Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
The way you redefine them, they might.
What part of 'born in sin' can't you comprehend? And no the statement does not allow exceptions. If you don't believe this as well why does YOUR church practice INFANT BAPTISM?
As to Mary, please provide one New Testament verse that specifcally says she was born sinless.......
Amazing bigotry there.
Hatred does not become you.
It is impossible to know. But it is also a moot point, as the sins of children are not held against them till the age of reckoning (14 years AFAIR).
Please explain Genesis 3:15. Who is “the woman” what is the enmities that protect her seen (Jesus Christ) from Satan (note: the enmities are the SAME) and why is the woman crushing Satan’s head?
Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(e-Sword: KJV)
(e-Sword: ASV)
(Bible Gateway: NIV)
I think it would be more accurate to say something like . . . take the Greek, put it in a VitaMix blender on high; pour it out and mix it with the spatters from the bottom of the parrot cage . . . then spray to the 4 winds in a hurricane . . .
Then claim that there's sufficient solid, sensible, logical foundation left to build a skyscraper thereon.
I mean, it's hard to avoid resulting in a Protty rubber dictionary given our persistent associations with the rubber book factory . . . but we have to be diligent and try to keep the terms sensibly accurate.
Great points, as usual. Thx.
The part where you think "born in sin" means an infant "has sinned."
Personal sin and original sin are two different things. The Bible verse you are wearing out says "all have sinned."
But you agreed that this infant in question did not, and could not have sinned. So the Bible verse must allow for exceptions.
If you don't believe this as well why does YOUR church practice INFANT BAPTISM?
Because of original sin. Not becasue we believe a two-day old child is guilty of pooping his pants.
Is it? Really? You can't tell if a one-day old infant has committed a sin? Maybe he got a little gluttonous with his Mama? Maybe he tried to annoy dad by pooping during the big game?
But it is also a moot point, as the sins of children are not held against them till the age of reckoning
It's not a moot point. If the text in question allows for exceptions, then it is not an absolute refutation of the idea of a person being free from sin.
That’s my point, sorry you missed it.
Playskool gibberish.
I try to avoid speaking beyond the expectations and perceptual skills of my readers/listeners . . . sometimes . . .
though not always.
The only difference between an infant and a tyrant is the amount of applicable power. Among mankind, there is no more selfish and self-centered a creature, quick to anger, inconsolable, uncompromising, and without consideration. Were it not for instinctive protections imposed upon the mature, the human race would have died out long ago. ; )
It's not a moot point. If the text in question allows for exceptions, then it is not an absolute refutation of the idea of a person being free from sin.
It is impossible to gauge the mind of an infant. Your position is formed upon something that cannot be proven, athough subjective evidences within my observations are not in your favor.
If the Bible says ALL have sinned, then I will believe that it is true.
That notion is ridiculous. How does an infant form intent to sin?
I think you may not have a complete understanding of sin. Sin is the choice to do what is wrong. Children and the mentally deficient lack the capacity to fully understand right and wrong and the consequences of their choices. That's why we don't imprison the insane.
I have no idea of an infant's capacities within it's soul, and neither do you.
The post was meant to be facetious, Petro. That's what the little winky-face was for.
Yes, that's right.
But, then you hypocritically attack sola scriptura as not being valid since a verse does not specifically say 'sola scriptura' (even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written).
Tell me you really didn't write that.
The phrase "sola scriptura" is NOT the basis of my argument. The fact that the concept is neither stated nor implied is the real basis of my argument.
even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written
We already did this. "What is written" does NOT say anything about the Bible.
Paul was referring to anything that contradicts Scripture.
Prove it.
Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
If Christ Himself doesn't violate your reading of 3:28, why does Mary have to? I see no qualifier in that verse.
Probably the same reason there are contradictory RCC 'traditions'.
Hardly, we don't spin off another congregation every time a significant portion of the church think the color of the new carpet isn't sanctified enough.
Yes, I do believe in an age of accountability. It was I that had made mention thereof. That does not mean that children don't sin, but that their sins are not held against them. That is a significant difference.
Tricky subject.
Something slightly relevant to consider are the words King David found in 2nd Samuel 12:23.
Just some food for thought.
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.