Age Of Accountability

[johnny]

Kate

I really do disagree that my position is not consistent with the Bible, quite the opposite. But you refuse to show how anything I have said is discounted in the Bible.

I guess that's as far as we'll go though.

Is an infant born of the Spirit?

How does an individual become born of the Spirit?

You say repent is a condition that ONE MUST MEET to be baptized, did Jesus repent before he was baptized?

[Kate]

Kate

Is an infant born of the Spirit?

How does an individual become born of the Spirit?

You say repent is a condition that ONE MUST MEET to be baptized, did Jesus repent before he was baptized?

Jesus Christ was baptized to show us by example. Was he baptized when an infant? The Lord atoned for original sin.

The words of the Apostle Paul to the Romans stated:

â??For as by one manâ??s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [The Lord] shall many be made righteous.â? Romans 5:19

It is crucial that someone have understanding of the commandments, have a general understanding of right and wrong, and be teachable about the concept of accountability for oneâ??s actions, prior to baptism. This is something I have already shown you references for. Infants are not able to meet that criteria.. Support for this position comes to us from the words of Paul to the Romans, once again:

â??For where no law is, there is no transgression.â? Romans 4:15

It's not hard to conclude that newborn children are neither aware of the law nor do they possess the ability to a choose sin over righteousness, and according to Paul, are therefore without â??transgressionâ?.

[tomfoolery]

tomfoolery

The parallelism is that if infant circumcision was appropriate for entrance into the Old Covenant, infant baptism is now appropriate for entrance into the New Covenant. In Colossians 2:11–12 Paul compares Christian baptism to Jewish circumcision: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

See link for more information:

An Explanation of Infant Baptism

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0003fea4.asp

I understand the parallelism drawn here, but I'm saying that it's not conclusive as it could go the other way, as I said previously. Paul doesn't state specifically that he's referring to infants.

[johnny]

Kate

You did not answer the following two questions I had asked:

- Is an infant born of the Spirit?

- How does an individual become born of the Spirit?

Jesus Christ was baptized to show us by example. Was he baptized when an infant? The Lord atoned for original sin. The words of the Apostle Paul to the Romans stated: â??For as by one manâ??s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [The Lord] shall many be made righteous.â? Romans 5:19

The Lordâ??s atonement is not automatic, it is a gift. The free gift of righteousness is by grace. If the atonement was automatic everyone would be righteous.

The Mormon Church teaches:

- that all people must born of God to enter the kingdom of heaven.

- baptism by water and the Spirit is necessary before a person can enter the celestial kingdom.

It is crucial that someone have understanding of the commandments, have a general understanding of right and wrong, and be teachable about the concept of accountability for oneâ??s actions, prior to baptism. This is something I have already shown you references for. Infants are not able to meet that criteria.. Support for this position comes to us from the words of Paul to the Romans, once again: â??For where no law is, there is no transgression.â? Romans 4:15

Your position is not consistent with the Bible. When Peter said â??Repent, and be baptizedâ? (Acts 2:38), Peter did not tell them that they had meet the criteria that you have suggested above PRIOR TO BAPTISM.

It's not hard to conclude that newborn children are neither aware of the law nor do they possess the ability to a choose sin over righteousness, and according to Paul, are therefore without â??transgressionâ?.

Again you are not consistent with the Bible. According to Paul â??all have sinnedâ? because Adam sinned (Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12,16,19). Newborn children are born of the flesh (John 3:6), in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). We become adopted children of God by receiving the Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:15) which comes by being born of the Spirit.

[johnny]

tomfoolelry

I understand the parallelism drawn here, but I'm saying that it's not conclusive as it could go the other way, as I said previously. Paul doesn't state specifically that he's referring to infants.

Those circumcised were infants â?¦

[Kate]

Kate

You did not answer the following two questions I had asked:

- Is an infant born of the Spirit?

- How does an individual become born of the Spirit?

The Lordâ??s atonement is not automatic, it is a gift. The free gift of righteousness is by grace. If the atonement was automatic everyone would be righteous.

The Mormon Church teaches:

- that all people must born of God to enter the kingdom of heaven.

- baptism by water and the Spirit is necessary before a person can enter the celestial kingdom.

Your position is not consistent with the Bible. When Peter said â??Repent, and be baptizedâ? (Acts 2:38), Peter did not tell them that they had meet the criteria that you have suggested above PRIOR TO BAPTISM.

Again you are not consistent with the Bible. According to Paul â??all have sinnedâ? because Adam sinned (Rom 3:23, Rom 5:12,16,19). Newborn children are born of the flesh (John 3:6), in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3). We become adopted children of God by receiving the Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:15) which comes by being born of the Spirit.

Johnny

You are impossible to debate with. I have answered all that needed answered but you just take it in circles. Jesus Christ set out the criteria to be baptized, not me...you quoted one yoursefl...repent...I refuse to go any further with this.

~Kate

[johnny]

Kate

You are impossible to debate with. I have answered all that needed answered but you just take it in circles. Jesus Christ set out the criteria to be baptized, not me...you quoted one yoursefl...repent...I refuse to go any further with this.

You have not answered all â?¦ you have not answered the simple question â??Is an infant born of the Spirit?â?.

Repent is not a necessary criteria because Jesus himself did not meet this criteria since he had no personal sin to repent.

[Kate]

Kate

You have not answered all â?¦ you have not answered the simple question â??Is an infant born of the Spirit?â?.

Repent is not a necessary criteria because Jesus himself did not meet this criteria since he had no personal sin to repent.

I'm only responding to this because you think I have not answered you sufficiently. You will see that again, it goes back to the same thing. No, Jesus Christ did not need to repent. He showed us the way. No an infant is not born of the spirit if you mean recieving the baptism of fire...the Holy Ghost. But if you will read the scriptures, that being born of the spirit, or that baptism of fire, comes after the baptism by water. Just as Jesus Christ himself showed. So if He sets forth the criteria I have spoken of and shown you throughout the Bible, that must be met by man before baptism, then it would stand to reason that it must be met before the baptism of fire. This in turn, goes right back to the fact that in no way can an infant meet that criteria, nor does he/she need to.

Done trying with you Johnny.

~Kate

[johnny]

Kate

I'm only responding to this because you think I have not answered you sufficiently. You will see that again, it goes back to the same thing. No, Jesus Christ did not need to repent. He showed us the way.

Jesus shows us that baptism fulfils all righteousness (Matt 3:15).

No an infant is not born of the spirit if you mean recieving the baptism of fire...the Holy Ghost. But if you will read the scriptures, that being born of the spirit, or that baptism of fire, comes after the baptism by water.

That is my point â?¦ an infant needs water baptism to be born of the spirit. You say â??an infant is not born of the spirit â?¦ comes after the baptism by water.â? An infant cannot enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the spirit which comes after the baptism by water. Jesus says you must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.

Just as Jesus Christ himself showed. So if He sets forth the criteria I have spoken of and shown you throughout the Bible, that must be met by man before baptism, then it would stand to reason that it must be met before the baptism of fire. This in turn, goes right back to the fact that in no way can an infant meet that criteria, nor does he/she need to.

Jesus did not meet your criteria of repentance before baptism. Like Jesus, an infant does not need to meet the criteria of repentance because they have no personal sin to repent.

[Calm]

I understand the parallelism drawn here, but I'm saying that it's not conclusive as it could go the other way, as I said previously. Paul doesn't state specifically that he's referring to infants.

And ja makes a good point that not all believers were required to be circumcised. The analogy Paul uses in imprecise from the start and therefore demanding one to one correspondence would not be logical.

[tomfoolery]

tomfoolelry

Those circumcised were infants …

I think we're talking right past each other here.

I'm not saying your interpretation is untrue. All I'm saying is that it's not conclusive and CAN be interpreted another way. Thus it's not a really good scripture to use for this.

The way I was making my point was this: Paul is "talking" to a group of people and his words go something like this: (in modern language) "Hey. Remember how when you were born, you were circumcized? Well baptism is kind of like that. Since you are being reborn in Christ, you were circumcized without hands. Your baptism is like your new birth or your new circumcision."

Hopefully that clarified my point. I'm not saying that YOUR point is wrong. I'm saying that the scripture qouted CAN be interpreted another way. So that scripture is not conlusive for infant baptism.

Again. I feel like we've been talking right past each other. So this is the last of my posts on this. I feel I've explained my point well enough. Either way.

[Calm]

I feel I've explained my point well enough.

You have.

[Kate]

Kate

Jesus shows us that baptism fulfils all righteousness (Matt 3:15).

That is my point â?¦ an infant needs water baptism to be born of the spirit. You say â??an infant is not born of the spirit â?¦ comes after the baptism by water.â? An infant cannot enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of the spirit which comes after the baptism by water. Jesus says you must be born again to enter the kingdom of God.

Jesus did not meet your criteria of repentance before baptism. Like Jesus, an infant does not need to meet the criteria of repentance because they have no personal sin to repent.

Yet, you have not proven your point that infants need baptism. Now, if Jesus Christ had been baptized as an infant, you might have something. But no where in the scriptures does it say that an infant cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

[Bat-Man]

Yet, you have not proven your point that infants need baptism. Now, if Jesus Christ had been baptized as an infant, you might have something. But no where in the scriptures does it say that an infant cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

If by "proof" you are referring to evidence, the logic goes something like this:

1) There are scriptures in the Holy Bible which reveal the word of God wherein God has stated that nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and of the spirit.

2) There are NO scriptures in the Holy Bible which state that babies are exempt from that law of our Lord, hence, a person can somewhat reasonably conclude that even babies need to be born of water and of the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven.

3) To be born of water is considered by some people to be a reference to baptism in water, with baptism considered to be either an immersion in water or a sprinkling with some sort of water.

Hence, some people take the information and ideas expressed above to somewhat reasonably conclude that babies need to be either immersed or sprinkled with water to be able to enter the kingdom of heaven, with there being no exceptions noted in the Holy Bible, which is the reason some people place an emphasis on baptizing everyone, including little babies.

And, incidentally, the fact that some other people can also come up with somewhat reasonable and logical explanations to explain their own and yet different beliefs doesn't preclude other people with coming up with some logic or reasons of their own, thus, we have many people using somewhat reasonable and logical explanations to explain what it is that they truly believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Bat-Man:

Yet there is no record of Jesus or any of the Apostles baptizing babies. They are always adults.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man:

Yet there is no record of Jesus or any of the Apostles baptizing babies. They are always adults.

Yes, I know that, Yet, our Lord did say that nobody can enter the kingdom of heaven without being born of water and of the spirit without noting any exceptions when he made a particular statement to that effect, thus, if a person wants their baby or someone else's baby to enter the kingdom of heaven, and they know something about what our Lord said about what it takes to enter the kingdom of heaven, a person may reasonably conclude, based on that information, that they need to get the baby baptized so that baby (or person) can enter the kingdom of heaven.

... unless, of course, a person can find some other or additional statement from our Lord wherein our Lord explained that there can be some exceptions, as in the case of little babies, wherein a person can enter the kingdom of heaven without being baptized, which is generally understood as a reference to being born of water.

... which is what we commonly tell people, as we discuss this issue with them.

... we tell people that our Lord did explain that there are some exceptions to what he said earlier when he didn't note any explanations at that time, and the people we tell then choose whether or not to believe what we tell them about that, with some people choosing not to believe us simply because that additional explanation from our Lord isn't written in the Holy Bible, but is instead written in some other book, or books, which we tell them were written by men who were inspired by God to tell us that.

[johnny]

Kate

Yet, you have not proven your point that infants need baptism. Now, if Jesus Christ had been baptized as an infant, you might have something. But no where in the scriptures does it say that an infant cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

An infant needs baptism to be born of the Spirit. An individual is not born of the Spirit, an individual is born of the flesh (John 3:6). One must be born again (John 3:7). You have said â??an infant is not born of the spirit â?¦ comes after the baptism by water.â?

The Mormon Church teaches "All people must be born again; yea, born of God", see link below

GUIDE TO THE SCRIPTURES

Born Again, Born of God

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/b/37

[johnny]

Bat-Man

And, incidentally, the fact that some other people can also come up with somewhat reasonable and logical explanations to explain their own and yet different beliefs doesn't preclude other people with coming up with some logic or reasons of their own, thus, we have many people using somewhat reasonable and logical explanations to explain what it is that they truly believe

What do you come up with when you read the following verses in the Book of Mormon ... do you conclude that infants are excluded ... it says "all mankind ... must be born again ... otherwise ..."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/27/25-26#25

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; 26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

[Bat-Man]

Bat-Man

What do you come up with when you read the following verses in the Book of Mormon ... do you conclude that infants are excluded ... it says "all mankind ... must be born again ... otherwise ..."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mosiah/27/25-26#25

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters; 26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

To answer your question in one word, Yes.

... I do exlude infants from that statement.

... and I also realize there are some other exceptions, like people who are severely mentally retarded.

Most people I know, including God, make general statements to make a point, seeing no need to get into the "exceptions to the rule(s)" even though some people might start acting all weird while considering someone to be exagerating or even telling a LIE by saying "all" or "every" or "forever and ever", or something along those lines.

The general rule, as I understand it, is that everyone is expected to be baptized (born of water) as well as born of the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven, with very few exceptions to the general rule.

And do you want to know what else?

I find it very strange that most people tend to focus on being born of water, or baptism, without really getting into what it means and why it is imporant to be born of the spirit (of God).

That's the most important part of the issue, from my perspective, and without that baptism is basically just being dunked in or sprinkled with water to satisfy a legal rule made by God... which, as I said earlier, has some exceptions to the general rule, in my perspective.

[johnny]

Bat-Man

The general rule, as I understand it, is that everyone is expected to be baptized (born of water) as well as born of the spirit (of God) to enter the kingdom of heaven, with very few exceptions to the general rule.

Why doesn't Jesus mention these exception when he says "you must be born again"?

[Aquilifer]

Why doesn't Jesus mention these exception when he says "you must be born again"?

Somehow, I have an image in my head of Christ, Nicodemus and a lawyer sitting in a room. Christ does the water and spirit schtick, and the lawyer follows by thrusting a legal disclaimer in size 6 font at Nicodemus that details all possible exceptions, caveats, warranties, contingencies, non-representations, possible indemnities, forefeitures, and waivers of liability associated with Christ's statement.

Sorry, had to share. You may continue demanding that Bat-Man provide you with scripture references while steadfastly ignoring the hefty post-biblical development of baptism in the Catholic tradition.

[selek]

Somehow, I have an image in my head of Christ, Nicodemus and a lawyer sitting in a room. Christ does the water and spirit schtick, and the lawyer follows by thrusting a legal disclaimer in size 6 font at Nicodemus that details all possible exceptions, caveats, warranties, contingencies, non-representations, possible indemnities, forefeitures, and waivers of liability associated with Christ's statement.

Sorry, had to share. You may continue demanding that Bat-Man provide you with scripture references while steadfastly ignoring the hefty post-biblical development of baptism in the Catholic tradition.

That, of course, brings up the image of Christ, Johnny, and two lawyers sitting in a room.

Christ is sitting there with a patient look on his face, Johnny is expounding, and the two lawyers are desperately thumbing through the Scriptures for loop-holes to support him.

[Aquilifer]

That, of course, brings up the image of Christ, Johnny, and two lawyers sitting in a room.

Christ is sitting there with a patient look on his fact, Johnny is expounding, and the two lawyers are desperately thumbing through the Scriptures for loop-holes to support him.

Nice!

[johnny]

Aquilifer

Sorry, had to share. You may continue demanding that Bat-Man provide you with scripture references while steadfastly ignoring the hefty post-biblical development of baptism in the Catholic tradition.

What do mean by "while steadfastly ignoring the hefty post-biblical development of baptism in the Catholic tradition"?

[Aquilifer]

Aquilifer

What do mean by "while steadfastly ignoring the hefty post-biblical development of baptism in the Catholic tradition"?

There's really no point in discussing it. You labor under the impression that Catholic theology sprung up fully formed in the First Century, much like Athena from Zeus's head, and I won't disabuse you of that lest I be subjected to the usual bulletpoints.