Original Sin Or Committed Sin

[drfuss]

Within the past year, my infant granddaughter was baptized in their Presbyterian church. Upon inquiring about the reason for infant baptism, I was told that the baby's sinful condition was covered by baptism until she is old enough to make a commitment to Christ for herself.

Apparently, infant baptism assumes we need forgiveness for our sinful condition at birth. Those who believe in infant baptism therefore believe in Christ dying for our original sin condition as well as for our sins.

Those who do not believe in infant baptism, should believe that Christ died only for our sins and not our original sinful condition since the concern for the original sinful condition is not addressed. As I missing something?

Is this correct or am I reading too much into the connection between infant baptism and original sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: Is this correct or am I reading too much into the connection between infant baptism and original sin?

HP: You are right on target as far as I can tell.:thumbsup: The remission of original sin is precisely why they started and continue today baptizing infants. It is clearly an unscriptural practice.

 

[billwald]

>The remission of original sin is precisely why they started and continue today baptizing infants. It is clearly an unscriptural practice.

Then infants are legally regenerate until they reach the unmentionable age, yes? Then they become an unregenerate adult, yes? OK with me.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I might ask, but where does it indicate infants are unregenerate in need of regeneration, and even then when does it indicate that to baptize an infant would cure the problem?

 

[drfuss]

Baptist do not believe in infant baptism and only believe in believers baptism. Infant baptism is only to take care of forgiveness of original sin.

From this perspective, it would follow that Baptist should not believe that orginal sin by itself can send anyone to hell. Therefore, Baptists should believe that people without Christ go to hell only because of the sin they choose to commit, not the sin nature they were born with.

 

[annsni]

Baptist do not believe in infant baptism and only believe in believers baptism. Infant baptism is only to take care of forgiveness of original sin.

From this perspective, it would follow that Baptist should not believe that orginal sin by itself can send anyone to hell. Therefore, Baptists should believe that people without Christ go to hell only because of the sin they choose to commit, not the sin nature they were born with.

I disagree with what you're saying. I believe that every single person born is headed to hell unless Christ chooses to not send them there. I do not believe baptism to do anything "salvation-wise" to anyone but it is a public declaration of a changed heart. But I absolutely believe in original sin and that baptism does not regenerate.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Drfuss: Therefore, Baptists should believe that people without Christ go to hell only because of the sin they choose to commit, not the sin nature they were born with.

HP: Another astute observation. That is precisely how the Arminians I have worshiped with believe. Although the retain the notion of original sin, they do not attach any moral guilt to it.

To me, both Calvinists and Arminians miss the boat with Augustinian original sin. With that said, I do NOT attach ‘heresy’ to either of their positions. I strongly disagree, and I beleive they are inconsistent in their positions, but know full well many if not most are my brothers and sisters in the Lord and as such are no heretics. :thumbsup:

 

[drfuss]

I disagree with what you're saying. I believe that every single person born is headed to hell unless Christ chooses to not send them there. I do not believe baptism to do anything "salvation-wise" to anyone but it is a public declaration of a changed heart. But I absolutely believe in original sin and that baptism does not regenerate.

Note that I said "From this perspective", That perspective being that "Infant baptism is only to take care of forgiveness of original sin." It was not intended to suggest that believer's baptism has anything to do with salvation. I was just showing the line of reasoning that could follow in that perspective.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: I believe that every single person born is headed to hell unless Christ chooses to not send them there.

HP: There you have Calvinism in a nut shell. Predestination of the saved, necessitating predestination of the damned, a system of complete an total necessity. Is that really the system you desire to show yourself aligned with Ann?

 

[annsni]

HP: There you have Calvinism in a nut shell. Predestination of the saved, necessitating predestination of the damned, a system of complete an total necessity. Is that really the system you desire to show yourself aligned with Ann?

Since it's Scriptural, absolutely.

However, all men are destined to hell. It's not God's choice but theirs.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ann: However, all men are destined to hell. It's not God's choice but theirs.

HP: I certainly hope the readers are listening. What choice does an infant have in the condition of sin you say he was born into? How does he ‘choose’ to go to hell via a necessitated condition? You are exhibiting absolutely no conception of what a choice consist of.

If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, no choice can be predicated. For choice to exist there MUST be two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent. Any notion of choice that does not take into consideration this basic understanding of what constitutes choice is absurdly flawed. Sorry Ann but that is the truth.

Even if you eliminate infants and progress to subsequent to the age of accountability, if one was a sinner by necessity due to their nature, what choice have they made to go to hell??? They are acting in precisely the necessitated way you indicate they are by birth necessitated to continue in. Some choice that implies.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

There is not one ounce of real choice or freedom in any necessitated system. They are and will always remain nothing more than sophistic code words when spoken of by one supporting such necessity and serve no other purpose than to conceal their honest sentiments.

 

[DHK]

Within the past year, my infant granddaughter was baptized in their Presbyterian church. Upon inquiring about the reason for infant baptism, I was told that the baby's sinful condition was covered by baptism until she is old enough to make a commitment to Christ for herself.

Apparently, infant baptism assumes we need forgiveness for our sinful condition at birth. Those who believe in infant baptism therefore believe in Christ dying for our original sin condition as well as for our sins.

Those who do not believe in infant baptism, should believe that Christ died only for our sins and not our original sinful condition since the concern for the original sinful condition is not addressed. As I missing something?

Is this correct or am I reading too much into the connection between infant baptism and original sin?

You were misinformed by someone. Who did you ask? It doesn't sound like you asked any knowledgeable Presbyterian. My wife was a Bible Presbyterian, and went to a Presbyterian College (until she met me).
There is infant baptism in a Presbyterian Church because they believe it takes the place of circumcision. This goes right along with their Covenant Theology. As the Israelites were circumcised as a fulfillment of the rite of the covenant to be an Israelite, so the Presbyterians believe that baptism is symbolic to enter into that covenant as a child, but the parents have the care. The difference is that the child, of their own accord, must come to the age where they must trust Christ as their Saviour. They are still unsaved. The Baptism does not have anything to do with salvation.

 

[DHK]

Ann: However, all men are destined to hell. It's not God's choice but theirs.

HP: I certainly hope the readers are listening. What choice does an infant have in the condition of sin you say he was born into? How does he ‘choose’ to go to hell via a necessitated condition? You are exhibiting absolutely no conception of what a choice consist of.

We bear the consequences of Adam's sin, not the sin itself.
Suppose your neighbor (who has five children) got drunk, loaded his family of five children into his minivan, and started out to visit a friend in the country. Because of his sin of drunkenness, he gets into an accident and all in the van is killed--the father, and the five children. What did the children do to deserve death? What sin had they committed? None. They did not bear the sin of their father. They bore the consequence of his sin. And so do we. We bear the consequence of the sin of Adam, our federal head. The children had no choice, and neither do we. We are under a curse--a curse that came upon man and the world when Adam sinned. And there is nothing you can do to nullify it.

If there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent, no choice can be predicated. For choice to exist there MUST be two or more possible consequents for any given antecedent. Any notion of choice that does not take into consideration this basic understanding of what constitutes choice is absurdly flawed. Sorry Ann but that is the truth.

No it isn't the truth. You bear the consequences of Adam's sin. Adam was born in Innocence. He sinned of his own free will. His sin was in direct rebellion to God. At the end of Gen.2, you find that God expelled him from the garden for this reason "lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever." Adam's nature had changed--from innocence to sinful. It would have been horrible for a sinner, one who had a sinful nature to live forever and reproduce sinful children who would also live forever. Thus physical death was a blessing as well as part of the curse. The second law of Thermodynamics dictates that things will only get worse over time. They deteriorate, decay, rot, get worse, degenerate. This is true with the human race as well. What would happen to a degenerate person who would live forever, and his progeny that would live forever? God already had to destroy the world once.

Even if you eliminate infants and progress to subsequent to the age of accountability, if one was a sinner by necessity due to their nature, what choice have they made to go to hell??? They are acting in precisely the necessitated way you indicate they are by birth necessitated to continue in. Some choice that implies.

If they die in infancy their fate is left in God's hands for the Bible is silent.
If they continue to grow according to their sinful nature they will be held accountable for the decision they make with regard to Christ.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: We bear the consequences of Adam's sin, not the sin itself.
Suppose your neighbor (who has five children) got drunk, loaded his family of five children into his minivan, and started out to visit a friend in the country. Because of his sin of drunkenness, he gets into an accident and all in the van is killed--the father, and the five children. What did the children do to deserve death? What sin had they committed? None. They did not bear the sin of their father. They bore the consequence of his sin. And so do we. We bear the consequence of the sin of Adam, our federal head. The children had no choice, and neither do we. We are under a curse--a curse that came upon man and the world when Adam sinned. And there is nothing you can do to nullify it.

HP: Simply not so as you put it. Eternal separation from God in an eternal hell is far different than getting killed as the ‘consequences’ of riding in the car of a drunken father. God PUNISHES sin. You try to make our sin the consequence of Adam’s sin. Sin is not the consequence of sin. Sin bears guilt, and God stated no one would be guilty of another’s sin. If sin is necessitated by anything or anyone, it is not blameworthy, but rather the mere necessitated consequence that deserves no such condemnation or blame. If I was to take your illustration out to its logical conclusion, in light of the proper BLAME God places upon sin, I would say those children killed simply due to riding in their drunken father’s car were blameworthy for their death. If you can se how wickedly absurd such a conclusion is in the case of the children killed in the car, you should be able to understand how wickedly absurd it would be to punish men for a necessitated trait.

You say in one breath children do not deserve to die, and that are not to blame for another’s sins, but then you flatly contradict that by stating they are born sinners. You are mixing consequences with sin, something that ALWAYS and rightfully receives blame from God. If they are sinners, they are not the mere products of ‘consequences,’ they are guilty and as such deserve the just punishment God says is eternal separation from God.

You simply make nor distinction in your theology between the sensibilities (obviously depraved as a consequence of Adam’s sin) and the will itself. Until the will is stained with a willful transgression of a known commandment of God, no actual sin can be predicated and no guilt or blame attributed to the individual.

Again, sin indeed does have consequences upon succeeding generations, but those consequences are NOT, in and of themselves, sin or sinful.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If they continue to grow according to their sinful nature they will be held accountable for the decision they make with regard to Christ.

HP: So here we are right back to the Calvinistic notion that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Is it your opinion all have the opportunity to respond to the gospel in a literal sense much as Bob Ryan claims?

 

[drfuss]

You were misinformed by someone. Who did you ask? It doesn't sound like you asked any knowledgeable Presbyterian. My wife was a Bible Presbyterian, and went to a Presbyterian College (until she met me).
There is infant baptism in a Presbyterian Church because they believe it takes the place of circumcision. This goes right along with their Covenant Theology. As the Israelites were circumcised as a fulfillment of the rite of the covenant to be an Israelite, so the Presbyterians believe that baptism is symbolic to enter into that covenant as a child, but the parents have the care. The difference is that the child, of their own accord, must come to the age where they must trust Christ as their Saviour. They are still unsaved. The Baptism does not have anything to do with salvation.

They do believe in Covenant Theology with infant baptism corresponding to an Israelite being circumcised as a part of the covenant. In the same way an Israelite became a part of the covenant, a baptised infant becomes a part of the Christian covenant.
They also believe that the sins of the infant are covered until they can commit their life to Christ on their own. The following is a quote from the Presbyterian USA website:

"God's 'shoeboxes'
This discovery has given me an image to share with parents in the congregation where I am pastor, as we journey together toward the baptism of their children. Baptism is the church's celebration of the fact that God has "shoeboxes" for all of God's adopted children, meaning all of us. In infant baptism we visibly proclaim the central tenet of our Reformed faith: God's grace towards humanity.
When we baptize an infant we testify that God's grace acts on our behalf before we are capable of responding."

Note the last sentence of the quote.

BTW, one of my previous sources of information was on another forum by a Presbyterian seminary student who was about to graduate.

 

[DHK]

In infant baptism we visibly proclaim the central tenet of our Reformed faith: God's grace towards humanity.
When we baptize an infant we testify that God's grace acts on our behalf before we are capable of responding."

Note the last sentence of the quote.

BTW, one of my previous sources of information was on another forum by a Presbyterian seminary student who was about to graduate.

There are various types of Presbyterians, but only a few of them are evangelical. I would look up the doctrinal statement of the "Bible Presbyterians," the most evangelical group, and see what they say. I know that they don't believe that infant baptism washes away sin. But they may believe it gives you entrance into "the family" some way, as circumcision did to the nation of Israel. I would have to do some more research before being dogmatic.

 

[DHK]

HP: So here we are right back to the Calvinistic notion that the damning sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ. Is it your opinion all have the opportunity to respond to the gospel in a literal sense much as Bob Ryan claims?

Here is what the Bible says:
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

We are held accountable for what the Bible teaches: its doctrines, commands, etc. But I am not held accountable for who wrote the Bible.

 

[DHK]

Again, sin indeed does have consequences upon succeeding generations, but those consequences are NOT, in and of themselves, sin or sinful.

What sin did Adam commit? He rebelled against God. What consequences did that have for the human race? Let's look at it.

First, notice that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
--Then Adam disobeyed God, and faced the consequences of his sin. What were they?

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
--Adam would die--both spiritually and physically.
He died spiritually right away. The first thing he did was to hide from God. They were aware of their nakedness, ashamed, and tried to hide.
They became afraid of God. Sin had separated them from God. Death is separation. They were spiritually separated; spiritually dead.

Adam lived 930 years and then died--physically.

What else happened?
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
--Remember that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God.
But what happened here? Seth was born but was not made in the image and likeness of God. He was made in the likeness of Adam. The image and likeness of God had been marred. It would be no longer. Seth now had inherited Adam's likeness which was marred by sin. This we call a sin nature, a nature that was marred by the fall or the curse resulting from the fall. This consequence would be handed down from Adam to each successive generation, to each and every person, because of Adam's sin. He was the federal head of the human race, and from henceforth all would be made in his image, not God's. This is where that inherent sin nature comes from.
--A child is not born in innocence. It is born with a sin nature.

Now the unsaved are known as:
children of this world (Luke 16:18)
children of the flesh (Romans 9:8)
children of the devil (John 8:44)
children of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2)
children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3)
Cursed children (2Peter 2:14)

They have never been known by God (Matthew 7:23)
They are aliens and strangers (Ephesians 2:12)
They are foreigners (Ephesians 2:19)

They are servants of sin (John 8:34)
They are servants of corruption (2Peter 2:19)

They are without Christ, without hope, and without God (Ephesians 2:12)
They are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:5)
They are condemned to death (John 3:18)

Even the fact that the Lord says: I never knew you. Never means never--not even as a fetus. The unsaved person has a sin nature. Sin condemns a person. It causes a person by nature to reject Christ. Though we are accountable ultimately for our own sin; our sin nature doesn't help any.