written naturally in its heart, but it takes time for the awareness of it to set in and bring the person into account. God knows when this happens. Then without the convicting Gospel, the person is condemned.
. . .from Adam to Moses death reigned. . . .
This is physical death that reigned, not spiritual death. By acknowledgement on God, trusting in Jehovah *Christ) and invoking His Name, righteousness was imputed to them and hence real spiritual life recommenced, as in the Garden.
And finally, Moses was able to communicate to us what Elohim gave him to tell us through the written Word of God. So there was spiritual and Eternal life available all along, available to an who trusted God, as did Enoch. Without faith it is impossible to please God (babies excepted, IMHO).
1) The person is under "judgment and condemnation" already due to Adam (Rom 5:18). It is not due to their personal offenses, "but the offense of one." You are claiming that there is no condemnation until they offend anew, but this isn't what the verses say.
Again, "For as in Adam all die," and we are regarded already, as by nature, "children of wrath," "unclean" from the very womb, "shaped in iniquity," going forth from birth doing evil. Not "for in our sins we die," or "in our awareness of our sins we die," but "in Adam" we die, quite clearly meaning that we sin in Adam and participate in that common condemnation to not only our physical death, but our eternal condemnation, being born objects of God's wrath. In us there is our inherited sin from Adam, differentiated from our actual sin, and both these sins make us utterly unacceptable to God.
This is physical death that reigned, not spiritual death. By acknowledgement on God, trusting in Jehovah *Christ) and invoking His Name, righteousness was imputed to them and hence real spiritual life recommenced, as in the Garden.
This must be spiritual death, for when Adam sinned he died spiritually, and then begot us after his own image (not after God's) (Gen 5:3). It is only through Christ that we regain the image of God, and thus our spiritual life that was lost in Adam (Col 3:10, Eph 4:24).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.