What is Sin?

[Darrell C]

Of course all the saved must have the benefits of the Cross applied to them but please consider what the Scriptures say about the how Zacharias and Abis lived before the Cross:

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Lk.1:6).

Let me quote:

I believe that he was speaking about how others viewed him because in an earlier epistle he admitted that he was not blamess (Ro.7:7-11).

Since we know that Christ had to die that man might attain to the righteousness of God theough the imputed righteousness of Christ, could we not conclude the same thing of Zechariah and Elisabeth that we conclude of Paul in his profession of being blameless?

I never said that we are not dependent upon God.

I never said that any of us will live sinless lives from now until we die. However, we can live that way for extended periods of time.

Keep in mind that questions are asked for the purpose of obtaining a negative response which the question demands, such as:

Would a man wear an elephant on his head to a tea party?

No insuation or implication is being made.

I believe that he was speaking about how others viewed him because in an earlier epistle he admitted that he was not blamess (Ro.7:7-11).

Agreed.

In scripture we see two things referred to, the temporal, and the eternal. Paul's statement falling into the former, whereas the writer of Hebrews' statement "By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" falling into the latter.

We can usually determine which one is in view through context, and I will give an example:


James 3

2For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.


James says clearly that if a man bridles his tongue, he is also able to bridle the whole body.

He is...a perfect man.

However, he then goes on to show that no man can actually do this...


8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.


James speaks in a temporal context.

The following decribes the righteousness which is of the law and it also describes the pinnacle of the righteousness which a person can hope to attain:

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the" (Mt.22:36-40).

"Hope" being the key word here.

If man could accomplish these two commands of the Law, he would not offend in any other.

Now if James states that no man can bridle the tongue (and we assume he is talking to believers), then he will fail to meet these two commandments, even after, I think, salvation.



James 3:9-10

King James Version (KJV)

9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

10Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.

I am glad to see that you agree with what I said here because many on this thread say that it is impossible:

I say that a Christian is capable of living in this manner for extended periods of time because he has the ability to walk after the Spirit for extended periods of time.

Well, I actually do agree. However, I would say that I believe the "periods of time" have one factor that no believer can get away from, and that is his level of maturity in understanding and practice, meaning, recognition of sin is easier for those that have a greater understanding of what sin is and the more able we are to recognize it the better we are at working on putting it away.

Those that are babes in Christ have lesser ability to both recognize and put away sin than those that have been in the Lord longer.

But I think that hwat happens, Jerry, is when side is defended against another, both sides go to extremes to prove their position, such as in a discussion like this. I think that most here would agree that Christians should not sin, and that they should make an effort in pleasing God.

But we all are at different levels in our walk, and our ability in dealing with sin should grow as we learn the heart of God better, and as we are conformed to the image of His Son.

Okay, about out of time, and energy, so...

God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

You just ignore the verses which demonstrate Paul could indeed live his life for extended periods of time in a "blameless" manner:

"You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed" (1 Thess.2:10).

You just love pitting scripture against scripture to support such foolish teaching! The term translated "blameless" was used in wrestling matches to refer to the opponents ability to get a hold on you so as to throw you to the matt and pin you. The wrestler could make a lot of mistakes but this refers to a critical mistake that could pin him to the matt and lose the contest.

The Pastor was to be "blameless" in this sense. It did not mean he was sinless or lived above sin, but that there were no obvious skeletons in his closet that opponents could take and prove he was not fit for office.

Don't you see what you are doing? Your whole theology is based upon pitting scripture against scripture. Do you really think that quoting 1 Thessalonians 2:10 trumps Philippians 3:12-15??????? Only a cultic mentality thinks like that!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist1: You just love pitting scripture against scripture to support such foolish teaching! The term translated "blameless" was used in wrestling matches to refer to the opponents ability to get a hold on you so as to throw you to the matt and pin you. The wrestler could make a lot of mistakes but this refers to a critical mistake that could pin him to the matt and lose the contest.

HP: What kind of utter nonsense this comment imbibes. Because a word is used in a certain manner in particular instances, we are suppose to believe it does not and cannot mean something else in yet another unrelated context? Speaking of a convenient way to twist and warp Scriptural concepts of moral purity.....

I believe any reasonable person can clearly see what you are involved in doing, i.e., shameless twisting of the Word of God.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You just love pitting scripture against scripture to support such foolish teaching! The term translated "blameless" was used in wrestling matches to refer to the opponents ability to get a hold on you so as to throw you to the matt and pin you.

Your foolish teaching is a result of your shameless habit of perverting the Scriptures in order to make them fit your mistaken views.

The Greek word translated "blamelessly" is amemptōs and it means "blamelessly, so that there is no cause for censure" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

The word is an "adverb" and it is modifying the manner in which they conducted themselves:

"Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe" (1 Thess.2:10).

They lived lives where there was no cause for censure. The word "censure" means "a judgment concerning condemnation."

This certainly rules out the idea that sin was seen in their lives because all sin calls for a judgment concerning condemnation.

 

[glfredrick]

Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?

Because they (rightly) understood that all people who are born into this world are born separated from God. They saw baptism as the means of bringing one into the covenant kindgom of God, and so knowing that infants are born apart from that covennat kingdom they (wrongly, for baptism does not actually cause one to become part of the covenant kingdom -- but with a right heart for their desire to indeed bring the children into the kingdom) baptized as soon as humanly possible.

It was not until Pelagius invented the doctrine that said that human beings were not born with the sin that is inherited from the only earthly father of humanity -- Adam -- that ANYONE in the church did not hold to our sin nature and separation from God being inherent from conception.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Greek word translated "blamelessly" is amemptōs and it means "blamelessly, so that there is no cause for censure" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Thayer's definition does not contradict the application I gave but rather supports it. You need to do a little further research on the usage and application of this term.

Regardless, Philippians 3:10-12 proves that your theory is completely wrong and you can make no response but try to pit scripture against scripture.

I think most of the readers on this forum realize you are not on this forum to provide reasonable or rational debate but merely to defend your errors at all cost.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I gave but rather supports it. You need to do a little further research on the usage and application of this term.

Let us look what the word means again:

The term translated "blameless" was used in wrestling matches to refer to the opponents ability to get a hold on you so as to throw you to the matt and pin you.

Certainly Paul is not speaking of any wrestling matches but so far that is the only thing that you have provided in order to support your discredited ideas.

Regardless, Philippians 3:10-12 proves that your theory is completely wrong and you can make no response but try to pit scripture against scripture.

They do not. As I have already said, Paul was able to keep himself blameless for long periods of time, as witnessed by what he said here:

"Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe" (1 Thess.2:10).

They lived lives where there was no cause for censure. The word "censure" means "a judgment concerning condemnation."

This certainly rules out the idea that sin was seen in their lives because all sin calls for a judgment concerning condemnation.

I think most of the readers on this forum realize you are not on this forum to provide reasonable or rational debate but merely to defend your errors at all cost.

I think that most of the readers on this forum realize that you are willing to just invent unscriptual ideas in order to refuse to admit that you are wrong.

When you needed an "eternal life" which does not come as a result of faith you just say that there is another eternal life that one receives before he believes.

When you needed a righteousness which saves and which does not come as a result of faith you just invent one.

Do you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Anyone know what one of the major (not the sole) motivation was for the church to early adopt infant baptism (which was pre-Augustine)?

The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church.

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "The early corrupters of Christianity transferred to their new religion a rite with which their old religion had made them familiar, and this they described by the term which Holy Scripture provided...In Prescott's 'Conquest of Mexico' a description is given of the rite in use in that country when the Spaniards landed on its shores. The priestess midwife sprinkled water on the head of the infant, and then, after exorcising the unclean spirit (as does the Roman priest), she used these words: 'He now liveth anew and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed.' "

"And in his work on Buddhism Sir Monier Williams describes' a similar rite practised in Tibet and Mongolia. The child is baptized on the third or tenth day after birth. 'The priest consecrates the water, while candles and incense are burning. He then dips the child three times, blesses it, and gives it a name.' It was not from Greece that these superstitious rites were derived. All had a common origin, and that origin is to be sought in the mysteries of ancient Babylon" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church, 125-126).

 

[glfredrick]

The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church.

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "The early corrupters of Christianity transferred to their new religion a rite with which their old religion had made them familiar, and this they described by the term which Holy Scripture provided...In Prescott's 'Conquest of Mexico' a description is given of the rite in use in that country when the Spaniards landed on its shores. The priestess midwife sprinkled water on the head of the infant, and then, after exorcising the unclean spirit (as does the Roman priest), she used these words: 'He now liveth anew and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed.' "

"And in his work on Buddhism Sir Monier Williams describes' a similar rite practised in Tibet and Mongolia. The child is baptized on the third or tenth day after birth. 'The priest consecrates the water, while candles and incense are burning. He then dips the child three times, blesses it, and gives it a name.' It was not from Greece that these superstitious rites were derived. All had a common origin, and that origin is to be sought in the mysteries of ancient Babylon" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church, 125-126).

I''m not sure who you are citing here, or why you think that they are some sort of authority on this issue, but clearly one of the other major reasons that the early church started to baptize infants was because it stemed directly from the OT practice of circumcision. Not because of some pagan root for the practice.

And, just in case you didn't catch it, Spain conquored Mexico, oh, about 1200 years AFTER infant baptism was already a practice of the church.

There is always someone out there who supposes that every Christian practice is derived from the Greeks, pagans, etc., but much of the time that is not the case. Admittedly, later in the life of the church -- after around 350AD or so, some Platonic thought did enter into the life of the church. More after Aquinas, who actively sought to bring in a Platonic view in order to better explain difficult issues in doctrine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I''m not sure who you are citing here, or why you think that they are some sort of authority on this issue, but clearly one of the other major reasons that the early church started to baptize infants was because it stemed directly from the OT practice of circumcision. Not because of some pagan root for the practice.

Where is your evidence that this is true?

And, just in case you didn't catch it, Spain conquored Mexico, oh, about 1200 years AFTER infant baptism was already a practice of the church.

Those who were baptizing infants in Mexico were not Christians in case you were not aware of that fact.

There is always someone out there who supposes that every Christian practice is derived from the Greeks, pagans, etc., but much of the time that is not the case. Admittedly, later in the life of the church -- after around 350AD or so, some Platonic thought did enter into the life of the church. More after Aquinas, who actively sought to bring in a Platonic view in order to better explain difficult issues in doctrine.

Those who have studied this subject extensively would disagree with you. John Henry Newman wrote:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class" (Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine; Chapter 8, Section 2, Part 5).

You want to take the practices in regard to baptism which you even admit was in error and use that error plagued practice to try to prove that the Bible teaches that children come out of the womb spiritually dead as a result of Adam's sin. However, the Scriptures reveal in no uncertain terms that people die spiritually as a result of their own sin:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

 

[DHK]

The early church adopted the practices of the pagan religions. That is why we see infant baptism in the early church.

Sir Robert Anderson writes, "The early corrupters of Christianity transferred to their new religion a rite with which their old religion had made them familiar, and this they described by the term which Holy Scripture provided...In Prescott's 'Conquest of Mexico' a description is given of the rite in use in that country when the Spaniards landed on its shores. The priestess midwife sprinkled water on the head of the infant, and then, after exorcising the unclean spirit (as does the Roman priest), she used these words: 'He now liveth anew and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed.' "

"And in his work on Buddhism Sir Monier Williams describes' a similar rite practised in Tibet and Mongolia. The child is baptized on the third or tenth day after birth. 'The priest consecrates the water, while candles and incense are burning. He then dips the child three times, blesses it, and gives it a name.' It was not from Greece that these superstitious rites were derived. All had a common origin, and that origin is to be sought in the mysteries of ancient Babylon" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church, 125-126).

I know the works of Sir Robert Anderson are far more reliable than this. What you have done is isolated something he has said about pagan practices and then taken it out of the context in which he has said it, to make it fit your own purposes. That is shameful.

It is absurd to think that anything that happened in the Conquest of Mexico, when the Spaniards landed on their shores, had anything to do with heresy of infant baptism entering into Christendom. How can you justify such a statement? It only makes you look totally ignorant of all church history.

As has already been stated infant baptism (as well as baptismal regeneration) were two of the earliest errors to enter into Christianity. They entered into Christendom long before the birth of Augustine. The purpose of infant baptism: to wash away sin. Why? Infants had a sin nature. They wanted to make as sure as possible that these infants would go to heaven because they believed that baptism washed away the original sin of the infant, and the consequent depravity it had inherited. This had nothing to do with pagan religions. It was a progressive growth of error from within Christianity. In every book of the NT, every writer warns that false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, will arise from within, teaching false doctrine. We are to beware of such.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I know the works of Sir Robert Anderson are far more reliable than this. What you have done is isolated something he has said about pagan practices and then taken it out of the context in which he has said it, to make it fit your own purposes. That is shameful.

What is shameful is the fact that you pretend to have a knowledge of what Sir Robert Anderson teaches about water baptism in the early church. You are wrong as usual because what I quoted from his book is not something "isolated" or taken out of context. Here he devotes a whole chapter to the pagan origin of baptism in the early church:

http://www.newble.co.uk/anderson/biblech/biblech8.html

As usual you are ignorant of the things of which you claim to be an expert. And then to make it worse you insinuate that I did something dishonest of which I should be ashamed. You should apologize for treating me in that manner since you are obviously clueless in regard to what Anderson taught in regard to the pagan origin of baptism in the early church.

They wanted to make as sure as possible that these infants would go to heaven because they believed that baptism washed away the original sin of the infant, and the consequent depravity it had inherited. This had nothing to do with pagan religions.

Please give your evidence that those in the early church baptized infants with water because they believed that infants were born with original sin.

 

[glfredrick]

Where is your evidence that this is true?

Those who were baptizing infants in Mexico were not Christians in case you were not aware of that fact.

Those who have studied this subject extensively would disagree with you. John Henry Newman wrote:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class" (Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine; Chapter 8, Section 2, Part 5)

You want to take the practices in regard to baptism which you even admit was in error and use that error plagued practice to try to prove that the Bible teaches that children come out of the womb spiritually dead as a result of Adam's sin. However, the Scriptures reveal in no uncertain terms that people die spiritually as a result of their own sin:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

First, I don't care WHOM spashed water on infants in Mexico before or after the Spanish came there and over-ran them. Don't you realize that they had NO CONNECTION with the church until they were discovered, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 years after the church made paedobaptism part of its regular practice? You are SO EAGER to argue your points that you fail to grasp what it is that you are arguing and this is a classic example of that for you to review and for all to see.

Second, you cite Newman? Really? Isn't he someone with whom you would vociferiously disagree, or are you a Catholic masquerading as a Baptist to stir up trouble around here. I'm starting to wonder, for your posts are ill-informed enough and your errors heretical enough to qualify you.

Third, of course I cite the error in baptizing children. The Bible states in no uncertain terms that those in the NT who were baptized were those who professed faith in Jesus Christ. Even if they were young, they could not be "infants" for infants profess nothing. They cry and get wet. BUT, that does not detract from my main point, which you conviniently missed. One of the primary reasons that the early church adopted the practice of infant baptism was because they saw the need to deal with infant souls who were lost because they were born separated from God by original sin.

That is AN HISTORICAL FACT.

Fourth, how did death pass onto all men? Why do children sin before they are taught to sin? Are they "taught" to sin? Even children who are born into Christian homes and who are on the cradle roll at church almost from day one after birth? You need to think this through instead of just reacting based on something someone once told you -- or that you are reading from some web site somewhere.

Wherever your sources, they are far afield of the subject and you don't know the difference in order to know how far off the mark you actually are in discussing this matter.

Just for fun, I know it will not effect the way you think, nothing does, here are a few quotes by Church Fathers:

Origen (185 - 254) and Cyprian (215 - 258) who reflect the consensus voiced at the Council of Carthage in 254. The 66 bishops said: "We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God..... especially infants. . . those newly born." Preceding this council, Origen wrote in his (Commentary on Romans 5: 9: "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit."

Origen wrote in his Homily on Luke 14: "Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins. Cyprian’s reply to a country bishop, Fidus, who wrote him regarding the Baptism of infants, is even more explicit. Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born (To Fidus 1: 2).

Origen

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin . . . In the Church baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth.In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world (and sin through death), and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned' [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

I can cite enough quotes like this to fill this thread, but these will suffice for any student of church history and historical doctrine.

And, again, because I KNOW you will say it, because I post this as evidence of what I am debating, DOES NOT MEAN that I believe in infant baptism as a doctrine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

First, I don't care WHOM spashed water on infants in Mexico before or after the Spanish came there and over-ran them.

You could care less about any fact if that fact contradicts you ideas.

Second, you cite Newman? Really? Isn't he someone with whom you would vociferiously disagree, or are you a Catholic masquerading as a Baptist to stir up trouble around here. I'm starting to wonder, for your posts are ill-informed enough and your errors heretical enough to qualify you.

Of course you must undermine what Newman said since he proves that your ideas are in error. For your information he was a Protestant at the time when he wrote the words of his that I quoted. Now what do you say about what he discovered in his long years of scholarship on the subject?

One of the primary reasons that the early church adopted the practice of infant baptism was because they saw the need to deal with infant souls who were lost because they were born separated from God by original sin.

You have provided no evidence to support your view. Instead you quote men who lived hundreds of years after the NT was completed and well after pagan philosophy and practices had infiltrated the early church.

After all, where do you suppose their idea that the natural pollution of sin can be done away with BY WATER came from?

That idea comes stratight from the pagan religions so it is certain that by the time when both Origen and Cyprian wrote their ideas the church had already been infiltrated by the errors of the pagan religions.

So anything which they say cannot be trusted as being the truth despite the fact that you are saying that part of their beliefs about water baptism were true. That is nothing but a fairy tale and if you can believe that you will believe anything!

Fourth, how did death pass onto all men?

I just quoted the following verse to you and evidently you are blind to what it teaches or else you would not be asking that question:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

How does death come unto all? Because all have sinned.

Why do children sin before they are taught to sin?

A little child has no knowledge of what is good and what is not good so they are not accounted as sinners until they acquire that knowledge:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas.4:17).

You need to think this through instead of just reacting based on something someone once told you -- or that you are reading from some web site somewhere.

I am reading the Bible and that is where my ideas come from, as demonstrated when I quoted the following verse:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

Wherever your sources, they are far afield of the subject and you don't know the difference in order to know how far off the mark you actually are in discussing this matter.

My source is the Bible as I have already demonstrated. Evidently your source says that we cannot believe what Paul said here:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

 

[DHK]

What is shameful is the fact that you pretend to have a knowledge of what Sir Robert Anderson teaches about water baptism in the early church. You are wrong as usual because what I quoted from his book is not something "isolated" or taken out of context. Here he devotes a whole chapter to the pagan origin of baptism in the early church:

http://www.newble.co.uk/anderson/biblech/biblech8.html

As usual you are ignorant of the things of which you claim to be an expert. And then to make it worse you insinuate that I did something dishonest of which I should be ashamed. You should apologize for treating me in that manner since you are obviously clueless in regard to what Anderson taught in regard to the pagan origin of baptism in the early church.

Please give your evidence that those in the early church baptized infants with water because they believed that infants were born with original sin.

What does Sir Robert Anderson really say? And have you misquoted him?

And yet this gross and profane misrepresentation of God is an essential part of the historic religion of Christendom. And not only does Western civilisation tolerate the system, but even in England, in these days of vaunted enlightenment, "men of light and leading" are turning back to it. And notwithstanding this proof of the power of religion to blind and deprave the human mind, men who pretend to be freethinkers sneer at the truth of Adam's fall, and refuse to believe in the spiritual apostasy of the fallen race! Although the figment of baptismal regeneration is but one link in a catena of errors, it is the first and most important; and if this can be pulverised and destroyed the rest will crumble and disappear. But how is the discussion to be conducted? Of course the vital question is, What does the Bible teach upon the subject? And yet the majority of those who will read these pages would refuse to follow such an inquiry. This indeed is the secret of the influence of priests. I will here content myself therefore with calling attention to three plain and salient facts, which any one with the help of a concordance can verify.

The first fact is that in not a single passage of the New Testament where baptism is mentioned is it connected with regeneration or spiritual birth. The next fact is still more significant, namely, that in those passages where the doctrine of baptism is unfolded it is definitely and emphatically connected with death, which of course is the very antithesis of birth. The third fact shall be stated in borrowed words. In combating these errors the late Bishop Ryle of Liverpool writes:...

To recapitulate. Baptism is nowhere connected with regeneration in the New Testament; it symbolises death and not birth and it has a comparatively small and incidental place in the teaching of the New Testament. How then, it may well be asked, could it have come to assume a meaning so different, and to hold a place so engrossing, in the religion of Christendom? In this connection the fact claims notice that while the writers of the New Testament, and the teachers whose names the New Testament has made familiar to us, were, without exception, men whose minds had been formed by the study of the Hebrew Scriptures, there was scarcely one of the post-apostolic Fathers of whom this could be averred. What the Scriptures and the Jewish faith were to the writers and teachers of the New Testament, the writings of the Greek philosophers and the cults of classic Paganism were to the Fathers.

Anderson then goes on to establish how pagan religions in different parts of the world believe that baptism saves. Baptismal regeneration is a pagan practice, but it did not start with Christianity. Hindus have believed in this for a long time. They baptize in the Ganges River once a year believing that the holy waters of that river will wash away their sins. This is what Anderson was saying. That has no connection with Christianity, which Anderson is very clear on. The Bible never teaches baptismal regeneration, and Anderson is clear on that.

Are you not clear on that?

 

[glfredrick]

Okay... But I don't really know why I bother with you anymore.

You could care less about any fact if that fact contradicts you ideas.

No, facts are facts and truth is truth. I can handle that.

What you STILL fail to realize is that there was no connection between pagan activities in MEXICO and the writing of the New Testament in Europe and Asia Minor.

If you are going to continue to pursue this Mexican pagan worship aspect, please tell me (for obviously I am very ignorant on this subject) how the practice of Mexican (or probably more correctly Aztec or Incan) activites connect with what happened during the time the Bible was written and when the early church started the practice of infant baptism?

(I'll let you have a bit more rope if you like. We're just about over the big limb on the tree of knowledge now...)

Of course you must undermine what Newman said since he proves that your ideas are in error. For your information he was a Protestant at the time when he wrote the words of his that I quoted. Now what do you say about what he discovered in his long years of scholarship on the subject?

How does Newman "prove that I am in error when I cited EARLIER examples from the fathers of the church who were the disciples of the original apostles? Newman knows more about this subject than those who created it?

(10 feet more rope for you...)

You have provided no evidence to support your view. Instead you quote men who lived hundreds of years after the NT was completed and well after pagan philosophy and practices had infiltrated the early church.

I started citing a man who lived about 100 years after the writing of the Bible. He is one of the earliest sources that back up what we know OF FACTUAL CHURCH HISTORY on this issue. I cited others who said the same thing, proving that the view of the earliest on this subject was the standard view of the Church during this time.

This is normally considered ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL CITATION and is almost always considered as a viable piece of information when considering issues such as this. Where else might one go to discover what happened in the early 2nd century in the church? Do you have some other source material that you would like to cite?

Also, if you continue to insist that ALL of the persons I cited above were under the influence of pagan practice, then you will have to prove when that pagan practice came into being, and with that, when the influence of the Greeks came into practice.

Was there no Jewish practice of washing that might have been more in line with the later Christian practice so that they would not necessarily need to import pagan practice into the church so early in her history? And, was there not a common Jewish practice of circumcision on the 8th day that was a secondary cause for the baptizing of infants in the early church?

I believe that you are wrong, by a large margin, with your dating scheme concerning the pagan influence in this case, but please do inform this ignorant soul! And CITE ORIGINAL SOURCES.

After all, where do you suppose their idea that the natural pollution of sin can be done away with BY WATER came from?

From the concept of original sin and the concept of entry into the covenant kingdom of God. The two ideas made for a very natural fit (albeit they failed to heed the NT example of baptism by immersion of believers only). The Catholics and some Protestant groups STILL stand on that as their primary and secondary reasoning for their practice of paedobaptism.

That idea comes stratight from the pagan religions so it is certain that by the time when both Origen and Cyprian wrote their ideas the church had already been infiltrated by the errors of the pagan religions.

You have, so far, failed to substantiate that idea except to post one short quote from a man who writes in the modern era on this subject. I can find men who write that God is a giant penut butter blob in the sky if you like, but that is not germaine to the topic at hand. Find me someone from the late 1st or early 2nd century who said that pagan interests influenced the practice of the church and I'm all ears.

So anything which they say cannot be trusted as being the truth despite the fact that you are saying that part of their beliefs about water baptism were true. That is nothing but a fairy tale and if you can believe that you will believe anything!

The writings of the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers are recognized and authoritarian history of that era. We know most of what we know about the building and spread of the church from their works. They were not all the fruits and nuts that you suppose, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. Oh, and your opinion, so far, has not made you right. It has only made you opinionated.

How you fail to discern that the ACCURATELY RECORDED HISTORY even though they wrongly interpreted the Scriptures is beyond me, but I guess if one letter in a book is wrong the entire book must be tossed aside. Not sure how that works out for you, because it seems that you will believe wholeheartedly an author who happens to agree with your a priori presupposition on this matter, but you cannot see the historical record as accurate, though the theology is flawed.

I just quoted the following verse to you and evidently you are blind to what it teaches or else you would not be asking that question:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

How does death come unto all? Because all have sinned.

It is interesting to me how you take the secondary clause in that sentence and make it the primary statement. I'm sure that you scored very well in those English classes where you had to diagram sentences...

INDEED death comes to all because all have sinned. But you COMPLETELY BYPASS the statement made in that verse before we get to the "all have sinned" line. What about "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin..." That too is Scripture. Is that meaningless to you?

A little child has no knowledge of what is good and what is not good so they are not accounted as sinners until they acquire that knowledge:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (Jas.4:17).

James wrote truth. I have no beef or disagreement with what he wrote. But that says NOTHING AT ALL about little children not knowing that they sin, nor does it explain AT ALL why they sin -- especially if THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR SIN.

We KNOW that little children sin. That is because they are sinners.

What happens if I ask you a difficult question regarding little children and their lack of sin? Why not send them home to be with the Lord while they are yet in their pure state? Would it not be the BEST POSSIBLE evangelism tool under the sun to simply wipe out all little children while they are still innocent? That is the implication of your flawed doctrine.

The church has said, down through the ages -- and Scripture guides them -- that WE DARE NOT harm little children, and that we are to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We are to teach them when we come in and when we go out. We are not to hinder their coming to the Lord! We CERTAINLY ought not kill them! God judged the nations and peoples who sacrificed "innocent children." Why, if they are just coming home to Him because they have no sin anyway? Perhaps because God knows otherwise and wishes for ALL MEN to hear the gospel and to become justified! Does it not say that in the Scriptures?

I am reading the Bible and that is where my ideas come from, as demonstrated when I quoted the following verse:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

My source is the Bible as I have already demonstrated. Evidently your source says that we cannot believe what Paul said here:

"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" (Ro.5:12).

I am sure that you are reading your Bible. But you read with a lens over the text to make it say what you wish for it to say. You bring out ancient and disavowed heretical doctrine and claim that all the rest of us who constantly tell you otherwise that WE have a problem.

Mull it over, get over yourself, then come back with a response and answer a few of the questions I've posed above. And pray, don't take any more rope to hang yourself. You are so close now that the rope is thrown over the branch... :BangHead:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I started citing a man who lived about 100 years after the writing of the Bible. He is one of the earliest sources that back up what we know OF FACTUAL CHURCH HISTORY on this issue. I cited others who said the same thing, proving that the view of the earliest on this subject was the standard view of the Church during this time.

Yes, you quoted Origen and by your own words his thinking was 'the standard view of the Church" during that time. I am amazed that you are not aware of where Origen came up with the idea that men are born in such a state where they have a need to have their sins forgiven.

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism. And that matches what John Henry Newman uncovered in his detailed study which makes it plain that the early church adopted the philosophy of pagan religions and made it a part of their teaching:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class" (Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine; Chapter 8, Section 2, Part 5).

This is normally considered ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL CITATION and is almost always considered as a viable piece of information when considering issues such as this.

What Origen teaches is, according to you, a viable piece of information when considering the idea of "Original Sin" in the early church. Therefore his teaching proves that I am right that the idea of Original Sin came from pagan religions.

Also, according to what you said then Origen's ideas represented "the standard view of the Church" during that time!

 

[DHK]

Yes, you quoted Origen and by your own words his thinking was 'the standard view of the Church" during that time.

Also, according to what you said then Origen's ideas represented "the standard view of the Church" during that time!

You misrepresented what glfredrick said. He quoted more than just Origen. What of the others that he quoted? He was giving historical evidence, and that is what you are ignoring.

Cyprian of Carthage

"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth.In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Council of Mileum II

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers' wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, 'Through one man sin entered into the world (and sin through death), and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned' [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

I can cite enough quotes like this to fill this thread, but these will suffice for any student of church history and historical doctrine.

Even without Origen there is plenty of evidence there for you to chew on. His evidence goes back to the early centuries. That is the point of the post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What does Sir Robert Anderson really say? And have you misquoted him?

Of course I did not misquote him. Here is what you said earlier:

I know the works of Sir Robert Anderson are far more reliable than this. What you have done is isolated something he has said about pagan practices and then taken it out of the context in which he has said it, to make it fit your own purposes. That is shameful.

What is shameful is the fact that I gave you a link where Anderson says over and over that the baptism practiced in the early church was of pagan origin. You obviously read what he said and you just ignore it and ask if I misquoted him. here is what he said:

"To recapitulate. Baptism is nowhere connected with regeneration in the New Testament; it symbolises death and not birth and it has a comparatively small and incidental place in the teaching of the New Testament. How then, it may well be asked, could it have come to assume a meaning so different, and to hold a place so engrossing, in the religion of Christendom? In this connection the fact claims notice that while the writers of the New Testament, and the teachers whose names the New Testament has made familiar to us, were, without exception, men whose minds had been formed by the study of the Hebrew Scriptures, there was scarcely one of the post-apostolic Fathers of whom this could be averred. What the Scriptures and the Jewish faith were to the writers and teachers of the New Testament, the writings of the Greek philosophers and the cults of classic Paganism were to the Fathers" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church?, 114).

Why did you leave out the part in "bold" when you quoted what Anderson wrote? It seems to me that it is you who are trying to misrepresent what he wrote. Anderson also says:

"My purpose is to show to what extent the influence of the mysteries, and analogous religious cults, modified and corrupted the Christian ordinance of baptism" (Ibid., 118).

The whole chapter is about Anderson explaining exactly how the ordinance of baptism was corrupted by the influences of religious cults. I quoted Anderson saying, "The early corrupters of Christianity transferred to their new religion a rite with which their old religion had made them familiar, and this they described by the term which Holy Scripture provided...In Prescott's 'Conquest of Mexico' a description is given of the rite in use in that country when the Spaniards landed on its shores. The priestess midwife sprinkled water on the head of the infant, and then, after exorcising the unclean spirit (as does the Roman priest), she used these words: 'He now liveth anew and is born anew; now he is purified and cleansed.' "

"And in his work on Buddhism Sir Monier Williams describes' a similar rite practised in Tibet and Mongolia. The child is baptized on the third or tenth day after birth. 'The priest consecrates the water, while candles and incense are burning. He then dips the child three times, blesses it, and gives it a name.' It was not from Greece that these superstitious rites were derived. All had a common origin, and that origin is to be sought in the mysteries of ancient Babylon" (Anderson, The Bible or the Church, 125-126).

To this you said:

I know the works of Sir Robert Anderson are far more reliable than this. What you have done is isolated something he has said about pagan practices and then taken it out of the context in which he has said it, to make it fit your own purposes. That is shameful.

You accuse me of "isolating" what Anderson said and by doing so misrepresented what he taught. I did no such thing as the whole chapter is devoted to exposing the fact that the rite of baptism was corrupted in the eary church by pagan beliefs.

As usual you are ignorant of the things of which you claim to be an expert. And then to make it worse you insinuate that I did something dishonest of which I should be ashamed. You should apologize for treating me in that manner since you are obviously clueless in regard to what Anderson taught in regard to the pagan origin of baptism in the early church.

Even after quoting from the chapter you still insinuate that I am being dishonest:

What does Sir Robert Anderson really say? And have you misquoted him?

Either you cannot understand what Anderson was saying in the chapter or you are attempting to misrepresent him and cast doubts on my character at the same time.

You seem to think that I may have "misquoted" him so I challenge you to back up your accusation with any evidence that I did such a thing.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You misrepresented what glfredrick said.

I did not! Do you not ever tire of making false accusations against those who do not agree with you? Here is exactly what he said and my post was in regard to this very thing:

I started citing a man who lived about 100 years after the writing of the Bible. He is one of the earliest sources that back up what we know OF FACTUAL CHURCH HISTORY on this issue.

There glfredrick is referring to Origen and my post was in regard to the teaching of Origen. So it is not true that I misrepresented him.

Since you and glfredrick seem to be hand and hand on this issue perhaps you will be willing to defend the ideas of Origen?

Linwood Urban writes, "Origen is well known for his view that human souls preexist their embodiment, that they come into being at the dawn of creation, and that the story of the Fall in Genesis is an allegory of a precosmic fall of the angels" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press, 1986], 139).

Urban goes on to note that Origen theorizes that the sinful condition of all men at birth is due to their sins which they commited preexistant to their embodiment. He quotes Origen saying, "It is plain that the souls concerned were guilty of previous sin" (Ibid.).

Origen's ideas closely resembles the philosophy then current within both Gnosticism and Neo-Platonism.

Now I challenge you to quote me where I ever misrepresented what glfredrick said.