Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

That's because your understanding of the Creator/creature relationship is completely misconstrued. Furthermore, your statements actually demonstrate that you have no concept of worship as a means of grace: worship is not an act of us "kissing God's butt," as you put it, but rather God condescending to meet us, his people, in order to bestow his benefits of Word and Sacrament. I.e., worship is God calling us, his people, together, in his name, to give us himself.

Perhaps, in the future, you might want to take some time and actually learn what it is we Christians understand about such things as worship before making such unhelpful contributions to our discussion here.

_________________

No it isn't required to go to heaven, but our church requires it to be a church member (I personally haven't been baptized and am mostly keeping to myself through meditation.)

But here's a question for you, Wes. Does Baptism save? I think stating the question in the form of "Is it necessary for salvation?" skirts around this vital issue: the true nature of the Sacrament. Or to put it a different way, why deprive yourself of the sacramental grace that is available in it?

_________________

To us it's just symbolical. Symbolical of the spiritual cleansing that happened when we were saved. I don't see any reason for me to do it until I want to join a church. I have went through a spiritual "baptism" by God, but physical baptism isn't necessary to go to heaven.

As a former Baptist myself, I know that that's the general concensus of modern evangelical theology of the Sacraments. What I'm contending is that the view is not really supported by Scripture. I do not recall a single place in the Scriptures where Baptism is ever called a symbolic act. The only passages of Scripture that refer to Baptism much at all are ones which point to the Sacrament's benefits. Or, as I said to Ian earlier, the Scriptures never mention what Baptism "symbolizes"; it only speaks of what Baptism accomplishes.

Here are some reasons why modern evangelicalism objects to the biblical understanding of Baptism:
1. a faulty belief that God does not use means. Why shouldn't God use water to accomplish his will? And why, then, should we object to the use of this substance as a means, when God himself has given it to us for that purpose? I can understand wanting to counter the superstitious view of the medieval church that the water was somehow magical, but at the same time, why should we not trust in God's promises? John 3:5 makes it fairly clear that water is involved in new birth. Being born again is to be baptized.

2. a faulty belief that Baptism is an act that men accomplish (that is, they see it as Law rather than Gospel). In fact, I would contend that the very title of this thread implies this faulty belief ("Is Baptism necessary" implies that it is a requirement of Law rather than a gift from God). On the contrary, Baptism is not something we do to please God; rather, it is that God does for us and to us. Baptism is his making us clean in the waters of regeneration. In the sacrament, he marks his Name on us (Matt 28:19, Rev 3:12), makes us his children, washes away our sins, and joins us to Christ in his death and resurrection. These are all gifts of his mercy. To deny them is essentially to deny the Gospel.

3. a tendency in modern evangelicalism to make salvation hinge upon the individual, rather than the divine sovereignty and mercy of God. It's funny, but I was talking to the Baptist campus minister at Delta State a few weeks ago, and he was saying the exact same thing! To modern evangelicalism, the "Sinner's Prayer" is essentially treated as a liturgy of absolution, as if saying the words are what actually save you. But here's the problem: the Scriptures clearly say that faith is a gift of grace (Eph 2:8), a gift mediated through the Word. The campus minister and I both concluded that, rather than preaching for people to make a decision for Christ, we ought instead preach Christ crucified and let the Word do it's work of granting faith.

4. a tendency to try to force God to work in specifically understood ways. If, for example, God can give a promise to one person in a specific circumstance, that is supposed to be understood as a general procedure he follows. So, because the thief on the cross received a specific promise from Christ in his circumstance (being crucified), that is to be understood to mean that Baptism is not necessary. However, it must be noted that this promise was given to this man specifically. For Christians under normal circumstances, the promise is connected with Baptism (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38-39).

5. a tendency to emphasize subjective, individual experience over objective community event. Conversion is very individualistic (and very subjective); it is entirely between the person and God. Whereas Baptism is an objective, communal event. There is water, the Word of God, the congregation gathered in his name, and in it, the individual is joined to the community. But here is the concern: in Scripture, community is always more important than the individuals who make it up. Christ’s people are his Body, and are no longer permitted to think of themselves as separate entities, except in assessing their own roles within that community. (All this is a roundabout way of saying that, yes, church membership is important in the Christian life, and the Scriptures even say so). To the ancient Christians, the objective reality of the life of the Church was stronger than the subjective reality of the ways in which God dealt with the individuals of that community.

You say you intend to refrain from Baptism until you find a community? I have to ask, then, why have you not found a community yet? A finger that is cut off from the Body cannot survive on its own. It would behoove you to find a Christian community so that you might be made a part of the objective reality of Word and Sacrament ministry. And this too is commanded in Scripture.

But since part of the problem with the discussion is the way the question is phrased, perhaps a bit of clarification is in order:

Is Baptism necessary in order for God to show mercy? - no. God isn't the one who needs it (even if he did submit himself to it at the Jordan). We have the Patriarchs who lived before the institution of the Sacrament, and the example of the thief on the cross. God is perfectly free to act apart from the Sacrament if he so chooses (at HIS discretion, mind you - not for us to decide for ourselves). Nevertheless, for us, his promise is connected to the Sacrament.

But if we ask the question this way: Do Christians need to be baptized? - then the answer is an overwhelming, "Yes!" It is commanded by the Lord, it is clearly connected with promises of redemption, forgiveness, and new life. In fact, it is important enough that even disciples of John the Baptist were expected to undergo it in the name of Christ, despite having already been baptized by John (Acts 19). It was important enough that even the sinless Son of God himself underwent it, and in doing so, made it something even greater than it was under John's administration.

So my question, as stated before, is: For what reason should a Christian ever deny himself the grace that is available in this Sacrament? I'm still having a very difficult time understanding that.

_________________

The first bit (main thread) is "yes". (And an antitype is something forshadowed).

And Alehandro, you should consider this.

I will shortly read the rest of this thread. But now: must sleep.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Please bear in mind, the very title of this thread is somewhat misleading. We must not presume that Baptism is something that we do to please God (that would make it a Law, and no one can be redeemed by the Law). Rather, Baptism is properly understood as something that God does for us, something intimately connected with promises of redemption, forgiveness, cleansing, new life, and eternal life (i.e., Gospel - means of grace). Further, Baptism is intimately connected with the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, so it does not save us apart from Christ, but rather is a direct application of his saving work to our individual lives. To refrain from Baptism does not necessarily damn us, but it is ultimately a rejection of the saving grace available to us on account of the promises connected with it.

To ask the question, "Is it necessary for salvation?" is to make it Law. Rather the correct question to ask is, "Does it save?" And the answer, according to the Scriptures, is overwhelmingly "Yes!"

Besides these promises, other reasons it should be considered necessary for Christians are:
1. Our Lord commands it.
2. Our Lord submitted to it himself.
3. His servants, the Apostles, commend it to us.
4. Our Lord commissioned it as a task of the Church (Matt 28:19).

Therefore, to deny Baptism or to refrain from submitting to it is sin. And regardless of whether you consider it necessary for salvation, it is never right for Christians to engage in deliberate sin or to encourage it in others.

_________________

All of the following bear on baptism with regard to salvation; stay with me some; it'll be worth it. Didymus's points above are all valid as far as they go.

I substantially agree with the body of your belief, Dydimus, with some exception:

Firstly, Alehandro, in addition to what Dydimus said on the subject, the [s]man[/s] thief on the cross was like Jesus -- a Jew and not a Christian, because Jesus had not yet died; Acts 2 had not happened yet. His salvation was by means of the first/old covenant, not the second/Christian. Baptism was not required by God under the old law.

Secondly, Dydimus, moderns are not under either Patriarchal law (like the non-Jews were then), nor are they under Hebrew law (like the Jews were then). All moderns, however, are under the "law of liberty" (a seeming oxymoron -- but not really). "Law" of whatever ilk was instituted to increase sin, and awareness of it. In distinction to that, the law of liberty is different/new/unique in that it is a system whereby we can choose to rid ourselves of sin by embracing God's finished effort. But the "law of liberty" is still law. You might find it more agreeable if you just consider your first rule: Christ commands it. That's an order, or ... law. This all leads up to baptism -- as a washing, a symbol, a time, and a necessary foolishness. Hebrews 7 contains a wonderful argument on the extent to which Christ submitted -- even the silence of scripture limited Him. And thus he had to leave earth to be our High Priest. And as you've already noted, Paul's argument in Romans 6 verses 1 to 5 is prime stuff; I have only this exposition to add:

given) unity in likeness of death (being baptized) IMPLIES unity in likeness of resurrection (going to heaven finally)
contrapositive) lack of unity in resurrection (going to hell finally) IMPLIES lack of unity in death (not being baptized)

Or more in English: getting baptized puts you on the narrow way to heaven, where nothing else does.

Thirdly, Dydimus, this business of "sacrament" is bound up with a mistaken view of priesthood. The whole idea was modified extensively under the law of liberty: now ALL Christians are priests. And though God wants to save everybody -- even all the non-priests, He won't; few find the Way. You can resist God, and effectively. So you are either a priest and saved and fighting for God, or lost. There is no separate priesthood/clergy, just as there is no third way to the afterlife. And all this bears on baptism because everybody who is saved is saved the same way.

Fourthly, Dydimus, kidos are not sinful, and your reading of David is a good attempt, but better understood by his descent from Judah and Tamar conjoined with the Jewish law of inheritance. David was the first after ten generations from Judah (or the very tenth himself, depending if you count Judah or not). And, all have sinned Rom.3.23, but sin is a process of thought leading to action leading to death. Babies don't think per se, so much as be/grow/become/learn ... eventually they do think ... but not at the earliest times, not as babies. Admitting that they are free of thought at some point, makes it impossible for them to sin before that point. Then there's always this, which is about humility, but it at least must make you wonder, and at best reconsider. So don't go dunking your kids. And remember that "Christian" is no high title of merit, but an admission that means "I was once a dead putrid sinner, but now I'm not anymore, by means of God's provision, and my own choice to utilize it". Kids only make physical stinkies. ;)

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Actually, I would still point to the specific promise that Christ gave him there. Most certainly, that was the thief's best hope of assurance, considering that he was being executed for having violated a point of that covenant: theft.


This is touching on a subject that even our own theologians often discuss, namely the concept of Gospel Imperative. The point being that, if God grants a gift, then commands someone to accept it, it still remains a gift (Gospel), even if the benefits promised in that gift are lost by the failure of the recipient. That is the inherent paradox of the Law of Liberty: it is not something we do that merits the reception of the gift (that is entirely the work of Christ), but without proper reception, we still lose out on the benefits.

But even the verbal imperative, "be baptized", is a passive imperative. It is not something we can do for ourselves, but something which must be done to us. The command then, is not, "Do this," but rather, "Let me do this to you."

Like you, I believe that modern Christians do not hold the Sacrament in the same esteem that the Scriptures do, and wish they would take it more seriously. But I would also be hesitant to outright deny the Lord his right to show mercy on whom he will. Just as he showed that guilty, condemned, and unbaptized sinner that died at his side.


Correction: resurrection of the body to eternal life. While I do not deny that "to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ," I do deny that this is the final state. The Scriptures place our ultimate (final) hope in that we, like Christ, will also be raised from our tombs.


I disagree. Do not the Scriptures clearly state that some are to be pastors, and not all? The same as with apostles and prophets? While, as a Lutheran, I do believe in the priesthood of all believers, I would very strongly object to your claim that there is no distinction between laity and clergy. The Scriptures commend the Church to select adequate leaders who fulfill specific requirements, and to place them into their office by way of laying on of hands (what we call Ordination). I am one of those who have been prepared, selected, called, and ordained in this fashion.

For more information on the subject of the Office of Holy Ministry, I will refer you to THIS DOCUMENT, which outlines both the scriptural and pragmatic necessity of the divine office.

In short, "Priesthood of All Believers" does not qualify every Christian to serve in the pastoral office, or to preach, teach, and administer Sacraments.

Even still, I fail to see why that has any bearing on the use of the term Sacrament to describe what is taking place. Sacrament is a term that we have chosen to use to describe those events that: (1) are instituted or commanded by our Lord for his Church, (2) use some physical means, such as water, bread, or wine, and (3) are connected to promises of redemption. I fail to see how this denial of the Office of Holy Ministry changes the nature of Baptism according to this definition. I prefer to use the term Sacrament to any other alternate terms used because there is a tendency among modern evangelicals to deny that these are truly Means of Grace, that is, that God actually uses such mundane things. That is to say, they turn them into empty rituals rather than allowing the power of God to work through them.


I disagre. Can you enter the mind of a small child and say with absolute resolution that there is no sin there? Augustin, in Confessions, rightly observed that small children are actually the most selfish creatures in existence. Argument from presumed innocence of small children only demonstrates that you have not spent much time around them to observe their overall behavior, but only enough to "ooh and ahh" over their cuteness.

But there is further complication to your assertion here, namely that you deny that sin is in fact inherited. Do the Scriptures not teach that in Adam ALL sinned (Romans 5:12ff). So while David may very well have been grieving primarily for his own fallenness in the midst of his own guilt and shame, I still contend that what he said holds true: that we are all born into the horrible fallen and corrupted condition known as sin, from which we all must be rescued. While I would not hold it against the Lord to have mercy on small children on account of their weakness, I do not find sufficient grounds in this to either dismiss the fallen sinful nature of even newborn children, nor to deny them the assurance and comfort that comes from the promises of Baptism, that are indeed for children as well as adults (Acts 2:39).

I must say, it's been a while since I've encountered a decent theologian. You have done some homework, that's for sure.

_________________

And so have you, Dydimus. But we are agreed, I think, that based on a weight-of-the-scriptures framework, baptism is absolutely required for salvation. Based on the scriptures already cited in this thread, "baptism ... now saves you" "by washing in the water". Not so much that the water does it, as that is the time, and the only time, God has chosen to allow you to take advantage.

All the business of who does what to whom, passive and active etc, becomes less relevant when the point is understood -- to be buried with Christ: and thus the actor(s), mode and manner are all given in or inferred from the figure. Buried is to Physical Death as Baptism is to Spiritual Death, and never-you-mind who does it [baptism] to you; only that it is done, permitting a full stop to the "old man of sin".

Everybody: A great piece of my own family lore: my uber-great-grandfather some many generations back was a Methodist preacher, and a farmer, like most country-men of the time. His donkey died, and he instructed his son to go out and bury it. The boy -- innocent or sardonist, I don't know -- went out and "buried" the donkey carcass by pouring a small handful of dirt from his hand onto the body. His pop was incenced and beat him, only afterward asking him, exasperated, "Why didn't you bury the donkey like I said?" The boy replied, "Father, I buried it with a handful of dirt just like you bury folks with a handful of water in church." My uber became a preacher without denomination from Christ that day, and immersed the people who came to him to follow Christ. And I owe uber, and uber's boy a debt of gratitude.

In short: To God, it's dunking that constitutes baptism; like: to Western Civilization, it's 6-feet-under that constitutes a proper burial; or: to Near-Eastern Civilization, it's a dedicating a tomb that consitutes a respectful ceremony. The deep meaning of Romans 6 is that we have to go into the grave to rise from it, not just to symbolicly encounter Christ's death, but to be immersed in it; figurately (it's just water) and literally (it's a full contact experience). "Into what, then, were you baptized" having "gone down into the midst of the river". Incindentally the link baptized also deals with the only case of RE-baptism under the new covenant (was mentioned earlier somewhere).

As for other issues, Dydimus: there is more to discuss, but we should start another thread to do that, I think. I'm probably boring Alehandro, with all this going-on about means, manners, actors, ancestors, citations and inferrences. ;) Say a topic like "Rightly dividing the word of Truth" or somesuch. We could go off in every direction from there. And, if there is a lot of interest, alls the better. I love this stuff; and I was surprised to find such a thread here, really. I'd be able to post about once every few days probably. Are you interested?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

It will take me some time to get to reading this; I'm a med student... but I'll get to it if you want to discuss it.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

"Absolute" is a very strong term there, and one that I utterly reject. You're still attempting to turn this Means of Grace into a Work of Law (and no man is saved by works of the Law), rather than allowing God to have mercy on whom he chooses, as the Scriptures clearly dictate. Nevertheless, it is sin for Christians to refrain from the Sacrament, to disparage the promises that are made available in it, or to discourage others from partaking of it through false teaching.


In our thinking, ultimately, it is Christ himself who is doing the baptizing (the significance of "in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" - as his official representative), using the baptizer as he does the water and Word as tools to accomplish his will. The task of baptizing is given to the Church, not to certain individuals within that Church. We find it expedient that our called and ordained servants do this, as a matter of good order. In cases of extreme emergency, such as a deathbed, we believe that anyone who is Christian can baptize in the name of Christ.


Baptizo (the verbal form) implies washing, but does not attach a specific amount of water to the event. Pharisees were said to "baptize" couches, for example. Now, are you going to tell me that the Pharisees hauled their couches down to the river every single time they ate dinner? I sincerely doubt it.

But furthermore, the early Church writings testify that dunking was not the only practice of Baptism instituted. The Didache Ton Apostolon says that different modes were authorized on account of available water supplies. Any attempt to force full immersion as the only valid mode is a complete misunderstanding of the means of grace, as well as the biblical meaning of the term Baptizo.


* The Didache actually states: "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

As for the story of the dead donkey: nice anecdote, but not a convincing theological argument. Jesus was place in a cave that was blocked by a stone, not in dirt, as we conceive of burial today. The water of Baptism does not directly correspond to the dirt in the story, nor does your concept of burial match that of burial in the ancient near east.

However, it might be noted that, in 1 Peter 3, we must note that it was Noah and his family who were saved through the Baptism of the flood. And yet, they were not immersed in the flood waters, but endured only the rain. And yet, this is still a prefiguring of Baptism. So perhaps is it not entirely necessary for the referents to match exactly in all three cases: the flood, Christ's burial in a cave, and Holy Baptism.

Regarding the river. Correct me if I'm wrong, but on Pentecost, weren't the people baptized in Mikvah baths rather than a river?

But I will share with you a story from my own experience. Back in July, my step-father died of cancer. What I did not know at the time (because he and I never really had much of a close relationship, and I always lived very far away from them) was that he had never been baptized until just before he died. My uncle, a Baptist pastor in that area, visited him numerous times, and even attempted to baptize him, and my step-father was willing. Unfortunately, because the disease was so progressed, it was impossible to get him into the tub they had brought for that purpose. So what did they end up doing? The ended up baptizing him "Lutheran style." They poured water over his head. Now, if you're going to follow your argument, then you are essentially condemning my step-father to hell for no other reason than that he didn't have enough water. Forgive me if I do not concede, but I think I'm going to trust my Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as the Water and Word that were used.

If I wasn't interested in discussing these things, I would not have chosen my profession. I would have done something safer, like lion-taming.

_________________

Really? Nothing is absolute? Nothing at all?

_________________

In relation to the Sacrament.

_________________

Only [s]two[/s] three quick comments for Dydimus. And then I must study less important (but more urgent) things.

One, I was referring to a willingness to start a thread broader than -- subsuming the subject matter of -- this thread. I kinda think we may be smacking Alehandro with more than he asked for.

Two, the likely bath on Pentecost was H-y-oo-j; probably the Pool of Siloam -- the same used for the ceremonial wash before ascending to the 2nd Temple, down one side of modern Temple Mount -- the side that constituted the City of David during the olden days. I worked on the crew helping unearth part of it for a very short, rewarding time last June. It was buried in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, 70AD, beneath LOTS of rubble; was accidentally uncovered putting in a sewer line. Mostly the district is covered in Palastinian apartments, right now. Anyway, the bath could have taken all 3000 at once. It was that big. It's substantially covered in a small city forest right now, a wild patch. Seeing the ruins elsewhere in Israel also taught me about the baptistries of old -- used for ceremonial cleansing throughout jewish history, which you had to descend into through one tunnel, and then exit from another tunnel -- forcing you to go all the way into the water; though perhaps not forcing you to dunk your head... They were all over the various ruins I saw. The more religious, the more of them there were -- especially numerous around Qumran, low in the Dead Sea area.

Three, I'll get back with you about sacrament, because the connections/explications/groundings/proofs that I see, I did not make evidently clear, and it is relevant to baptism. As for my family anecdote, I didn't relate it for authority's sake but for the sake of identifying myself, ... and for the general interest of other [s]readers[/s]commentators. It is my favorite family story.

It's a pleasure talking with you, by the way.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Review:


Kids, and inheriting sin -- "to dunk or not to dunk"
I do have some exposure to children in the cute stage, yes, and later; I enjoy children, and I've watched many grow up, acting as an older brother to many. But I am not -- as you supposed -- limited to that exposure. I have seen pathological states of neurological origin (both congenital and traumatic) and of environmental origin (both intrinsicly and extrinsically imposed); in other words, I've seen defect, damage, dysfunction and abuse. I will shortly do so even in a (very junior) professional capacity as an "extern" in the hospital.

My point was simply: kids start with God's design, and a will; not sin. God said of His creation, "it is good", so the design -- the child's nature -- is not at fault (or else God lied). Also, He made us in His image, so having a will isn't sin either (or else God has sin -- ie "God is not Good", in spite of the cognate). What children do inherit from parents is (1) a broken environment to grow in -- Adam's and Eve's fault initially and primarily, (2) at-best-flawed trainers -- imperfect parents and guardians, (3) sufficient time to make their first betrayal by themselves. That's the point of James.1.13-15, to say that God didn't make sin, WE did; He just provided a way out of it (and with some difficulty). These three elements are all related to generation (which process God did make), but: all of them are consequences of others' sin, rather than sin itself. The word "sin", chatta-ah, hamartia, "missing the mark", specifically "to violate God's will", is a hiding-word these days, whose meaning can be (and has been) subtly morphed through its English use. A "sin" is an action; a "state of sin" is a repeatedly committed action (with the implication of maintenance of an attitude); none of this can be communicated by sex. Sin is NOT an STD. How can one involuntarily contract or inherit a violation anyway? One can't, and the Israelites were harshly rebuked for thinking so. "Death spread to all because all sinned"; not before.

The whole third/fourth generation rule was exactly about visiting consequence; as well, the tenth generation rule about variously unacceptable parentage. Uncleanness -- encapsulating any defect that was sufficient to keep you out of the tabernacle/temple, or even out of the camp -- was not sin per se under the old covenant, but a reminder of death/incompletely forgiven sin/guilt. Otherwise no leper would have ever gone to heaven, no woman who died during childbirth would have gone, and no one who handled the dead within the last week would have gone; and we know how Jesus treated lepers, women, and unclean professionals of all sorts. Further, this list is only representational, not exhaustive; there are innumerable more absurdities to be pointed out if sin=unclean=heritable. Point being: where "inheriting" consequence is biblical, consequence is not the same as sin, and inheriting sin is NOT biblical; Ezekiel addressed this very doctrine.

Baptism as Sacrament -- "from where, why and how"
So the idea of "sacrament" is old and latin/Roman; the Catholics adopted it though it isn't in the bible, and it literally translates “oath”. The word is composed of “sacer”, meanings “the gods’ stuff” (vs. “man’s stuff”), along with an ending that makes it a noun; and is equivalent to “holy/devoted actions”. The word first meant an “oath of office” for Roman soldiers with regard to Caesar, and then extended to an “oath of office” for Christians with regard to Christ, and thusly -- because words become actions, and offices need officers -- came to mean "actions set apart for the clergy"; and from thence to “special things done by special persons at special times for special reasons”. Traditions can be good. The question here is: “Is this tradition good?” or better stated for this thread: “Is baptism a biblical Sacrament?”

I'll try to get to a biblical explication of this idea of "Sacrament" in the next correspondence. I've gotta go back to the med books now. I had more of my thought already assembled on the idea of inherited/original sin, and it was relevant. so. next time. Also, I'll have the "divinecall.pdf" read by then, to better know where you're coming from.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Personally, no, I don't think so, but it does get you closer, help your chances. This way your are a part of God's family while you are on the earth. If you don't get baptized, God will still love you but you won't be an "official" member until you die and prove yourself worthy to get into heaven. Baptizim just gets you into his family sooner.

"Life is like a dark tunnel, let Jesus be your flashlight."
-A. R. Milne

_________________
You're playing Team Fortess 2... you are a heavy and you have two medics... you are taking out everone on the other team so easy... another medic aproaches... THEN HE TURNS INTO A SPY AND STABS YOU IN THE SPINE!
SPY PWNS ALL!

My point was simply: kids start with God's design, and a will; not sin. God said of His creation, "it is good", so the design -- the child's nature -- is not at fault (or else God lied).

God didn’t lie. When he ORIGINALLY created man, man WAS good. However, since that time, man has Fallen. As a result of that fall, there is not one righteous, no not one (after all, that is what God says in his Word about mankind now – Gen 8:6, Romans 3:10). That being the case, an argument from man’s created design does not fit. Only one that takes into account the fallen, sinful, sick, blind, and dead nature of humanity AFTER the Fall is adequate.

I completely disagree with your assessment that sin is not a condition. There is too much in Scripture to support that it is. Included in this fallen condition is spiritual deadness (Romans 5), blindness, sickness, helplessness, brokenness (not of the world, but of the image of God within the individual).

I never claimed it was an STD, but rather more like a genetic disease that carries itself from one generation to the next, corrupting all.

Furthermore, I reject the notion that it is only environment and nurture that cause people to sin. If this were the case, then you’d think that, with all the systems people have put in place at various times, we would have long since seen the arrival of perfect, sinless man (apart from the Incarnation of our Lord). In other words, if there’s any doubt about the truth of original sin, all one has to do is turn on the news, or read the paper – it’s all there. Faulty environment and faulty teachers do not bear all the blame. No, the reason that faulty environment and faulty teachers can corrupt so easily is because there is already a corrupt nature in man. To deny this is, well, for lack of a better word, denial (and this I mean in the psychological sense).

It is also the doctrine of the heretic Pelagius, which has been universally condemned by the Christian Church for 1600 years, because ultimately, it implies that man can be saved apart from Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. After all, if a person can conceivably live a sinless life, then why would he need Christ’s forgiveness?

I do agree that God did not make sin, that sin is the fault of mankind. I never argued otherwise. I only state, as the Scriptures do, that the Fall has in fact corrupted mankind thoroughly, and that, despite our best efforts to justify them apart from their need for Christ, yes, children are brought into this world already subject to this corruption.


And if not, then where does infant mortality come from? Is death not part of the corruption of sin (Romans 6:23)?

I contend that the only way we can even maintain that humanity has any remaining good is on account of the Incarnation. By assuming our human form, Christ demonstrates that humanity is not wholly corrupt, for if this were true, then our Lord would not have born human flesh himself. It is through the Incarnation that our Lord redeems his creation, specifically humanity. But had he not taken human form, or if he had not endured the cross, where would there be hope for any man? That being the case, then how can we even discuss whether or not it is feasible or possible for human beings after the fall to exist without a sin nature?

Prior to the Fall, man is sinless, uncorrupted, and wholly innocent. “It is very good,” says God of the nature of his creature, man. But that was before the Fall. After the fall, it is, “There is no one righteous, not even one!” and “All of his thoughts are evil.” And the only way out of that? The cross of Jesus Christ.

[quote"Formula of Concord: 2, I, 42"]For that reason and in order to distinguish God’s creature and handiwork in man from the devil’s work, we declare that it is by God’s creation that man has a body and soul; likewise, that it is God’s work that man is able to think, to speak, to act, and to do anything, for “in him we live and move and are” (Acts 17:28). But the fact that our nature is corrupted, that our thoughts, words, and deeds are evil, is in its origin the handiwork of Satan, who through sin has in this fashion corrupted God’s handiwork in Adam. This corruption has come upon us by inheritance. [/quote]

One thing you might want to keep in mind. The terms you cited for sin are not the only ones Scripture uses. And I’m not sure the online dictionary captures every possible theological definition of sin. Because the article is so long, I feel it would be inappropriate to post it here. So I’ll PM it to you.

As for the Ezekiel passage, all it states is that each person will be judged according to their own guilt. It does not deny that a child can actually be guilty of whatever thoughts, attitudes, or even actions that the child is capable of in their fallen state. Taken as a whole, what it’s really saying is that no one can claim that their sin is not really their fault, or that the judgment rendered to them is not their fault. This, however, is a far cry from denying the innate corruption that is already at work in them from the moment they are conceived, the innate corruption that is already dragging their thoughts into selfishness and resistance to his will. And, I contend, if this corruption is not real, then why do perfectly innocent people find the corruption of the world and society so enticing? Is it not that their hearts are already corrupted, and are already following their inclination toward evil?



First of all, etymology is not the chief means of determining a word’s usage or adequacy. To really understand a term, one must examine its current usage and intended meaning. And as I stated before, the term Sacrament as used by us Lutherans describes an event with the following criteria: (1) it is instituted by God himself for his people, (2) it involves use of particular substances along with the Word of God, and (3) is granted for bestowing grace upon his people. Frankly, I think you’re getting too hung up on trying to debunk Romanist theology, that you’re not even addressing the key issue: does Baptism meet these three criteria? If so, then the term Sacrament is more than appropriate, and I’d rather not wrangle over it any further. So let us see, shall we? (1) Jesus commended the administration of Baptism to his disciples just prior to his ascension (Matthew 28:19), (2) it involves water along with the Triune Name of God, and (3) it saves. I think that pretty much settles that.

To me, the important aspect of this discussion is our understanding of original sin. While you make some good points as to why we should not consider original sin to be original guilt, the difficulty I have is whether or not we are to understand mankind as having a fallen, broken nature that works within him against the will of God, and whether it is at work from the beginning of life, or at some undisclosed time later. That there is such corruption I believe to be attested by the witness of Scripture, beginning with Psalm 51, Romans 5, and other texts. Does this alone mean that the child is guilty of actual sin as defined by Scripture? Not in and of itself, but it does demonstrate the need of redeeming grace. That being the case, why should it be denied them?

But related to that, I think, is the prevailing Rousseauian belief that, just because they seem incapable of wrongdoing, it must mean they are completely innocent. This is an assumption. Sin, in Scripture, is not just deed, but also thought and attitude. This you cannot discern in any other person, even if they are a newborn.

_________________

I have a question for Protestants. At what point did the Catholic church turn so bad it wasn't the church of God anymore?

_________________

_________________

October 31, 1517 is the earliest day I can think of..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Thanks for the sarcasm, Ian, but the date Martin Luther decided to nail his 95 theses on the door of that church doesn't seem like it's the exact time the Catholic church went bad. After all, he'd been observing problems in the church for years before he decided to write his theses.

_________________

It was a build up over time. There was no exact moment. The Catholic Church became too worldly and corrupt. The Black Plague didn't help things, either. The Catholic Church is telling people to pray for help and none is coming. It made the Church look really weak. For Luther, the straw that broke the camel's back was when the Church started selling indulgences to forgive sins.

_________________

I'm not sure it can rightly be said that they ceased to be a PART of the Holy Christian Church. Only that they NEVER were THE Holy Christian Church. By that I mean that, while they are Christian, I'm not of the opinion that they ever truly had the authority to speak for all Christians everywhere at all times. While I do not openly contest that St. Peter was the bishop of Rome, I would submit that St. James, the Brother of our Lord, as bishop of Jerusalem, seems to have been the leader of the Church at large rather than Peter (Acts 15).

The Great Schism between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church marks a point at which it can be said that the Roman Church was overstepping its boundaries in that. While I would contend that the Western Church was right in confessing filioque (the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son), it did not have the authority to simply impose the doctrine on the Eastern Church without due process.

It is at some point in the Medieval period that this paradigm - the absolute authority of the papacy - began to solidify. And so, by the time of Luther, the Roman Church has an authority structure that is subject to corruption and greed, while Roman Catholic Christians themselves are only following what they are being taught.

And yet, during this whole time, the Roman Church is baptizing people for the forgiveness of sins. It is also hearing their confessions and granting them forgiveness in accordance with the Gospel (1 John 1:9). And, most importantly, confessing the Triune nature of God, along with the Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Reformation is not the date the Roman Church became corrupt, but rather the period of time when that corruption began to be recognized by honest Christians who wanted to see it corrected. The corruption - and to a very large degree, the recognition and impetus to change - had been there for at least a couple of centuries. After all, what were St. Francis and St. Dominic except reformers who lived too long before the Reformation itself?

So on one hand, the Roman Catholic structure during that time had fallen away, and can certainly be said not to be following God's authority, and yet, even under that corrupt authority, there are still true saints who trusted in the Gospel, received the Sacraments, confessed their sins and were forgiven of them. So, like Luther, I prefer to challenge the authority, but not condemn the people. Maybe some of their practices were inappropriate (but then again, I have yet to encounter a single church body that did EVERYTHING exactly right), and maybe some of their beliefs didn't line up with Scripture. Nevertheless, it is Christ himself who saves, and that by way of gift. The Church is not a political structure, but a heavenly entity, to which Christ himself joins all true believers.

So to answer the question, the authority of the Roman Church fell away from God sometime in the Middle Ages, perhaps between the Great Schism and the Renaissance. But that does not mean there were not true Christians among the Roman Catholics during that time, nor today for that matter.

_________________

I'll go you one better and answer the question "When does any body turn so bad that it is no longer of God?".

While I like the history from Dydimus (who knows FAR more of it than I do), I'm a bit more judgmental; I'm commandedto be. In this case "vanity" means "uselessness" -- so to be rendered useless in your worship to God -- which is the major thrust of your question, I think -- alls you have to do is teach man-originated doctrine as though it were from Him; He hates that... "every tree -- not planted by Me -- will be uprooted", He says. This isn't just applicable to any particular group, it applies generally to ANY group that is not Christ's group. Thus again the requirement to "judge rightly" and to diligently study and "rightly divide" or interpret scripture, determining the closeness of the group by your own knowledge of God's will.

This is actually a major theme in this thread -- "Which doctrine and why?". We are discussing here (in my opinion) one of the most divisive doctrines -- baptism -- that exists in "Christendom" (which word I'll use to mean ANY group that considers itself spiritually connected to Christ in ANY way). I consider myself neither Protestant nor Catholic, but Christian, btw.

So this might not have been a question to me. ;)

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

John 7:24 - you might want to examine the immediate context of that passage. It is regarding people who were basically calling Jesus demon-possessed without due cause, and in the process rejecting the Holy Spirit's testimony of Jesus. The command to "judge rightly" here is directly related to their confession of Jesus.

_________________

'Tis true. But as well, the idea is broadly applicable to interpreting life events and scripture (as well as any legal document). To accept the evidence given you; not to deny what your God-given senses tell you. To live in reality. Thus it can be rightly applied as a principle, especially when you consider other passages like Hebrews.11.1 -- "faith is a conviction based on hope based on evidence"; then later in ch11, evidence is defined as the "testimony of a cloud of witnesses". And it is related to the confession of Jesus, because -- Jesus is Lord; it's a fact; we shouldn't deny facts (especially such important ones). But we also shouldn't deny other lesser facts, when they are so vetted.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

True. But here's a lesson to be learned, too. Have you ever read the Gospels and wondered how the disciples could be so stupid? Half the time, they didn't understand what Jesus was even saying, even when he explained it to them. Other times, even when they understood, either they forgot or they completely disbelieved. How many times did Jesus tell his disciples that he was going to die, and that he was going to rise from the dead? Did they ever get it? Not until they saw with their own eyes. Peter even went so far as to tell Jesus he wasn't going to let it happen, and our Lord replied to him, "Get behind me, Satan!"

Yes, that was all before Pentecost, but what about afterward? What about the conflict between Peter and Paul regarding the Gentiles? Or between Paul and Barnabas about John Mark?

Now, I'm not making excuse for any false teaching. In my own opinion, false teaching needs to be corrected with the Word of God and sound teaching. I'm only pointing out that it is entirely possible for a person to be mistaken about something and still be a partaker of God's mercy. For example, while I do call it sin for a Christian to refrain from Baptism, or to teach others to do so, or even to hold false ideas about Baptism, I would never deny the grace of God at work in Baptism to forgive sins, even those of ignorance. Because in the end, it is the grace and the calling of our Lord Jesus Christ that makes us his disciples, not the score we make on our theology exams.

_________________

It is somewhat problematic to talk about "the nature after the fall", when we do not agree on "the nautre OF the fall". The main discrepancy I would point out is just this: if our susceptibility to sin comes from an inherited trait (of whatever origin), where did Adam's and Eve' susceptibility come from? God? By the original sin hypothesis God must have either put the tendency there (implicating Himself) or indeed have lied about everything being "very good", since that tendency to succumb to sin is evidently NOT "very good". [EDIT]: A third option might be to say "the tendency to sin is very good", which seems absurd.

The comment on sin as STD is just illustrative -- a novel presentation intended to side-step already fully-formed opinion; to permit thought anew. The looseness/weakness inherent to this analogy is that mother-to-child transmission isn't usually how people think of STDs, but it does happen. So I used it. The genetic analogy is good; it could conceivably work like cancer, which can be (but isn't always) heritable. The problem remains, that the damage to the "code" (DNA, in the case of cancer) is CAUSED by some noxious stimulus/event/actor. Skin cancer laregly by sun exposure; cervical cancer almost entirely by HPV; mesothelioma often by asbestos; etc etc. So who caused the first sin (damaging the perfect "code" of innocence) before there was any tendency to be susceptible? It goes back to the story of Adam's and Eve's fall from the garden again. Did Satan break the perfect nature within Adam and Eve that God had made? Why then did God make it so fragile? and can that be considered perfect? [EDIT]: And, why would God punish Adam and Eve for something that Satan did?

Denying the sinful nature would be denial, if it were clearly wrong. To deny it is not wrong and is in fact soundly and broadly based in scriptural myth -- a fundamental belief that Adam and Eve, blessed with perfect natures (by all accounts), and a perfect environment, NEVERTHELESS, chose to sin. They exercised their undefiled will for ill, and paid the price, initiating the whole chain of events whose penultimate was Christ's death. They also broke all things that were subject to them, as you have noted. But other people were not subject to them in this way. We are each made in God's image. The fact IS (irrespective of the tradition involving Palagius) that anyone can live sinless, but no one does. Possibility was always there, but He accurately foresaw that NO ONE would fulfill the potential, so He stepped in Himself. This does not negate His centrality and uniqueness; it emphasizes it. And it focuses attention on His now-humanity, and thusly elevates us -- as was intended. Death -- infant, elderly, innocent, executed, and otherwise is an untoward consequence, which -- because this place is cursed, and because Christ redeemed Christians -- ultimately works to the Christian's advantage. But "ultimately" can seem like a really long time, for comparatively young ones such as us.

Christ's life events are the center of the creation story, but His redemptive power was achieved through His resurrection, not His birth, life or death. He had to get through all that without flaw in order for death to have no hold on Him, but ... it is by virtue of resurrection that we kindred of Adam have hope at all, as you said. But the incarnation itself is a means to an end; had Christ failed, we'd have been just as lost as before Christ came; and it was possible for Him to have failed, just as for us. [EDIT]: THANK GOD Jesus did not fail, no vanity intended!


I totally agree that "no one can claim that their sin/judgment is not really their fault". I'll turn it back on you: Why did the perfectly innocent Eve find the corruption of the serpent so enticing? Why did the perfectly innocent Adam find the corruption of Eve so enticing? Answer me, and I'll answer you.


You are correct that the discussion of sacrament is less important than inherited sin, even though both touch on baptism. I was going to touch on various offices and make arguments based on silence, but that can get pretty airy. I've touched on Romans 5 above, and Psalms 51 was yours-and-my introduction to one another, so I'll just finish off this article with one longish question:

If the genetically communicated "sin" to a kid by his parents isn't "actual sin" by your definition, and it isn't more than "consequence" by mine; are we then agreed that God wouldn't punish a child of Adam for the Primal Sin of Adam? I mean outside of the requirement to live in the mire created by his parents for a while?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Watch the movie "Luther".

_________________
Never-ending so-oda, oh oh oh oh oh oh oh!

You smell like pea soup!