As a rule, I generally don’t discuss baptism. The main reason is that such discussion sways no one. Baptism ties into salvation, and no Christian wants to discuss why they may not be saved. Ultimately, it usually comes down to the question, “Do you think I’m going to Hell because I wasn’t baptized like you?” On the other side, the question comes down to “Why don’t you follow the simple teaching of the New Testament?” The first question hits the emotional issue that only CoC people (and their derivatives) are saved. The second question hits the emotional issue that only CoC people can correctly divine the Word of God.
Needless to say, this captivates my interest like watching mold spores grow. It just gets uglier over time.
But, seeing as there is a posting lull here and seeing how a pretty thoughtful link was provided by Bobber, I figured, why not? I may regret it, but who knows? The folks around here are a pretty thoughtful bunch – maybe this discussion will be different. Granted, most folks here are CoC or their descendants, so it may be preaching to the choir.
The only ground rules I propose are these:
- No Greek. I took two years and I do not feel qualified to argue various English translations of Greek words. This is an arguing over words and not useful.
- Ask questions without making it personal. For example, do not ask, “Do you think I’m not saved?”. However, it is a fair question, “are those not immersed in water saved?” as long as it doesn’t lead into, “you know I wasn’t immersed…”
- If you do not know, say that you do not know. It is acceptable to not know everything. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
- Do not invalidate an argument because enough Scripture is not quoted in presenting that argument. Asking for clarifying Scriptures is needed – I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about dismissing a viewpoint because Scripture wasn’t quoted in every step. If you believe that a point was made that is outside of the Bible, ask for a Scripture.
- Enjoy the discussion. If you’re not enjoying it, take a break. There is enough evil in the world to battle that we do not have to devour each other. This applies especially to me.
Joel Garver begins with thoughts about salvation as an ongoing process. In response, I would say that salvation is a journey. Like any journey, it requires continued effort and movement. The end of the journey is God’s Judgment and ultimately Heaven. Like all journeys, it also has a starting point. I would consider baptism a starting point on that journey. I agree that the sequence, “Hear, Believe, Repent, Confess, etc.” usually presented is arbitrary. It may be useful as a teaching tool to help someone come to faith, but like any other tool, it needs to be seen as a man-made device, and not a creed. I also agree that the Spirit works on those that believe and do not believe. A person that hears the Word of God, like the parable of the soils, can have various reactions. The Word of God is powerful enough to encourage the soul to begin the journey of faith and encourage another to persevere at any stage of their own journey. I think of the proverb that the rain falls on the just and the unjust.
Faith in trusting in God and His promises made through His Son, the Christ and His Word, the Bible. Before a person is saved, he or she must come to faith, drawn by the Spirit. Once a person is saved, they must persevere in that faith. Baptism is one of those promises – through baptism the promise of the Holy Spirit and a new life with Christ are offered. When Joel discusses belief before, during, or after baptism in point 4, it strikes me as a non sequitur. Belief is not what saves, even the demons have belief. How can a person trust in baptism retroactively? If a person is baptized it has to be for a reason, even if it is, “because I was told to by the priest”. Baptism is the claim of a promise, not a theological proposition. The disagreement, as I understand it, deals with understanding what is promised.
Thoughts?
The last paragraph should say:
“Faith is trusting in God…”
Just last night a CoC raised guy like me was “rebaptized”. He is in his late 50s and, like me, his first one was when he was 11. His father is also a member, though (since I’m sure someone is curious) seems to have had some inkling of what he was doing when he was baptized. For all intents and purposes, he already was a member too – he’s been leading singing almost since the first day he showed up from the CoC down the road.
Anyway, I find it helpful in these “how much do you need to know” things regarding baptism to pretend it’s not a Holy Word. It means what it means. Many of the Jewish “cermonial washings” that were in pools outside the synagogue were immersions. For me, getting “rebaptized” when I was at Harding was a no-brainer; I had no idea about being baptized into Christ when I did the first one. I guess I’m saying *something* matters about what you knew and why and what you did, ala the folks in Acts 19
.
My husband was sprinkled and so were my children. My husband was raised Catholic the reason my children were sprinkled was out of respect to his parents I refused to be a part of the ceremony when they were sprinkled so I sat alone in a pew and watched. When my husband decided to join me in church and get on the path of salvation he began to look at baptism. For him getting in the water was about being accountable. He showed our children how important baptism is. My son turned thirteen today and feels it isn’t time for him yet. That’s the thing that I find important, we make that choice. I stood up and walked down, I wasn’t sprinkled without understanding.
I will try to respond to your question although, when I read stuff by Joal Garver and others, I am suddenly made aware of how little I understand the bible and Christian theology. The reasons for baptizing infants are the same as for adults as far as I know. I had both of my children baptized because they are eligible for membership in God’s family as well as for the forgiveness of sins. The age at which they come to faith is variable and not something that is known to me. But I trust that as covenant children of God, they will in some sense be covered by God’s grace until that time that they do come to true faith. Martin Luther was fond of pointing out that baptism clearly pictures for us the fact that faith is a gift. It is something that we receive freely from God apart from our own works or understanding. This is especially true of infants. They are freely given a gift when they are baptized. The unseen reality of their hearts is something that is known only to God and comes about at his bidding and choosing.
The status of children in the CoC became a bit confusing to me as I began studying this. Are they initially members of the church and then not members when they become accountable up until the time that they are baptized? And the clincher was when I began to think of the first century Jews and how they might have been instructed. Imagine a Jewish person in Jerusalem who had just heard the Gospel from one of the Apostles. He comes to respond with his whole family and is told that all the adults must confess Jesus and be baptized and they will be members of God’s kingdom, women, Jew, and Gentile are all eligible. He than says something like: “Ok, let me get this straight, this new Gospel opens up the kingdom of God to women and gentiles but closes it to children? Under the old covenant it was open to male children but now it is closed?” But you see there is no indication that this instruction was given. I find this hard to accept and inconsistent. Surely the children of believers are part of God’s family.
Last Sunday I was out of town visiting relatives, and attended the local church of Christ. A young boy was baptized (maybe 8 or 9 years old). I was in turmoil, wanting to feel excited about the moment but concerned because of all the cases I have seen where such people were eventually rebaptized (or worse yet, drifted away in their teen years and have not come back).
Isa 7:16
indicates there is a time when a child does not know enough to reject wrong and choose what is right.
God decreed that all those 20 years old and older at the time of the crossing of the Red Sea would not enter the promised land (Num 14:29
). That might at least give us an idea of an age at which a person becomes accountable before God.
I understand Romans 7:9
, “I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;” (NASB) as referring to the fact that Paul was alive apart from the Law prior to his bar mitvah (literally, when he became a “son of the law”). In other words, he wasn’t accountable to the law before then. But from that point forward, he was accountable and therefore died spiritually. Does anyone else see it this way?
I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation any more than taking communion or having the correct form of church government is. Are these things (baptism, communion, church gov’t) beneficial? Sure, of course. They are all things that the Bible teaches about and would be wise things to follow. All that is necessary is not to just believe as the demons do, but beyond that to have faith that God can save you from the sin that is common to us all. That’s something that the demons don’t have. Now once you become a Christian I don’t see any reason not to be baptized/have communion/etc, and pletty of reasons to do so. And if you don’t then I expect you to have a pretty good reason.
Regarding the baptism of infants (and paedo-communion as well), I don’t see any clear teaching not to do it. The parallels between baptism/circumcision and communion/passover seem pretty clear to me and children were involved in both. If you d olet your children engage in either practice I do think you have to clearly teach them that those things are not what saves them. They aren’t saved because they’re in a Christian home or go to XYZ Church of Blank. And if they want to get rebaptized later on I say good on them!
Scott,
How do you explain Nicene Creed’s statement about baptism? Is it wrong?
And Scott mentions paedo communion. Although this is a bit off topic, it also relates to my point about children being part of God’s Kingdom. If they are, then why not let them partake of communion? My church does practice this by the way.
Isa 7:16
is an interesting passage but It does not appear to be made in the context of circumcision or bar mitzvahs. If so, can you provide more details?
Bobber:
Jewish children, 1st century or any century are not required to obey the commandments under Jewish Law. A boy is required to observe the law upon reaching bar mitzvah defined as age 13 and a day. A girl is required to obey the commandments upon reaching bas mitzvah or reaching age 12 and a day. (As an aside, no party or ceremony is required to reach bar mitzvah or bas(bat) mitzvah. It’s simply a matter of age.)
Under the scenario described, the Jewish man coming to faith would have brought his family and expected to have the boys aged 13 and a day and older and the girls aged 12 and a day and older baptized. For him to baptize his children, someone would have needed to teach him to do so. There is no record of this happening in the NT.
It would seem that Christian thought moved away from Jewish thought in this regard. Origen talked about paedeobaptism as early as the third century. However, I do not believe Origen talking about it makes it retroactively true.
Playing devil’s advocate here, A Gentile family coming to faith would have to be told *not* to baptize the children and there is certainly no record of that in the NT either. There is not any information that would give us much insight.
What of the Philippian Jailer? Honestly, I do not know. It all rests with the definition of household, I guess. In John 4
, Jesus healed an official’s son. When the official arrived home and realized that his son was healed at the moment Jesus said “your son will live”, it says that he and his household believed. John doesn’t record that he has no children under 13 and a day. It doesn’t say that he does. Could an infant believe based on the official’s testimony? (This is getting silly, really, but a few more.) At what age cutoff did the members of his house understand the healing of the son? Couldn’t a six year old basically understand what had happened? Maybe he had a developmentally challenged child of 15, would he or she have come to faith through the testimony of the official?
What does the age make up of the family matter? The point was that the message spread to this man’s family through the work of Jesus. Trying to say that this included infants and children or did not include infants and children appears to miss the point.
Like I said, I could very well be missing the point myself. Just wanted to provide some possible insight into what a Jewish family would encounter.
Isa 7:16
is usually considered to be the son that Ahaz was holding in his arms (Isa 7:3
). (This is consistent with Calvin’s commentary as well.) Before Shear-jashub reaches the years of discretion, the Israelite and Assyrian forces will lose their kings.
In short, in a few years, Ahaz’s enemies will lose their kings.
Isa 7:15
, commonly taken to refer to Jesus talks about Jesus taking the form of all men. Specifically, he will be a child and grow up in the normal way. Calvin noted that
Pin,
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that baptism corresponds to bat mitzvah and not circumcision? I don’t know much about bat mitzvah but I don’t think it is even mentioned in the OT is it? Whereas circumcision is connected with baptism in the NT is it not?
Also, are you saying that younger than 13, a boy could lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, and do any other item specified in the bible or Tora? Seems a bit strange to me.
But really, I feel so much like an amateur in these kinds of discussions. I look back with fondness on my years in the CoC in many ways. I think we were quite correct to question the biblical practice of praying Jesus into your heart and despite some of the differences in baptism, there was much of it that I think the CoC was really correct or on the right track with. Ultimately I think God is greater than our feeble attempts to understand the finer details of the theology of the bible.
Bobber,
I’m not making any correlation between baptism and bar mitzvah or baptism and circumcision.
As far as bar mitzvah, I only mentioned it specifically to the example of what a first century Jewish family. I don’t think the father would have a problem withholding baptism from a child because their culture would hold that a child is not responsible for their sins until age 13 and a day.
According to the Torah, the parents were responsible for the sins of their children. Children were expected to obey one command, honor your mother and father. The father would, as Deut points out, instruct their children constantly in the law. I see it as a connection with the qualification of an elder that his children are not unruly. In short, if a child lied, cheated, fornicated, etc, it would be seen as a failure of the father to obey the Torah.
I don’t think you’re an amateur in these kinds of things. I think that I come from a history of overthinking an issue way past what is healthy to do. Who else mentions bar mitzvahs when discussing baptism?
The ICoC questioned everything until Kip (or person sanctioned by Kip) gave a ruling, then it was dogma. The CoC did a similar thing before that. I am certain that history demonstrates this cycle in many (but not all) places. I think God is bigger than theology, especially systematic theology. It seems that he always provides an exception that just cannot be explained away.
I’d say that it’s not inspired so one shouldn’t base one’s theology on it. I mean is it talking about water baptism? If so then when a Catholic (or for that matter anyone who does paedo-baptism) is baptised as a baby is it for the remission of sins? Or does that remission happen when one is baptised in the spirit? IOW what is the active agent for remission of sins? I wager that we both believe it’s not water.
Scott,
No it is not inspired however, most protestant churches (including the PCA) accept it as orthodox. By Catholic do you mean Roman Catholic? In their case, most definitly, the water is active. For protestants, I think you are mostly correct but, at least in our church (and others who are amicable with Federal Vision Theology), we feel that God does do something in Baptism. Luther for example suggested that the water was made active by the Word of God. Also, use Pin’s link to the entry by Joel Garver and look at the comments. In comment #4, Garver quotes Calvin. What I get from this is that it is not so easy to understand God’s ways in this. I personally believe in baptismal efficacy to a very strong degree. Stronger than most Presbyterians I suppose. But then again, I was in the CoC for 20 years and before that, I grew up in the Lutheran church! Maybe I’m just all messed up!
Why do people even question whether baptism is essential for salvation? We all know the passages that tell us to be baptized. Why not just do it? Why is this even an issue?
I know someone will try to answer these questions. Don’t bother. I’m just expressing an emotion.
Alan:
I may be missing something big, but these child baptisms do not really bother me except from an integrity point of view (integrity because I have a hard time honestly believing a 7 year old is any more capable of deciding to follow Jesus for life than they are capable of consenting to Certain Adult Activities). But, aside from that one thing, I see no harm in my baptism at age 11. Yes, I got “rebaptized” at 19. Yes, many of these folks never really follow Jesus. But, I would have needed that “real” baptism anyway, Also, who knows if that child baptism had anything to do at all with what those folks did in their teens?
It’s a good question Alan. I think a large part of that gets back to the Reformation and the strong stance of the Roman church on Baptism’s efficacy. And consequently the Protestants reacted against them with many even over-reacting to the point where all they say about baptism is that it doesn’t save you. So the typical response to many modern evangelicals (as to what baptism is for) is simply that it is a sign and it doesn’t save you. It’s all about human nature I suppose (our fallen nature actually).
Well, ‘baptism’ doesn’t save you – God, through your faith in the redemptive work of the blood of Christ saves you – and the Bible says even your faith is from God to begin with. I think that’s where evangelicals get tripped up (and probably some CoC folks as well). But baptism is the conduit, bringing the person into a spiritual convenant with God through the spiritual sharing of Christ’s death and resurrection.
[quote] I think that I come from a history of overthinking an issue way past what is healthy to do. Who else mentions bar mitzvahs when discussing baptism? [/quote]
Me.
1 Peter 3:21
Be careful, you might be contradicting Peter!
I don’t go back to circumcision or Bar Mitzvahs I guess. I go back to the Garden of Eden.
So there is man, which God created. And I think He created Adam sinless and in His (their) image. Adam and Eve had an age of innocence – they didn’t know they were naked. They enjoyed a fellowship with God. Then through Satan, Adam and Eve eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and God says – oh, now they know what we know. Eating the fruit brought them from an innocence of sin to a realization of sin and shame (they realized they were naked, they hid from God, etc). The Bible says sin entered the world thru Adam and death through sin. So, personally, I believe we are all born innocent and it’s reflected in children. I didn’t really know what sin was as a child. I had some concepts of ‘don’t do this’ and ‘dont’ do that’ but those were from other people. And I had an innocent’s view of God – childlike and trusting. But at some point I listened to Satan – to the voice that says “You will not surely die”. It’s the voice that questions God that questions the parents and the authorities that said ‘don’t’. At some point we test it and we realize our shame. (I don’t think there’s a specific age but I know I had no concept of that when I was very young). That’s the point that we’ve eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That’s when we are thrown out of the garden and into the world. It’s only then through Christ, that I can be reconciled to God. Christ conquered death and sin on the cross and through the resurrection. Baptism is my sharing in the conquest of sin and death; in my return to the Father, back to the Garden.
That’s my philisophical mantra for today…..
ttk
So it’s not the water but the “pledge of a good conscience” and the resurrection that saves you. And I don’t think anyone (at least not anyone I know) is anti-baptism. I’m definitely pro and for that matter pro-believer’s baptism. Like Bobber I think that the anti-paedo crowd are (over)reacting to Catholicism and its percieved (and in some cases real) errors.
And Bobber I accept it as Orthodox only as far as you interpret it. Keep in mind it was written so that two parties would “make nice” and bury the hatchet. Both Catholics and Protestants can read it and affirm it and still mean different things at the end of the day.
I for one don’t think you’re messed up. Trying to understand salvation and the order of salvation is good and complcated work. And messy work too.
Scott,
Thanks, good thoughts.
toeteaknow (or is it Pin?)
This is a good observation. It’s the whole question of Original Sin which you are raising. Isn’t it hard to separate things? Baptism is related to so many other issues. It gets complicated fast.
This is another area of the CoC where I began to think that it just wasn’t nailed down very well. As RC Sproul once taught, the doctrine of Original Sin is an attempt to answer the question of what were the consequences of the fall. Now CoC guys will say they don’t believe in Original Sin but if you press them, they all seem to think there were some consequences to the fall. So this gets a bit confusing IMHO.
In view of human sinful nature, I believe that it is evident in children. I also think that we are born with our fists held up high against the almighty. We come into the world as rebellious and ready to fight with God. Although theology should not be decided by a raise of hinds, it is non-the-less significant to take note that most of the great church leaders of the past were in agreement with this doctrine. All three of the reformers, Luther, Calvin, and Zwinglie were completely agreed on this point.
In my own struggle to understand the Christian faith, this was the deal breaker that ultimately led me away from the CoC. It’s not an easy issue to come to grips with and it takes time. But it is a struggle well worth the effort in my opinion.
Wow, this is a very interesting discussion. I wish I had been involved from the beginning.
To me, there are logical fallacies that take place by following things too far. What I mean is, we know that sin entered the world through Adam, but that does not mean that it entered every human from birth. Too me, that takes the logic too far. Sure, it seems to follow, but it doesn’t have to.
As Pink has pointed out, just because it says a household was baptised doesn’t mean that children were. Could be, but not necessarily.
I believe that God gave us the Bible as a foundation to build our faith on, but it must be in harmony with our own experiences as well. We have a different standard for trying juveniles than adults because we understand their ability to reason right and wrong is limited. The garden of Eden and bar-mitzvahs are other good examples of the concept. To me, that makes infant or child baptisms or conversions problematic.
Another fallacy is viewing baptism as the beginning or end of a spiritual journey. It is neither. It seems that many MCOC folk see it as the beginning, hence the child baptisms before they can reasonably understand what they are doing. In the ICOC, we erred on the side of seeing it as the end. Meet someone, study with them, bring them to conviction and faith, baptize them and move on.
Rather, baptism is like a bridge, we cross from one side to another. Rarely is a bridge the start point or end point of a journey, but it’s the only way across some barrier – river, canyon, etc. Without baptism, we cannot complete our journey, but being baptised doesn’t mean we’ve arrived either.
Now let’s see if I’m too late to post this.
This is a little too simplistic. One must study Augustine and the Pelagian controversy to understand this better. According to Augustin, we are all free to do what we want but the problem is that nobody wants to do God’s will. If this is not the case, than why haven’t some people got it right? That is, if people are not born with a rebellious heart which is directed against God, then somebody should have been able to live a perfect life and not need God’s grace.
I have heard CoC ministers defend Pelagius in the past saying he was misunderstood. But we need to put this in perspective. The only other groups that defend Pelagius are cults like the LDS. All of the reformers and major church leaders of the past stood against Pelagianism. If one is to take such a radical stance, I believe the theology of this stance must be well worked out and defined. I have not found this with any CoC people I have talked with or read up to this point.
I understand wanting to look at the roots of a difference, but I think this goes back farther than Pelagius and Augustine.
Ezekiel 18:20
seems to be clear in saying, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”
The best explanation I have seen to date quibbles over the word ‘salvation’.
But in regards to Augustine, Romans 2:14
presents a bit of an issue as Paul implies that when Gentiles apart from the law obey the law, these Gentiles are a law unto themselves. In English, the are capable of obeying the law apart from the law.
Could they live a perfect life? No one under the law could live a perfect life, and Paul even says so (Romans 3:23
). The question was not living or not living a perfect life – the question was obeying or not obeying the law. The law made provision for man’s disobedience. A man who sinned under the law was able to do by faith, what was required for the absolution of sin. By sin, the high priest sacrificed the scapegoat to take away the sins of Israel. By faith, an individual Jew or God-fearer could present various sacrifices to God. We know that the blood of rams and goats could not take away sin, so it wasn’t the sacrifice itself that dealt with the sin at all.
It’s a similar thing about baptism to me. Water does nothing at all, we know that only the blood of Jesus takes away sin. How can 6 quarts of blood from a man that lived almost 2000 years ago take away sins? Only through faith. It certainly couldn’t happen through literal contact, otherwise only John, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Joesph of Arimathea, and a handful of Roman soldiers could be saved.
Sorry that should say, “By Faith, the High Priest sacrificed the scapegoat.”
Remember that I spent 20 years in the CoC. I have listened to or talked with many prominent leaders in both mCoC and ICoC. I am familiar with your approach to almost any issue. The verse in Ezekiel is the standard response to any Original Sin discussion. And of course, dismissing Augustine or any other historical church leader is par for the course in any CoC discussion. But think about it. Do you really believe that Augustine didn’t know the bible? Or Luther of Calvin? Luther wrote the first German translation of the bible when he was in exile. Do you think he didn’t know the verse in Ezekiel?
But let’s consider this verse since you have brought it up. If this is really the way God works and it is his standard approach to sin then we must throw out the substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross as this would not be just or fair and it clearly violates Ez. 18:20!
I also suspect that your understanding of the doctrine is not complete. It is not just that we are guilty of the sins of Adam. It is that he was our representative. In a sense, we all sinned when Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden. Adam was the perfect representative for us since God himself chose him (just as God chose Christ to be our representative on the cross).
Rom. 2:14
presents no issue to the theology of Augustine. I suspect that you know little of his work. The concept of total depravity is somewhat misleading. It is not that everyone is as wicked as they could possibly be. Even Hitler did not kill his mother. But conversely, even the best work of the best of us humans is tainted with sin in motive or deed. So certainly it is possible for all of us to conform to the law to a degree. But no one is capable of fulfilling the law. In short, we sin because we are sinners. To disagree with this is to dance with heresy.
But also, why don’t you look at some of the Restoration leaders? Why did they chose to go against orthodox Christian thought on this issue? What factors could have influenced them to do so (hint: enlightenment, democracy, John Lock)? And could you agree with Original Sin and still be part of the CoC?
I am not well-versed in RM theology, really. It’s a common mistake, but a logical fallacy to assume that I would be arguing RM theology because of my past membership with the ICoC. I am presenting my own understanding. My own training in theology comes from my Methodist roots, a dash of American Evangelicalism from the Pat Robertson crowd, some UCC teachings, and the years of ICoC, and my own reading which covers quite a few theologians modern, older, and ancient. However, the question of education is not the issue.
If Calvin or others are quoted, that is well and good and fruitful for discussion. However, the question is not about the hermeneutic of Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Campbell, Jacoby, McKean, Warren, or any others. All commentators from Clement to Ravi Zacharias have their prejudices and their influences. RM folks are influenced by John Locke, Calvin was influenced by his legal training, Clement and Tertullian were influenced by Plato’s philosophy, Rick Warren is influenced by a market-driven economy, it goes on. A question about my hermeneutic, though, is quite valid and applies to this discussion. Yet, this is still not the question at hand.
One can look at orthodoxy and heterodoxy through history, but that is subject to one’s own perspective. One could argue that orthodox should have its roots in the Jewish Torah (written and oral). If one were to look at orthodoxy in that manner, the doctrine of original sin would be quite heretical to the understanding and practice of the Torah as I have demonstrated with the comment about bar mitzvahs. However, orthodoxy and heterodoxy are not the subjects at hand.
The issue at hand, as I understand it, is a discussion of original sin as it concerns free will.
The ICoC teachers dodge the question of original sin by saying, “If we do not have free will, then God is a monster and totally unfair.” – a wholly unsatisfactory answer. In the same token, saying that Ezekiel 18:20
makes God unfair is equally unsatisfactory. I do not believe that God is fair. God’s ways are above our ways – limiting Him to an arbitrary human definition of fairness is not possible as we do not share his ultimate perspective. We have no way of knowing whether or not He is being ‘fair’ in any given situation.
Help me to understand, by any references, links, quotes, etc, how Ezekiel 18:20
can be true and how a baby can be sinful from birth. This would seem to be the question at hand, but I could very well be mistaken. I have read Calvin’s take on it and find it wanting. It would seem to hinge entirely on a literal reading of Psalm 51:5
, something that I am not comfortable doing as it would require the literal reading of other Psalms.
Then tell me how Ezekeil 18:20 can be true and Christs work on the cross can apply to us.
To understand Original Sin better, read Romans more. Read Ephesians. Eph 2:3 is one of my favorites.
Read the Westminster Confession Chapter VI.
Read Willing to Believe by RC.
In short, read more.
And tell me, do you think you could be part of your church if you accepted this doctrine?
I have read all the things listed but still have my current understanding. If you would like, we can go line by line through all of the sources listed.
I am not a member of any church, so whether I am accepted or not is irrelevant. Could original sin be accepted in the ICoC or the CoC? Not in most of them. The understanding of the cross and how it is taught goes against the idea of original sin. Again, I am not a member of any church, so this is irrelevant.
Consider Romans 2:14 (NET)
For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves.
This would imply that some Gentiles are inherently able to do the things required of the law from birth, using the same reasoning as Eph 2:3
.
How can Ezekiel 18:20
be true and Christ’s work on the cross apply to us? I guess I do not understand why it would be a hindrance. As I said before, I do not accept “God is not fair” as an explanation.
The blood of Christ atones for sin. (Heb 9:22
)
)
All have sinned but are justified by faith in his blood (Romans 3:22-25
This does not say that some Gentiles meet all the requirements of the law, it simply says that they are capable of doing things required by the law. Where is the problem?
If you do not accept, “God is not fair” than what is the problem?
So you have a contradiction. Ez 18:20 does not agree with Heb 9:22
and Rom 3:22-25
, how do you resolve this?
Rom 5:12
also contradicts. How do you resolve these contradictions?
If Romans 2:14
does not say that some Gentiles are inherently able to do the things required of the law from birth, then Eph 2:3
does not say that all men are objects of wrath from birth.
I do not see how the atonement of Christ contradicts Ezekiel 18:20
. For that matter, I do not see how Heb 9:22
or Romans 3:22-25
contradict. What are the contradictions?
Interesting rhetoric but no dice. I don’t find your argument compelling. Can you name a Gentile who has done this at any time in history? Can you name anyone who has met the requirements of the law? Why is this? If we are born without a sinful nature, it should be possible? Why is it not?
Christ is bearing sins on the cross which are not his own. This is essentially what Ez 18:20 is saying. We are all responsible for our own sins, not anyone else’s.
I don’t think a Gentile has done this. I believe that the same reasoning that makes Eph 2:3
say, “All men are objects of wrath from birth” applied to Romans 2:14
would say “Some Gentiles are able to do the things required of the law from birth”. Of course this interpretation of Romans 2:14
isn’t true, I’m not saying that it does. The point was the line of reasoning, not the interpretation of the text.
Why is Jesus dying for sins not his own a problem with Ezekiel 18:20
? I’m not trying to be dense or lay a trap or be clever. I still do not understand the problem.
I disagree with your assessment of Eph 2:3
(the implication of the Ephesians text is clear to me) and Rom 2:14
and I don’t know why you do not understand the problem of Christ being punished for other peoples sins contradicting Ez 18:20.
But you still have not answered my question as to why no one has ever measured up to God’s law. And why it would not be possible if Original Sin is not true.
However, I don’t expect to convince anyone of this through a blog comment exchange. You will have to keep studying it yourself.
Okay. It was fun while it lasted.
Thanks for your replies, I hope I did not come off as dense.
The implication of Eph 2:3
is clear to me as well, but not to mean that we are objects of wrath from birth.
No one has measured up to God’s law because He said so through Paul. Rom 3:23
. It was possible to measure up to God’s law because Jesus did it, himself. He was still living under the old covenant law when he died, otherwise he could not have been a sacrifice on our behalf.
Fair enough. But note that your position puts you at odds with the Protestant reformation and many of the greatest church leaders and theologians of Christian history. As I began to realize this, it was troubling. I began to think that I should be very sure of why I was at odds with Augustine, Luther, Calvin, etc… This is a subject that requires the greatest care and study. Blessings to you and I hope you continue to look at this and study it.