Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

ohh yeah..whoops.

_________________

Ya, I probably could have worded that better...Sorry.

_________________

That's a totally different story, I've seen one too many people get saved and then believe that their only choice then after is to be a minister as a life's work. My advice to you is to keep your options open, one could always be something akin to a Decon and not have to subject themselves to all the down sides of religious work.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

Since the Bible never even suggests the idea of a limbo, I really have no idea where the concept came from. And frankly I find the whole idea of telling a grieving mother that her child will never enter into heavenly glory because he/she wasn't baptized quickly enough is appalling.

Now does that mean we shouldn't baptize children? Absolutely not. There is a certain measure of assurance that comes from the Sacrament. But does that mean that God doesn't show mercy on those deprived of it? That's an awful jump I don't want to make.

As best I can tell, the concept of limbo came from certain Roman theologians in the 7th century or so, and it represents a rather legalistic understanding of the Sacrament. They tended to view baptism as a legalistic requirement rather than an act of mercy on the part of God.

But it's not as though the Roman Catholic Church is actually changing the teachings of the Christian faith by reexamining this concept. If anything, they are just bringing their own ideas into closer alignment with what the historic faith. Now if they can reexamine the Council of Trent in the same way, I might be a little more pleased with them.

_________________

One thing I've always wanted to know is, what is the point of baptizing an infant? An infant can't sin, it knows no right from wrong. So why is it baptized? Christ and the Apostles didn't baptize infants in their day. I'm not trying to criticize or anything like that. I'm just curious.

_________________

It's for the cause to forgive the child of Original Sin. And it also means a promise and a commitment from the parents to serve the Lord and to teach their child what they believe in.

At my Church this is a common practice.

As for my idea of limbo, I don't accept. Unless I'm proven with something else when I die, I only believe in Heaven or Hell. Nothing more.

Oh yeah. I forgot about the Original Sin deal. In my Church we don't believe in Original Sin, so that's why I didn't think about it. Thanks!

_________________

Can you say that with absolute certainty? While I do not recall any specific examples of Jesus or the disciples baptizing a child, it still does not mean we must doubt that they did so. In fact, considering St. Peter's statement in Acts 2:38-39, and St. Paul's statement in Acts 16:31, I can at least surmize that they did not exclude them.

As for why: The Scriptures clearly teach that, regardless of who we are, we are all born under the curse of sin (Psalm 51:5), the penalty of which is death. Granted, a child may not be capable of actually breaking this or that particular commandment, but the fallen, corrupt condition still exists, and they are still born under it. So why do we baptize children? To place them under the care of our Lord Jesus Christ and to mark them as his disciples. With baptism, we grant them and their parents the assurance that Christ is with them.

As for a church not believing in original sin: It is my observation that all people are born under the corrupting influence of sin. I mean, how many people in history can honestly say they have never sinned? Only one that I know. That being the case, one must ask the question: where does this tendency toward sin come from? Is it not from the corruption under which we are all born? And if you question whether we are born under that corruption, just consider the title of this thread: the whole subject matter revolves around what happens to children who die. If there is no corruption of sin, then there would be no death. There would be no SIDS or Down's Syndrome, or any other diseases that effect children. Again, I'm not saying that children can be found guilty of this or that particular command, but it is very hard to deny that the corruption is already there.

_________________

People have a tendancy to sin because they are human. Obviously, Adam and Eve had a tendancy to sin as well. They were just human. People sin because of temptation. Adam and Eve didn't have the original sin upon them, yet they sinned because of the temptations of the devil . So wouldn't mean that we can sin as well without having to have the original sin? The devil tempts us the same way.
You are right when you say that if there was no sin, there would be no death. If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, they wouldn't have died, we wouldn't have been born, children wouldn't have deseases, etc. Sure, we are affected by the original sin, that's why we have all of the adversity we do. But I can't see an innocent child being required to be baptized and forgiven for someone else's mistakes.
Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Isn't he saying that his mother conceived him through adultery?
You said, "Granted, a child may not be capable of actually breaking this or that particular commandment, but the fallen, corrupt condition still exists, and they are still born under it."
So you're saying that because we aren't like Adam and Eve were before that fall, that we must be baptized, right?

_________________

Didymus, are you therefore implying that if a baby has been baptised, it therefore can't die until it's old enough to commit a sin? because if it's been "cleansed" of "Original Sin" through baptism, and yet it still isn't old enough to sin, logically it shouldn't be able to die. right?

Did David's mother conceive him in adultery? I don't seem to recall that ever being mentioned. No, I'm pretty sure that David is expressing the notion that there is in fact something wrong with all of us, even from the time we are conceived, that human tendency toward sin is already there. And where, I ask again, does that human tendency toward sin come from if not from original sin, the corruption in which we are all born?

But this is not the only place in Scripture where this inborn corruption is spoken of: consider Romans 5:12-17, for example.

Another good question: is temptation at fault when human beings sin? Can human beings not resist temptation? You might also want to think about this: how is it that external temptations are so able to cause us to fall into sinful behavior? Is it not that our hearts and minds are already polluted with evil? I would contend that there is no external temptation that can effect man today that did not already have its seed in man's heart. As an example, pornography does not cause lust, but rather appeals to a lustful nature that is already there. Furthermore, what about evil thoughts--hatred, lust, deception--that occur within us without the help of external stimulii?

And here is a question that St. Augustin challenged the Pelagians with: if human beings are not under the corruption of sin, then why did we need Christ to die for us? And even Pelagius himself later began to realize that, if it is possible for people to live without sin, then Christ's sacrifice was for nothing.

So the question remains: are human beings corrupted in nature or are they not? If not, then why is it so difficult for human beings to live without sin? What's more, why would it be necessary for Christ to die for the whole world?

Cobalt:

Baptism is not for the purifying of the body, but for joining the soul to Christ in his death and resurrection. The benefits of baptism include forgiveness of sins, being joined to Christ, being marked as his child, being reborn, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the awakening of the seed of faith. It, however, does not free the person from the corruption that is present in the world itself, nor does it convey perfection. Christians are simul iustus et peccator, both saint and sinner: sinner because, at least in this age, we still find ourselves struggling with corruption and temptation within us, but saint because God is at work within us, forgiving us, marking us as his, cleansing us when we fall, guiding us in all holiness, and drawing us ever toward him. The ultimate freedom from sin and death comes at the Resurrection on the Last Day. At that time, death will be utterly defeated, and we will be completely restored, given new bodies that are incorruptible and free from the taint of sin. But in the mean time, we still live in a corrupt world, and as long as we are here, we will never be totally free from its corruption. For more info, click Amy and read my sermon on The Baptism of our Lord.

_________________

You and I believe very similarly, except for the "orginal sin" part. Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what you and many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. Through the Atonement, the Savior paid the price for the transgression in the Garden of Eden. He has given us the assurance of resurrection and the promise that, based on our faithfulness, we can return to dwell in the presence of our Heavenly Father forever. Anyway...yeah.

_________________

Parlod brought up a somewhat intertesting question (at least in my mind). If original sin is what drives our "human" tendancy to sin, then where did that urge for Adam and Eve come from?

_________________

Trechery. Remember the serpent, he tricked Eve into getting the apple. She then gave the apple to Adam fir which they both ate.

_________________

The serpent was Satan, right? He is still around today, what is stopping him from committing similar acts of "treachery"

_________________

I think that the fact that we are human makes us susceptible to sin. Adam and Eve proved this. They were innocent and childlike in the Garden of Eden. They had no desire to sin. Satan used the desire that Adam and Eve had for knowledge against them. I don't believe that Eve meant to be deviant, but was "beguiled" by Satan to give up innocence for knowledge. I do not believe that Adam and Eve's partaking of the fruit can be regarded as true sin because they were innocent. Interestingly enough to me, Satan continues to use worthy causes to promote his destructive purposes.

EDIT: Forgot to add that I don't believe in Original Sin. Like has been said before, the idea that a newborn is dirty in sin at all is repulsive to me.

_________________

Repulsive or not, the Scriptures testify to it. As it is, you could even say that the whole idea of sin itself is repulsive. But, and I stand by this, the Scriptures do indicate that we are brought into the world already tainted by the corruption of sin. We are a fallen race, separated from God from the time we are born and in need of redemption.


Why not? Scripture seems to regard it as true sin. See Genesis 3:17 and Romans 5:12ff.

_________________

I'm in agreement with Didy.

Because if you consider it, if people when they are born do not have Orginal Sin, then why would even the most faithful Christian still have to contend with his own sinful wishes?

This is also why I believe that without the Lord, no good exists in any person. Because of the Fall, and untill we are redeemed, the very core of everyone's heart is sinful.

I don't believe they do. Although its obvious that the scriptures identify that we are weak and fallen through our mortal existance, I tend to think that this is because or our natual tendancy toward expirimentation and rebellion, not because we are being held responsibility for someone elses actions. We are a fallen race because we are separated from God, We are not seperated from God because we are a fallen race. Thanks to Christ, this seperation can be overcome.

God gave us agency, I would think that to bestow the sin of another upon us through no choice of our own would contradict this gift from God.



I looked up these scriptures and don't really think that they are defining it as true sin. The Genesis scripture is simply God following through with the consequence of Adams transgression. The scripture in Romans seems to promote my point of view...

"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:"

Although it does refer to Adam's partaking of the fruit as sin, it says that death, not sin, passed upon all men; although all have sinned. In other words (to me) physically we are all bound under the curse of Adam, but spiritually we are all accountable for ourselves, we have no one to blame for our fallen state but ourselves.

_________________

Adam and Eve caused that we should be in a fallen state. While it is kind of similar to the "original sin" belief, it's different. I believe that though we are in a fallen state, and suseptable (spelled right?) to sin, and are sinful in nature. This is called "the natural man." But I don't believe that we are responsible or need to be forgiven of Adam's and Eve' sin. We will be punished for our own sins.
In summary, we have the tendancy to sin because we are in a fallen state, because we HAVE the knowledge of good and evil, therefore, we can be tempted. But then again, it's almost a glorifies state as well, because we CAN choose. If we didn't know right from wrong, there would be no point in being here. I hope I explained that well.

EDIT:
Exactly.

_________________

Seamuz:

That Genesis passage defines Adam's actions as breaking God's command. If that's not a sinful action, then what is?

As for the Romans passage, if sin entered the world through Adam's actions, then how can it not be sin? Can sin enter the world through a non-sinful action?

_________________

Well, I don't think either of us can prove to the other that one idea is the right one. If it could be proven without a doubt, this wouldn't even be a debate. Anyway...I don't know why I posted that.

_________________

There is yet one more concern I have: the universality of sinful behavior. There has only ever been one human being on the face of this earth who was without sin. At the very least, this should demonstrate that there's something wrong with our race from the very start. Whether this is merely corruption (although I probably wouldn't attribute "merely" to it at all) or actual guilt is beside the point. In any case, it results in actual guilt, and this still leaves us all in need of forgiveness of actual sins.

That the corruption is there cannot be denied. That we need to be rescued from this corruption likewise cannot be denied. In other words, we already roll off the assembly line broken and defective. There is something wrong with us from the very beginning.

In other words, if this corruption of sin is not universal, then why are its effects universal?

Also, just because children are not physically able to commit acts of sin does not mean they are completely innocent. What about their thoughts and attitudes? Only God can truly know them, but have you ever spent any time around a group of 2-year-olds? (that's about the time when they can start acting independently on their own, and, coincidentally, is also called The Terrible Twos). Sure, we like to think children are innocent, but can we truly know that for certain?

The Scriptures do teach that it is not only actions that are sinful, but also words and thoughts. And sin isn't just what we do; it's also what we don't do when something is required of us. Can young children actually carry out duties and responsibilities that are expected of all people?

But here is yet another issue: sola gratia. The Scriptures teach that we are saved by grace alone (I will not discourse on whether such grace must be accompanied by good works, or such grace leads to good works--that's been discussed elsewhere). In short, a child can only enter God's presence the same way any of us can: through God's loving mercy. It seems to me that, when people reject the doctrine of original sin, they do so on the assumption that they must somehow justify God's acceptance of children into his mercy apart from cognitive faith or subsequent good works. But is that really necessary? God's conversation with the thief on the cross demonstrates his ability to show mercy, even to those who are unable to do good works, even to those unable to receive the sacrament of Holy Baptism.

So, if the need is to somehow justify young children according to some standard other than God's mercy, then I must ask whether that is necessary. In my own thinking, it is not.

_________________

Yes, we are all in need of forgiveness of sins. Yes, there is corruption. And yes, we need to be rescued from that corruption. I just don't believe that we should be punished for something Adam and Eve did. Christ was perfect because he knew for a fact of the reality of God and of the reason why he was there. He had a perfect knowledge. We don't. We rely on faith.

_________________

Well, we're getting into nomenclature here, I guess I'm not saying that Adam's and Eve's actions cannot be considered as a sin, but that it would not be the same type action as me disobeying God's commandments. I know better, Adam and Eve, like all Children, did not. It can probably be called sin, but I wouldn't think it should be considered on the level as when we knowingly sin.

_________________

Very yes!

You see, in my thinking, original sin isn't about a child being brought to God, and God saying, "Sorry. I have to condemn you because of something Adam did over 6000 years ago." Original sin is about recognizing that all of us come into this world in need of his redeeming work in our lives. No one, not even the smallest child, can rightly say to God, "Sorry, but I don't really need you."

_________________

I'm glad we are getting on the same page here. My intent was never to imply that Childeren do not need the Atonement of Christ, but that through the atonement, we all have been redeemed from the fall of Adam, and need only worry about our own actions. To me this is just one more reason that we are indebted to God.

_________________

I'm rather happy the church is doing this. As the world changes, so must the Catholic chruch. Whether they keep their stance on the subject or change it forever doesn't matter. The fact that they're open to change is a nice breath of freshair.

Now, they just gotta stop telling me I'm going to hell for my sexuality and I might be a Catholic again!

Yeah, never going to happen, I know.

_________________
The Mu is NOT dead!

Actually, they should have known better. God told Adam ahead of time not to do it, and also what the consequences would be if they did. But when the serpent came, they committed the chief of all sins: unbelief. They trusted the serpent more than God.

And in essence, isn't that what all sin is: unbelief? When we break a command, aren't we really thinking to ourselves that we know better than he what is good for us? Aren't we thinking to ourselves that he doesn't really care what we do?

_________________

Ahhhh... what a great discussion. I am thourally enjoying this exchange. Thank you!

Anywho, I will liken this to my son. He is 18 months old and a little hellion at times. He knows sometimes that he shouldn't do things that he does. But I'm sure that it is because he doens't always understand the reasons for the rule. He is not deviently trying to be disobediant or rebelling, he is curious and forgetful. He loves buttons, and no matter how many times we tell him to "don't touch that!" He is drawn like a moth to a flame. When he plays with other kids, he will take toys away from others. Is he trying to hurt the other kid? Of course not, he just wants the toy for himself. He doesn't understand the bigger picture.

This is how I see the Eden story going down. Satan used Eves thirst for knowledge to help her to forget or justify disobeying God's commandments. He did not get her to want to disoabey God, but used a good quality to get his way. They were without proper understanding, therefore, I do not believe it can be considered a true sin.

_________________