PacMan Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Ephesians 5:5 says "unclean person" ... It does not explicitly indicate little children but implies it since little children are unclean. Ring around the rosy...Thanks for the circular reasoning, but it is worthless as proof. And for any type of academic discussion for that matter--but what do you care.PacManI still don't understand how you believe God lies when it says He cannot.
PacMan Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 14 For the unbelieving ahusband is bsanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is csanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.Almost forgot...how nonsensical can you get? Do you realize that the VAST majority of children in this world ARE ADULTS!? Paul is speaking to the church as a whole, and in NO way talking to newly weds with INFANTS. I believe that if Paul meant infants, he would have said: INFANTS!Are you not someone's child? And how old are you?Thanks for the proof-text.PacMan
johnny Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,Thanks for the circular reasoning, but it is worthless as proof. And for any type of academic discussion for that matter--but what do you care.Do you believe little children are naturally holy and perfect?Scripture reveals:1Cor.7[14] For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.Heb.10[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. I still don't understand how you believe God lies when it says He cannot.God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them (Acts 10). I believe in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.
PacMan Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 johnny,Do you believe little children are naturally holy and perfect?Scripture reveals:I already responded to your "proof," as ridiculous as it is. And yes...they are innocent. To say anything else makes God a respecter of persons and unjust. He is not, so you are inconsistent with your own definition of God.God is free to operate outside the sacraments as well as within them (Acts 10). HE SAID, "UNLESS!!" HE MADE NO EXCEPTIONS. HE MADE AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT, AND TO JUXTAPOSE THAT AS YOU HAVE MAKES GOD OUT TO BE A LIAR.I believe in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.EXCEPT HE MADE NO EXCEPTION WITH THE WORDS HE USED!!PacMan
johnny Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,I believe that if Paul meant infants, he would have said: INFANTS!The Bible does not condemn the practice infant baptism nor does the Bible instruct that baptism is to be reserved for adults only. The present Catholic doctrine accords perfectly with early Christian practices. The Church Fathers taught the practice of infant baptism and declared it to be of apostolic origin. The Fathers of the Church did not claime that the practice of infant baptism was contrary to Scripture . They taught that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church. The early Church clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. - Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they HAVE SIN when they die.- Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they DO NOT HAVE sanctifying grace when they die.The Book of Mormon is NOT consistent with the Bible. The Bible reveals a child is in need of baptism because a child has sin. The Book of Mormon reveals a child has not need of baptism.
PacMan Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,The Bible does not condemn the practice infant baptism nor does the Bible instruct that baptism is to be reserved for adults only. The present Catholic doctrine accords perfectly with early Christian practices. The Church Fathers taught the practice of infant baptism and declared it to be of apostolic origin. The Fathers of the Church did not claime that the practice of infant baptism was contrary to Scripture . They taught that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church. The early Church clearly indicate the legitimacy of infant baptism. No surprise from those whom assume authority that they don't have. But whether they declared it or not, it still makes God a respecter of persons and unjust to damn one who has done nothing but being a recipient of others' actions.20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.This "sin" is contra scripture, like it or not.- Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they HAVE SIN when they die.- Unbaptized infants are NOT saved automatically because they DO NOT HAVE sanctifying grace when they die.So no baptism of desire for children, huh? Deadbeat parents damn their children? That's not just, and that's NOT godlike judgment.The Book of Mormon is NOT consistent with the Bible. The Bible reveals a child is in need of baptism because a child has sin. The Book of Mormon reveals a child has not need of baptism.Actually, the BoM IS consistent with the Bible. The Bible declares that a child is not responsible for the sins of his parents...contra to your false beliefs.PacMan
johnny Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,I already responded to your "proof," as ridiculous as it is. And yes...they are innocent. Scripture reveals that little children become holy (1Cor 7:14), they are not naturally holy.HE SAID, "UNLESS!!" HE MADE NO EXCEPTIONS. HE MADE AN EXPLICIT STATEMENT, AND TO JUXTAPOSE THAT AS YOU HAVE MAKES GOD OUT TO BE A LIAR.Why does Mormon Scripture make an exception?Little children are not perfect, they become perfect.
johnny Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,No surprise from those whom assume authority that they don't have. But whether they declared it or not, it still makes God a respecter of persons and unjust to damn one who has done nothing but being a recipient of others' actions.Paul would disagree with you, he says:Rom.5[12] 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:[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. So no baptism of desire for children, huh? Deadbeat parents damn their children? That's not just, and that's NOT godlike judgment.Like you said earlier, "HE SAID, "UNLESS!!" HE MADE NO EXCEPTIONS."Actually, the BoM IS consistent with the Bible. The Bible declares that a child is not responsible for the sins of his parents...contra to your false beliefs.The Book of Mormon is NOT consistent with the words of Paul in Romans 5 (see above).
PacMan Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Scripture reveals that little children become holy (1Cor 7:14), they are not naturally holy.You're a liar--you know DARN well that's not what it says! It in NO WAY says "little children," but children of those being spoken to, of which we ALL are. Stop being dishonest and maliciously wresting the text.And if "all" have sinned, stop beating around the bush: Did Christ sin? He's part of "all," sin't He?PacMan20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.Original sin is blaspheme.Pacman do not resort to calling other posters liars, it is not conducive to dialogue. Momus
johnny Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 PacMan,You're a liar--you know DARN well that's not what it says! Original sin is blaspheme.Original sin is consistent with the words of Paul in Romans 5.
Momus Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 Johnny at what point are you going to be able to get away from the is not is so neener neener posts? Either discuss something or leave the board. Whats so hard about being able to have a discussion, come to some sort of understanding and move on. You beat the same dead horse for days at a time. Now take this thread somewhere quick or it will be your last day posting here. Running off and hiding for a few weeks will not get you off the hook this time. Momus
Momus Posted June 26, 2007 Posted June 26, 2007 And I didn't even have a chance to report him...Next time report him earlier on.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.