Infant Baptism and Original Sin part 1

[BoerVanPretoria]

My friend just read the rest of the verse too. Jesus came to give righteousness to ALL men. So does that then mean no one need to believe, we all are saved automatically??? No we still need to believe in Christ. Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offenceof onejudgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[horseman528]

No one sins until they come to a knowledge of sin. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. All people are born with a tendency to sin but it doesn't come into play until they have a knowledge of what sin is. All will sin if they live long enuf to know that they're sinning. God does not hold a baby responsible for something it has no knowledge of. If a baby dies before it comes to an ability to know right and wrong it will go to heaven even if it wasn't baptised.

[Mkvine]

@horseman528

I don't think we disagree too much. In the Catholic Church we make a distinction between personal sin and original sin. Personal sin is that which is done with full knowledge and consent of someone. Original sin is the sinful nature that we inherited from Adam. Everyone is born with a sinful nature.

[horseman528]

@Mkvine You seem like a very knowledgable person. Whats your interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:15. If an unbeliever is married to a christian and the unbeliever leaves the marriage for reasons other than adultry, is the christian free to remarry? There is division in the church I go to over the interpretation of this scripture and I would like to read what you think since you appear to be well studied. Sorry, I know this is off topic.

[Mkvine]

@horseman528

The Church needs to recognize if the marriage is valid. A marriage between a baptized catholic and non catholic can be declared valid. Once the marriage is valid it is indissoluble. If the person decides to leave and marry someone else, they are committing adultery because they are technically still married. One can take the case to the Church to see if the marriage was valid or not, and if not, they can get an annulment.

[Mkvine]

@horseman528

You can also ask this question or search for similar questions on EWTN.com. Just PM me if you need a link or help.

[kiwichristian2009]

Infant baptism isnt a Biblical practice.they cannot place his/her faith in Christ.cannot make a decision to obey Christ.An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes.The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.I.B is the origin of the sprinkling and pouring methods of baptism-as it is unwise and unsafe to immerse an infant under water.Even the method of infant baptism fails to agree with the Bible.How does pouring/sprinkling picture the death,burial,and resurrection?

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 1). First of all, you need to watch the video. Second, of all, can you provide a verse that says not to baptize infants? If you can't then I don't think you should be making such dogmatic statements. Third of all, after “Peter said to them, 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'”

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 2).This command was not restricted only to adults because the verse continues to say “For the promise is for you and for your children” (Acts 2:37-39). Fourth of all, scripture says that "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). The term “household” does include children, as is seen in 1 Tim3:4 “He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” and...

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 3). and “Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household” (Gen 36:6). Fifth of all, Paul makes note that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). But we know that circumcision in the old convenant happened primarily with 8 day old children (Gen 17:12), with the exception of converts. If Paul meant for baptism to exclude infants, then he wouldn't of used circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 4). Finally, Jesus himself said "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Mat 19:14). It seems to me that you are the one who is hindering the little children from coming to Christ.

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 5). In regards to baptism by immersion, Catholics do allow for that. In fact, it is a common practice of the eastern Catholic churches. It is true that the Greek word baptizo found in the New Testament means "to immerse,” however, that is not its only meaning. Sometimes it just means washing up. Thus Luke 11:38 reports that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, "the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [baptizo] before dinner."

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 6). Does that mean that Jesus had to immerse himself before eating? In Acts 1:4–5 Jesus charged his disciples "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, ‘you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’" Did this mean they would be "immersed" in the Spirit?

[Mkvine]

@kiwichristian2009

Part 7). No: three times Acts 2 states that the Holy Spirit was poured out on them when Pentecost came (2:17, 18, 33). Also, Peter speaks of the Holy Spirit falling upon them in reference to baptism (Acts 11:17-18).

[gerryboy101]

early church fathers condoned infant baptism. there is your answer

[Sigmanuwife]

Original sin is false.

[atomac23]

if human sare born with sin becouse of Adam , then and Jesus was a sinner , he was boen by human mother. You might say he was god reincarnate on earth, but that still does not denaying his human nature. He can not be god.

[Mkvine]

God by his Grace preserved Mary from the stain of original sin so that the Word can become immaculately incarnate. This way his human nature was without sin. The Ark of the Covenant was pure and holy because the presence of the ten commandments (the written word God) was there. Mary represents the Ark of the New Covenant where the presence of the Incarnate Word of God was there.

[atomac23]

Prove it from Bible . Quot me your book when talk about this topic. If you talk from your head that would be billion christians =billion different views on God.

[Mkvine]

I already made a video on this subject, so I would refer you to that. But to give you a brief answer, first, you have to realize that as a Catholic I am not bound by sola scriptura - the Bible alone. What I am bound by is Sacred Scripture (the Bible), Sacred Tradition and the Church Magisterium. I can give you evidences from all....

[Mkvine]

In Genesis 3:15 God states that there is to be an enmity between the "woman" and the serpent, and this enmity is shared between her seed and its seed. Her seed is the messiah, who had a perfect and victorious enmity towards the serpent - Satan. The mother of the messiah is said to share the same enmity—total opposition—with Satan. If Mary, "the woman" had any sin, then she would not be in enmity with the devil. This is supported by St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius and St Cyprian

[Mkvine]

The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). Notice how the angel didn't address her by her name, but rather by her title full of grace. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary. When we sin, we reject the grace of God. Therefore, to be full of grace means that no sin dwells in you..... (cont)

[Mkvine]

(cont). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

[Mkvine]

Exodus 25:11-21 - the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God's Word. Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh.

[Mkvine]

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled and nothing unclean or sinful can touch it. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

[Mkvine]

"This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one." Origen, Homily 1

"Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother." Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8

"Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin." Ambrose, Sermon 22:30

[virtuallad06]

Acts 16:15 Household comes from the greek word Oikos which means a household with children and infants

[elmisterc]

How could adam commit a sin if he was inocent (before he accepted to eat the fruit, he had no knowledge of right or wrong)?

Adam and Eve were not created bodily inmortal because, God created a tree of life of which the fruit would give anyone who eats it inmortality.

[Mkvine]

Obviously you do not know the reality of original sin. If you can show me a single verse that says NOT to baptize infants, yes you would have a case, but yup you guessed it, its not there. I'm glad you brought up circumcision since Col 2:11-13 makes a parallel with baptism and circumcision, and guess what... 8 day old boys were circumcised. Look at my previous posts down below to see my reasoning.

[hugiaino]

I don't need your reasoning.... I am an "Old School Baptist" [unlike anything you have ever known]..... I go by the Bible and elders who have been ordained in perpetuity for 16 hundred years! Doctrine - have you ever heard the term? It never changes - like God Himself. I believe in "original sin" but Baptism can never eradicate it! Baptismal regeneration is heresy!

[Mkvine]

It's not my reasoning, its the bible's teaching. Yes baptism removes original sin. Act 2:38 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Here baptism removes your sins, it doesn't distinguish between what kind of sin, so this implies that original sin is also removed. I have NEVER heard of "Old school baptist" LOL

[brentrnelson]

So baptismal regeneration is what you believe to be true?

[Mkvine]

when you are baptized, you are regenerated.

[brentrnelson]

So if a child dies before being baptized they go to hell?

[Mkvine]

The Church has never taught that. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraph 1261 it says "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation....

[Mkvine]

(cont.) ... for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." The church has not pronounced an infallible doctrine on this yet, it has been speculated that the children are in Abraham's bosom. Again, the Church has not pronounced infallibly on this matter. But because of the reality of original sin, children should not be deprived of baptism and should b baptized as soon as poss

[brentrnelson]

The speaker refers to Ezekiel's "sprinkle clean water on you" as a prooftext for infant baptism. This text does not have to do with baptism but does still refer to regeneration. Regeneration is always proved by repentence. If you claim that infants are born-again yet that infant does not believe or repent of his sins, then in fact he has not been born again.

[Mkvine]

First of all, he does not use Ezekiel as proof for infant baptism, per se, he uses it for baptism in general. He parallels Ezekiel to Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 in saying that all three verses talk about having our filthiness(sin) removed and receiving God's spirit. He is just showing how the Old testament is fulfilled in the New Testament. Also, no where in scripture does it say that infants have to repent to be born again or baptized.

[Mkvine]

(cont. 2) This is an impossibility as we both know. However, parents can profess the faith of their children on their behalf. There are instances in scripture where the faith of the parents is what gets the child healed (Matthew 15:22-28) or that the faith of the master heals the servant (Matthew 8:6-13). Also, there is a connection in scripture with the circumcision in the old covenant and baptism in the new covenant.

[Mkvine]

(cont. 3) Colossians 2: 11-13 "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins..."

[Mkvine]

(cont.4) Israel was the church before Christ (Acts 7:38, Romans 9:4). Circumcision, given to 8-day old boys, was the seal of the covenant God made with Abraham, which applies to us also (Galatians 3:14,29). It was a sign of repentance and future faith (Romans 4:11). Infants were just as much a part of the covenant as adults (Genesis 17:7, Deuteronomy 29:10-12, cf. Matthew 19:14). Likewise, baptism is the seal of the New Covenant in Christ.

[Mkvine]

(cont.5) It signifies cleansing from sin, just as circumcision did (Deuteronomy 10:16, 30:6, Jeremiah 4:4, 9:25, Romans 2:28-9, Philippians 3:3). So under the old covenant, if 8 day old boys could get circumcised, in which the father professed the faith on behalf of the child, why not under the new covenant as well? Like I said, colossians makes a link between baptism and circumcision.

[brentrnelson]

In Ezek 23:27 God promises "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances." Someone who is born again exercises faith in Christ and a continual repentance from sin. A baby does not do this. Baptism as taught in the Bible is an identification with Christ's death, burial, and ressurection. It is a decision made my the believer in Christ.

[Mkvine]

The instances in which baptism speak about repentance, the audience is adults, so of course the Apostles will tell them to repent, walk with Christ, ect. This is because they are at the age of reason. However, scripture also talks about a believer baptizing his whole household (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, 1 Corinthians 1:16). It is very likely that someone's household contains children since the following verses talk about a household having children:

[rdy4grace]

Amen, this should be so obvious. There are so many itching ears out there. I've heard way to many "Christians" believe they have a free ticket to heaven because they were baptized as an infant. Americas religion is so backwards.

[brentrnelson]

(Correction Ezek 36:27)

Ezek 36: 25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols."

Regeneration also includes a turning away from idolatry; the creating (in wood or stone or in your own mind) of a god other than the Triune God. You, as a Catholic, worship the Queen of Heaven and pray to Saints. This is idolatry is it not?

[Mkvine]

No, I as a Catholic do not worship Mary and the saints. You do not have an understanding of our teaching on the Communion of Saints. This is getting off topic, but if you want to talk about and discuss this, I would be more than happy to :)

[brentrnelson]

You pray to Mary and the Saints? They have merit stored up for you?

[Mkvine]

Well, first of all before I answer your questions, I want to know what is YOUR understanding of the catholic devotion to Mary and the saints.

[Mkvine]

(cont. 2) Genesis 36:6 "Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his HOUSEHOLD;" Genesis 18:19 "For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his HOUSEHOLD after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just;" Genesis 47:12 "Joseph also provided his father and his brothers and all his father's HOUSEHOLD with food, according to the number of their children;"

[Mkvine]

(cont. 3) 1 Chronicles 10:6 "So Saul and his three sons died, and all his HOUSE died together;" 1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."

2 Timothy 3:16 "ALL Scripture is inspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness"

[Mkvine]

by the way do you believe in original sin?

[brentrnelson]

Definately. In Adam all died. He was our representative. We need a Savior and are incapable of saving ourselves in any way.

[brentrnelson]

I disagree with Catholic infant baptism as well as with Reformed infant baptism. But I am reformed.

[Mkvine]

If you do not believe in infant baptism, then I too can say that you are arguing from silence. So my point is that both of us have to find scriptural foundations and principles to substantiate our claims. I believe based on the principles the speaker talks about, infant baptism is necessary.

[brentrnelson]

What I mean by "An argument from silence is no argument at all." is this:

Many reformers use this as a defense for infant baptism. The problem with this defense is that it if you use this logic to prove your doctrine you could come up with many different types of false teaching. For example, I could say, "I believe that Christians should part their hair to the left because the Bible doesn't speak against it." This just doesn't work you know?

[Mkvine]

The argument that the speaker is making is that the Bible doesn't say baptize infants, nor does it say NOT to baptize infants. So either way, you have to accept one or the other. If you believe in NOT baptizing infants, then the same argument can be used against you "argument from silence." The same goes vice versa. The best solution to this is to find scriptural principles or foundations for each case. The speaker supports infant baptism bec of the reality of original sin. Watch the whole vid.

[Mkvine]

After you watch the whole video and know where he is coming from, then u can make ur decision.

[brentrnelson]

My wife and I have are reformed when it comes to salvation, but we have been studying infant baptism and would disagree with the Reformers about it.

[brentrnelson]

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

[Mkvine]

What do you mean by that?