/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>849995

I was going to write up a whole complicated response but realized it would just give atheists ammunition because it sounds too harsh. Define original sin in tangible terms, then we can talk.

>>849998

Original sin in a lot of people's theology is that we are partially blamed for what Adam and Eve did, and since no sin woud be allowed onto heaven, then you would need to baptize infants to wash away original sin.

I believe orginal sin is more of just the sin nature/temptation to sin that gets passed on to the rest of mankind. But Adam's sin isn't 'put on our account'

>>850000

>I believe orginal sin is more of just the sin nature/temptation to sin that gets passed on to the rest of mankind. But Adam's sin isn't 'put on our account'

Amen!

This is a topic that Leighton Flowers talks about a lot at soteriology101.com

>>850000

It could be possible dunking a baby in water shocks the stupid thing in such a way it will be more averse to temptation.

>Yay people I recognize are here and they all love me and are encouraging me to do this questionable thing I don't fully understand *giggle giggle* OH SHOOT IM DYING WTF!!!

Those who could not be baptized will be judged as those who could be baptized.

Those who are able but refuse will be judged as those who were able but refused to be baptized.

>>850000

Roman Catholic dogma accepts inherited guilt, so it says we are responsible for Adam's sin. This is why the immaculate conception of Mary is important for them, this would make her not inherit guilt and by consequence Christ.

Orthodox dogma does not accept inherited guilt. Evangelicals probably have a wide variety of opinions.

>>850016

I'm not sure what you mean by "why".

Christ's baptism was a explicit revelation of the Holy Trinity. The Father by the voice in the sky, Christ as the baptized and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. Both were very much linked in the Baptism of Christ, which is the referent and original.

>>850017

>I'm not sure what you mean by "why".

Of course the reason why it must be done is because Christ commanded it. Matthew 28:19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

I'm saying the person I'm responding to, their explanation, does not explain the true reason at all. It is probably a troll of some kind, of course, but useful for a good talking point for this discussion.

>>850020

This guy is a self important embarrassment to apologetics

>>850018

>someone's making out Christianity to be something real and tangible

>must be a troll

I don't even know what to say. Do you want to treat Christianity as something as fictional as comic books? Did you make this thread just to larp?

>>850022

>The Orthodox Fathers

The church fathers

>>850017

>Those who could not be baptized will be judged as those who could be baptized.

Then why even baptize infants?

If it doesn't matter and they would be like they were baptized, then why not have it be done when they actually believe.

>Christian baptism is more about initiation into the Christian faith than it is about washing away original sin.

I agree. But then you can't really baptize infants since they then don't get a choice in matter. If it's about initiation then they should be doing it of their own freewill when they're old enough to make that decision.

>New Testament in the baptism of whole households

And nowhere do those mention infants. That's adding to the Word of God. Such as my household is of seven people, but the youngest is eight.

And that they were supposed to after being baptized "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." babies can't do that

>Jesus himself first links baptism and the giving of the Holy Spirit to the forgiveness of sins (John 3:5

Read the next verse

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Being born of the water is physically being born. "oh my water broke"

You really seemed to have just copied and pasted a long paragragh decribing baptism instead of answering the question for the second part.

But like you said here "he Augustinian notion of original guilt is probably what you're thinking of because it is the doctrine of original sin that took root in the western Church but not in the eastern Church," and what this anon said >>850017 thequestion doesn't really apply to you. It wasn't as to why you do infant baptism, but as to if you believe babies need to be baptized to wash away sin then how that would work for the OT

We're becoming fuducking Anatolia, more concerned with questionable spiritual matters than physical reality and we're falling due to brown invasions just like them. I want to scream.

>>850033

People all ages can be Christian, because all days of a man's life can be lived in and for God. That the infant cannot say he loves God is not a sign he does not love him, for no one is foolish enough to say a baby does not love his earthly father because he does not say it - how much more valid is this for our Father in the heavens? That the infant needs more help from his Christian parents than the adult is no argument since no man needs absolutely no help from his Christian parents and brothers to carry his cross.

We initiate people into the mysteries as early as possible because it is good to be in the assembly of God. Orthodox baptize, chrismate and commune infants in the same rite for this reason.

It is much simpler than you're making it out to be. Partaking in the mysteries is food for the spirit, so we do it.

>>850042

Your explanation cannot account for the parallelism in the passage.

No, it does not follow that if you read it as spiritual baptism the passage says one must be physically born to be saved.

>>850049

What did you find which answers the question about original sin

>>850050

The Orthodox view is that we are not "guilty" of original sin (because we cannot be guilty of something we have not committed) but that original sin has in some way "damaged" man, and is responsible for the fallen nature of the world.

>>850051

So what's the status of dead unbaptized infants? Does the baptism have any soteriological effect?

Presbyterians will teach that babies should be baptized but not that baptism is part of salvation

>>850000

>Original sin in a lot of people's theology is that we are partially blamed for what Adam and Eve did

Whose theology, out of curiosity?

>>850051

This (in a nutshell) is the Roman Catholic position as well.

>>850053

>Whose theology

Roman Catholic for one

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/402.htm

>All men are implicated in Adam's sin

>>849995

>And that many (not all) infant baptizers then believe that if a baby dies that isn't baptized, that they then go to hell.

Please stop lying about my religion

Old tradition is that unbaptized babies go to limbo, a place of eternal happiness but not heaven.

What is it with you Baptist and lying about Catholics? Don't you know that false witness, especially against the Church of Jesus Christ aka the Catholic Church, is a mortal sin that will get you damned to hell?

>what about in the Old Testament when baptism didn't exist?

Limbo was full of the Saints and good people who lived good lives. After Jesus died on the Cross, he went down there to gather up all the good souls and bring them to heaven. They couldn't go to heaven until the coming of the savior

I mean, instead of hateful bait, why can't you Baptist just read a good Catechism? Your hateful lies are annoying because you bring people against the church and you're committing your own soul to hell.

>>849998

This board is full of people who LARP as Christian and just post to get a rise out of others.

>>850038

>you're teaching an over literal interpretation of Sola Scriptura that even other Protestants agree is downright idiotic.

Maybe that's because baptists are not originally protestant. The only way to depart from Biblical teaching on this matter is to become a sectarian such as one of the many infant-baptizing communions of the world rather than remaining in the truly called apart assembly of the saints, as described in the New Testament.

You can tell they are not truly called apart but are intermixed with the world, because they accept irregular and invalid instances of baptism, and they also deny the actual rite to themselves by this manner. The good news here is that anyone who is born again and a believer is able to join the called apart assembly of the church, and following the ordinance of the Lord, by becoming baptized. I have known many who have come out of the polluted assemblies (see II Corinthians 6:14-17) in obedience to the commandment of God.

>>850069

>>850068

Baptist anon sounds a lot like atheists in terms of behavior. Repeating the SAME arguments again and again, and not listening. to counterpoints. : /

>>850038

Well like you said "Christian baptism is more about initiation into the Christian faith" you can't force someont to then do that

>Mat 19:14

1. No where does that mention baptism

2. Little children is likely 5 -7 years old, which they can then make a concious decision to get baptized at that age.

>Muslims employ when they say "Show us in the Bible where Jesus says 'I am God, worship me.'

No, because

1. Jesus does say that he is God in Mark 10:18 and John 20:28-29

2. The narrator in other palces make in clear that he is

Stop adding to scripture when it never says that

>since babies were considered apart of households.

If they actually had infants (which it never says that they do). If infant baptism was legitimate, you'd think there would be at least one verse directly showing an infant being baptized instead of having to do mental gymnastics

>Yes they absolutely can,

umm, no

Again how old are you saying? And that the point of communion is to do in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. They can't do that if they don't even know about it.

They also can't pray because they can't speak nor form coherent sentences. And like above, they don't know of Christ.

>their babbling echoes the language of the angels

Now you're just making stuff up. Please show me the verse on that

>>850074

The counterpoints if you like are merely a set of stock responses, the reader will notice he did not respond in substance. So often it is the case I find that people are guilty of the thing they accuse others of.

Stock responses like "I've already explained to you why _" or "I also already showed how _ and I don't need to keep explaining this" will fit as cookie cutter responses no matter how accurate my criticism of his post is. He could have gotten any post in the world and responded to it like that. It would not have helped his case. Saying "I have shown this" repeatedly, but not being able to actually articulate the biblical reasoning for why it is so (but only repeatedly claiming to have), is a sad trend I see among online arguers.

But let me put this another way. "You don't have a real argument" and "I've already explained why you're wrong" do not work as arguments, but especially not when they are not even true statements. They only work to fill space so that you do not appear to have failed to interact with the discussion online. If this were done in a normal discussion, it would seem far more antisocial than it does on web discussions, but I am not bothered by it myself.

>>850076

>If infant baptism was legitimate, you'd think there would be at least one verse directly showing an infant being baptized

Not only that, but the places where it shows households being baptized it also states that households believed (Acts xviii. 8, Acts xvi. 34) and became addicted to the ministry of the saints (I Cor. xvi. 15). It says even more strongly that only believers were baptized, not others who did not believe (Acts ii. 41). Although perhaps later they did believe, they were not ready to be baptized then so they were not. Philip actually states the requirement of it in Acts viii. 37. It is stated so plainly there is no way to get out from under it, but I understand rebellious people can always find their way in any case. These cannot be hand waved away if you believe God's word has meaning, and that we are supposed to believe Him over fallible man and his fallible ideas.

I see we have got some cronies trying to sell a few different manmade formulas in here. They can't point to it in Scripture because it's not there. But it doesn't affect my church because we already keep separate from the polluted communion, being dedicated to the service of the Lord and obeying the commandment to separate from those that walk disorderly (II Cor. 6:14-17, I Tim. vi. 5). I am glad for my part to explain what God's word says on anything and hopefully we can all arrive at the truth on this together through more actual good faith conversations. I am always seeing progress whenever people are presented with the truth from God's word.

Clearly some people at this moment have to get right with God and start to actually believe the words of the Holy Bible. Once you start to really believe what Jesus says, you will realize you can be saved from your sins because He took our sins upon him self, (Gal. iii. 13, I Peter ii. 24) so that we can be justified and redeemed (II Cor. v. 21, Rom. iv. 6-8, Eph. i. 4-6). Only when a person is saved can they understand God's word (I Cor. ii. 13-14, I Jn. ii. 27). It's time to actually honor God through doing what He says in his Word, ignoring manmade clownlike traditions made by fools for fools, and demeaning belief - while very pridefully ignoring the actual requirements of God.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. - I Cor. xiii. 11.

>>850087

Look, I appreciate that you are trying to make biblical arguments. That is a step forward, but you should not pretend like any of the conclusions you advocate for actually come from it.

How do I know this? I just looked and not a single one of the references you just made have anything to do with baptism. You have made very many sidetracks, in addition to the complaining about having already explained everything. But baptism is the discussion here. See Acts ii. 41-42 and Acts viii. 37, also Acts xvi. 34, xviii. 8, x. 44-47, I Cor. xvi. 15, Mark xvi. 16, Matthew xviii. 19. They all make the same case as Acts ii. 41-42 and Acts viii. 37 does. There is a specific order to things. God is not impressed with those who walk disorderly. See Cain as an example of this. That is the Biblical case reiterated as many times as I like, and I never get tired of saying it.

>you just made me have to repeat myself over the issue of John 3:5. TWO times.

A lot of your posts are spent complaining about having supposedly repeated yourself on points you already made. But if we actually go back here >>850068 we see that you were already complaining about having "already explained" to me even in your first response to my first mention of the verse. That is all you ever say.

As I said before, which apparently you did not read, "So we see then in this context that if you are a man who is only born physically but not born again, this means you are not saved." This addressed the point even before the first time you started complaining about this, but of course, it was simply passed by, in favor of repeating the same odd, unfitting complaints. But I can see why an online arguer might do this if it was all he had. Jesus clearly started the conversation off by saying "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Then when Nicodemus asked for explanation of this, he got an explanation of how being born the second time is different. Clearly, one cannot be saved if only having been born of the flesh. Jesus also explains again in John iii. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." He goes on to say exactly the same point I would make in verse 7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." Because now he has explained how being born again is not flesh of flesh, but spirit of Spirit. The parallel between Spirit and water is present, in the fact they are side-by-side in verse 5, so the typology does exist. That is not an argument against this. One represents the non-physical (which is being born again), the other represents the physical (water). I am glad to explain again; I rejoice in the telling of God's word. But I can already imagine, what response this is likely to trigger again. I am not upset with you for not understanding what God says in John 3, I look at it as an opportunity to explain it more for others.

>>850084

>You're now implying Jesus discriminates based on age.

No he is not. The poster here is right because you have not positively proved that "little children" must mean preconscious infants. It could mean very young people who are able to get saved. But I didn't get into this because it is a side track. The verse has nothing to do with baptism, after all.

Coincidentally, neither does John iii. 5. That verse is about getting saved, not baptism. That passage never mentions baptism.

>give Sola Scriptura a too literal of an interpretation that most other Protestants would agree is ridiculous.

Maybe that's because baptists are not originally protestant. Those sects all share a common thread in creating extra doctrines outside of Scripture for various reasons, and that draws them to do similar things and make similar errors, as opposed to following Scripture for doctrine.

Again, just another sidetrack away from the discussion on baptism.

>>850091

>Matthew xviii. 19

Sorry, this should be Matthew 28:19, not 18:19.

>>850091

I'm not seeing a response, but I already anticipate exactly what you're going to say next before I come back. "Aha, gotcha, what about children who die even before being born" or "before the age of accountability?"

Well, Job tells us that those of an untimely birth are at rest. "There the wicked cease from troubling." Job iii. 17. Solomon in Ecclesiastes agreed in chapter 6.

David in II Samuel xii. 15-23 said the same thing and more as well.

>>850097

>water and baptism

Meant to say water and Spirit.

>>850095

>and that in fact your assumptions are contradicted by scripture like in Psalm 22:19, or Luke 1:14.

Uh oh, looks like you just repeated yourself there and broke your own rules.

The reason I remain firmly on point with the real Scripture on this is because the word of God supports the truth of this matter. I do not need to go down strange sidetracks and alleyways. There is proof positive that the pre-requirement and God's order holds with regards to biblical baptism.

Maybe you think I am being irrational for repeating the obvious. It doesn't matter. I know that God works through his word. His truth is what we need. I never get tired of going through the truth of God's word. Just because I like staying on point and consistently repeating the evidence does not mean I am incorrect, it only means it is annoying to you so you complain about it.

>I showed you that the supposed parallel you think is in verse 5 and 6 is actually in verse 4 and 6, not verse 5 and 6.

It is in 5 and 6. Verse 4 is Nicodemus asking the question, and verse 5-6 are the explanation, and verse 7 is again about v. 3.

>I told you the reason for this what because Jesus makes a dichotomy between flesh and spirit in verse 6, but in verse 5 he is linking water and baptism to salvation instead of creating a dichotomy,

Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. Both verses 5 and 6 go together as the explanation as I just said earlier.

>rather verse 5 and 6 should be taken as a whole unit, as Jesus answering Nicodemus's question,

Exactly.

>not as two separate explanations

It is one explanation. And verse 7 repeats the main point of verse 3 again, reiterating that this is an explanation of verse 3.

>I fundamentally disagree with how you choose to interpret those verses, because

>1. It does not make sense contextually.

How does the context of Jesus making a statement, Nicodemus asking for answer, and Jesus providing explanation not make sense?

>2. It does not make sense logically.

So explain how. Tell us in your own words if it is that simple.

>And I have demonstrated why both of those are true in my above exegesis which you have simply failed to counter in any reasonable way.

Explain how I have not then. What you have posted here is merely a paste of words that you could have written in response to anything I wrote. No matter what, you keep repeating the same kinds of lines, without explaining how. That is not very charitable to me or anyone else trying to read here, it just makes you seem antisocial and trying to seem like you have said something, when you actually haven't. It is fundamentally no different than claiming: I win an argument with a simple "what you said is wrong, and what I said is right" As I said before, this is all you ever seem to say.

You keep saying you have made an argument previously, but going back, all I see are the same complaints repeated again still without any argument to back them up. You can keep saying you have proven that something makes no sense contextually and logically, but it means nothing if you have not in fact done so. It's three thousand different ways to say the same thing. "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm not saying why" Far from presenting a convincing argument to anyone.

I could complain about you repeating yourself here and simply declare that because to me you are annoying, that means I am correct, and then say it in a very long, drawn-out way about how I've supposedly already provided it without providing any actual reasons. I will not sink to that level. I will stay on point here about the scripture passages that teach about baptism. Acts ii. 41-42 and Acts viii. 37. This is the order of things. I thank God for providing clarity in our lives about this if we would just listen to Him and not to worldly influences.

>but what it does do is refute your reasoning against Infant Baptism

It only refutes a straw man, nothing more. It is a sidetrack, as you have no Scripture evidence to go against the correct, orthodox, and fundamental doctrine of Christ. Only sidetracks and refuting phantom positions nobody holds, as well as a lot of word salads that amounts to nothing, argumentatively. None of those verses has to do with baptism. Whatever I might be able to prove with them, has nothing over the verses on baptism. And so I avoid going down those sidetracks, the constant sidetracks and diversions are meant to make it seem like the argument against plain scripture is not as hopeless as it really is.

>I have done the same with John 3:5

See the above part of this post.

>and with 1 Corinthians 16:15

I said here >>850081 that the household of Stephanas "became addicted to the ministry of the saints" according to this verse. You inadequately responded by saying,

in >>850069

"But Paul makes no mention of that, instead in chapter 16 verse 15, he merely says they were the first fruits of the Lord in Achaia, there's nothing hinting against infant baptism there."

You missed the part in Scripture about where they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," as Paul says in that verse. I alluded to this several times. It doesn't only say they were the first fruits of Achaia, as you imply. It doesn't ONLY say that. I purposely overlooked this minor mistake.

>>850104

>Uh oh, looks like you just repeated yourself there and broke your own rules.

Because it was necessary to make the point. I was telling you what I had provided, and you simply ignored what I had provided. It wasn't me repeating the same thing over and over because I have no argument, but to make a point.

>The reason I remain firmly on point with the real Scripture on this is because the word of God supports the truth of this matter. I do not need to go down strange sidetracks and alleyways. There is proof positive that the pre-requirement and God's order holds with regards to biblical baptism.

>Maybe you think I am being irrational for repeating the obvious. It doesn't matter. I know that God works through his word. His truth is what we need. I never get tired of going through the truth of God's word. Just because I like staying on point and consistently repeating the evidence does not mean I am incorrect, it only means it is annoying to you so you complain about it.

So here we go, you provide no real argument, no real counter. Now you're just babbling on and on. You use so many words but they have so little substance to them.

>It is in 5 and 6. Verse 4 is Nicodemus asking the question, and verse 5-6 are the explanation, and verse 7 is again about v. 3.

Yes, in verse 5 and 6 Jesus responds to Nicodemus's question in verse 4 as a single unit, not as two separate units where parallels can be drawn. "Flesh being born of flesh" is referring to Nicodemus's statement "How can someone be born when they are old?" and "Surely they cannot enter the womb a second time" since Nicodemus is thinking of natural birth here, whereas Spirit gives birth to Spirit is directly referring back to what Jesus said in verse 5 about being born of water and of Spirit, which he links together. I should have clarified a bit better when giving my explanation and said that there is no parallel between water and the birth of the flesh in verse 5 and 6, rather if we're going to create a parallel it would be from the first part of verse 6 and verse 4, and the second part of verse 6 and verse 5, but even that is kind of forceful since Jesus is answering Nicodemus in verse 4 with the full unit of verse 5 and 6. There is no parallel at all. It's Jesus giving an answer to Nicodemus's question in verse 4, and then explaining to Nicodemus how this is so, not giving two answers and drawing a parallel between them by equating flesh with water and, well, Spirit with Spirit.

>Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. Both verses 5 and 6 go together as the explanation as I just said earlier.

Right but being born of water does not parallel to Jesus's statement of being born of the flesh in verse 6 since verse 6 creates a dichotomy between flesh and spirit, but Jesus links water and Spirit in verse 5.

>It is one explanation. And verse 7 repeats the main point of verse 3 again, reiterating that this is an explanation of verse 3.

I don't necessarily have disagreements with you on this then.

>How does the context of Jesus making a statement, Nicodemus asking for answer, and Jesus providing explanation not make sense?

Because there is a dichotomy in verse 6, and a linkage in verse 5. Jesus is saying water and Spirit are necessary for salvation, and then contrasting this with flesh in verse 6.

>So explain how. Tell us in your own words if it is that simple.

*sigh* I literally have been but I guess I'll just have to do it again… This is what I said above:

"Your interpretation wouldn't even make sense given the nature of the discussion, since Jesus says you must be born of the water and of the Spirit to be saved, if water here is referring to natural birth, is Jesus saying natural birth is necessary for salvation? That would seem odd."

>>850105

>Explain how I have not then. What you have posted here is merely a paste of words that you could have written in response to anything I wrote. No matter what, you keep repeating the same kinds of lines, without explaining how. That is not very charitable to me or anyone else trying to read here, it just makes you seem antisocial and trying to seem like you have said something, when you actually haven't. It is fundamentally no different than claiming: I win an argument with a simple "what you said is wrong, and what I said is right" As I said before, this is all you ever seem to say.

This is just getting old with you. My God. I honestly don't think you're reading any of my posts at this point because I have explained how. You keep asking the same questions (how? why? etc.) When I tell you how and why, you say I haven't even though I clearly have… Either that or perhaps you're just not reading carefully enough?

>You keep saying you have made an argument previously, but going back, all I see are the same complaints repeated again still without any argument to back them up. You can keep saying you have proven that something makes no sense contextually and logically, but it means nothing if you have not in fact done so. It's three thousand different ways to say the same thing. "I'm right, you're wrong, but I'm not saying why" Far from presenting a convincing argument to anyone.

Because I have… I have shown you the reasoning. I have explained how. I explained how with John 3:5 in the very first post that I made when I answered you on it. Do you not have reading comprehension? I seriously doubt that, I think you're just ignoring major parts of my arguments now. Either that or you're jumping to conclusions way too quickly.

>It only refutes a straw man, nothing more. It is a sidetrack, as you have no Scripture evidence to go against the correct, orthodox, and fundamental doctrine of Christ. Only sidetracks and refuting phantom positions nobody holds, as well as a lot of word salads that amounts to nothing, argumentatively. None of those verses has to do with baptism. Whatever I might be able to prove with them, has nothing over the verses on baptism. And so I avoid going down those sidetracks, the constant sidetracks and diversions are meant to make it seem like the argument against plain scripture is not as hopeless as it really is.

Do you just not read my answers? Like come on, you say I'm the annoying one? All you're doing is proving my points though. I gave you one big long explanation about my reasoning here in the last post I made above, and yet here you are, going on and on and on.

>See the above part of this post.

Oh so it's not okay when I refer back to my past argument since I feel no need to keep explaining it to you, but when you do it it's okay.

>You missed the part in Scripture about where they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," as Paul says in that verse. I alluded to this several times. It doesn't only say they were the first fruits of Achaia, as you imply. It doesn't ONLY say that. I purposely overlooked this minor mistake.

But how does that preclude Infant Baptism? You have not demonstrated why that would preclude infant baptism. Are you saying because it's talking about serving God's people it somehow precludes infants? Well why would it? Babies aren't included in the activities of their families?

It truly makes my day to watch these baptists get assblasted by the more knowledgeable Catholics and orthobros. lol

>>850042

>we see that in verse 6 Jesus is creating a dichotomy between flesh and spirit for salvation, but in the preceding verse he is linking water to Spirit for salvation,

He used water and flesh interchangeably. Just like in Duet 23:17-18, it uses sodomite and dog interchangeably. God clearly didn't mean that a literal dog is an abomination

Also the reason he brings up being physically born is because he is saying that you must be born again. And that Nicodemus takes that overly literal.

Stop coping. At least use a verse that actually mentions baptism.

>the patriarchs of the Old Testament were covered by the grace of Christ that comes from the cross. The grace of the cross is transcendent, it is not bound by time. The intermediate state, Hades, where the Bosom of Abraham is, likewise exists in eternity, it is not bound by time, Christ's descent into Hades is a timeless act that occurred through temporal means. We cannot fully comprehend these things because we are not God. The cross is the absolute center of world history though, everything forwards and backwards flows towards it and out of it, or rather I should say, the grace of Christ's redemptive death flows from it to all people at every point in history.

I completely agree. But if "The grace of the cross is transcendent, it is not bound by time" then why do we now need to be baptized in order to be saved, but in the OT we did not?

>>850044

>how much more valid is this for our Father in the heavens?

Because the baby has seen and knows his earthly father. The baby does not know of the Christian God.

>>850057

>Please stop lying about my religion

see >>850055

>There is no parallel at all. It's Jesus giving an answer to Nicodemus's question in verse 4, and then explaining to Nicodemus how this is so, not giving two answers and drawing a parallel between them by equating flesh with water and, well, Spirit with Spirit.

Ok so you change your tune. The answer is yes there is a parallel. You said it yourself.

<Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. Both verses 5 and 6 go together as the explanation as I just said earlier.

>Right [….]

Yes right. Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. It is as simple as you said a second ago, but then denied it for no reason except for the apparent reason of being an unbeliever resisting the truth. Jesus Christ gives a single answer in verse 5-6 where he draws a parallel between them; verse 5 mentions both births as you just agreed, verse 6 creates the dichotomy on which those two births exist: one is physical the other is being born again which is equated with getting saved. Nothing to do with baptism here, that comes after getting saved. In fact baptism is compared to circumcision in Colossians 2. Circumcision in the flesh came after birth in the flesh; so likewise baptism comes after being born of the Spirit or born again/getting saved, not before. You can't confuse the two or do things out of order, it is simply not possible to be done before being saved.

>I don't necessarily have disagreements with you on this then.

Ok good, cause I think the only point of disagreement you had above is not necessary if considering the truth of God's word. I mean you explained it yourself a second ago. He is "drawing a parallel between them" by equating flesh with water, spirit and Spirit, as you said. The water and Spirit are physical and non-physical. While the flesh being born is physical while the spirit being born the second time is not physical. You explained it well enough yourself so I know you understand it.

>Jesus is saying water and Spirit are necessary for salvation

Well more accurately, Christ Jesus is saying here "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

There is another birth required that is not the first birth, hence it is being "born again." When asked what it is, the distinction is explained by dichotomy between the two, explaining how one must be born of water and of the Spirit, and then explaining the dichotomy of the two, as being born of water means flesh giving rise to flesh, while being born of the Spirit means Spirit giving rise to spirit. Hence there is a dichotomy, not a second physical birth as Nicodemus posited, and we should not marvel that Jesus said unto us that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.

>Your interpretation wouldn't even make sense given the nature of the discussion, since Jesus says you must be born of the water and of the Spirit to be saved, if water here is referring to natural birth, is Jesus saying natural birth is necessary for salvation? That would seem odd.

He says born of water and of the Spirit because these are each a birth, so the context tells us there are two births. It is not only one but both together, as explained by Christ Jesus. "Born again" merely imples that a man has been born the second time, because "again" means it is something that has already happened one time, which is in comparison to a man that has only been born one time but never been born again. Hopefully that elaborates more on what I said earlier in response to this, even if it is basically what I have already been describing and you may find it annoying but it is true nevertheless and nobody will be able to find a place to argue against it which is why I am trusting in the word as my defense here. After all, Psalm 91:4 says "his truth shall be thy shield and buckler."

>I explained how with John 3:5 in the very first post that I made when I answered you on it.

Ok, this is starting to loop around again, so before I go any further with this, check my original responses if you like. In them, everyone can see that I took actual text from your posts and wrote a response. Now you may not like or understand the answer I chose to give, for whatever reason. You may have some kind of complaint about the answer I chose to give. But I did physically write a response, so that enough proves that I gave an answer on why whatever you said was not a true or accurate explanation. That means the issue can't be that I have ignored something. Otherwise, you could just point it out instead of making allusions saying you have already proved all of your points. (cont'd)

>>850084

>Children cannot communicate to us since their reasoning abilities are different from ours

So you are forcing them to then.

If someone is in a vegetative state and cannot communicate at all about what they believe, if you baptize them then that is forcing them to since they may not even believe

>And no where does Jesus say the age of the children, he simply mentions little children

No, he does not. But he does say little children not babies/babes/infants.

>You're now implying Jesus discriminates based on age.

Well he dicriminates based on belief. If a younger child believes they can be baptized, but if they don't understand the gospel and don't give a profession of belief then you can't baptize them.

>providing verses like that to Muslims wouldn't satisfy them

Because they don't believe the Bible. Even if Jesus did say "I am God, worship me." they would say that verse is corrupt and not believe it.

>infant baptism is biblical

again, there is not one verse that clearly shows that. The only ones that you have is the verses saying that whole households were baptized, and adding that they had infants (which it never says). And as the other anon pointed out, it some of those it said the whole house believed and followed the apostles.

>icons are biblical

Again, no. Where do the painters come to Jesus to make a painting of him? Or where do the apostles in their epistles tell us to gove reverance to pictures?

>Stop removing from scripture

How did I do this? I go with what it does say, not with what it doesn't. It does not say that the households had infants, but you add that they do

>adding in your own traditions of men.

Well you literally do that because you don't believe Sola Scriptua. Whether you believe your traditions are things to be follwed or not, they are not found in the Bible.

>you'd think there would be one verse that would tell us not to baptize babies

As the other anon pointed out their are. It says you must believe and give a profession of faith before being baptized. Babies can't believe and understand the gospel nor give a profession of faith.

>Psalm

That's saying he is God since from since he was in his mother, not that he believed on God for his salvation

>Jeremiah

That's God knew Jeremiah would get saved and he ordained him to be a prohet after he got saved.

>Luke

I'm pretty sure that was because of the Holy Ghost

Also if babies do then believe on God, then why must you then explain them the gospel when they get older? If they believed as a fetus/baby then they should be able to grow up and still believe it when they are older, and not need someone to expalin the gospel to them.

So if a fetus that so called believed on God before even being born were abandond from any Christian civilization right after being born. Would they then gorw up in some pagan country that's never heard of Christ, and start preaching them the gospel (without Jesus possibly coming to them in a vision)?

>You don't need to form coherent sentences in humanly language to pray

I do see what you mean by that, but again because they don't believe on Christ. You're not going to ask you're new born baby to pray over your supper.

>>850108

>about being born of water and of Spirit, which he links together.

He links them together in that they are related but not the same thing.

The word "and" can be used two different ways. Such as one verse says "God and the Father" of course is saying that's one thing.

But you can also use it to show two different things being similar. Such as saying "Bob and Bill went to the store". They're different people, but they are similar in that they are going to the store

"born of water and of the Spirit" is the second use. Water is not the same as spirit, but he uses and because they are similar because they are both births. Which he explains in the next verse that the water one is being born of the flesh, and the spirit is being born of the spirit (getting saved).

Which makes sense because Nicodemus was being overly literal thinking he needed to physically be born again, so Jesus explains that you are born physically once, and that you need to also be born of the spirit.

>Right but being born of water does not parallel to Jesus's statement of being born of the flesh in verse 6 since verse 6 creates a dichotomy between flesh and spirit, but Jesus links water and Spirit in verse 5.

Like I said above. The word "and" doesn't mean they are the exact same thing, but that theya re similar because they are both births.

>referring to natural birth, is Jesus saying natural birth is necessary for salvation?

Yes, because you need to be physically born. Which does make sense because Nicodemus thought Jesus meant you need to be physically born again. So Jesus tells him it's being born physically once, and then spiritually once.

>>850137

>Maybe this is a better response than everything I have been writing

Yeah, he should at least try to use Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and 1 Peter 3:21 which actually mentions baptism

Incase he then does bring those up

For Acts 2:38

https://youtu.be/GkBrh5iQ3iA:

And for Mark 16:16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

This verse does not say what happens to a person that belivees and is not baptized, only someone that believes and is baptized and someone that does not believe. Let's say Person A believes and is baptized, Person B believes and is not baptized, and Person C does not believe. According to this verse A goes to Heaven and C goes to Hell, but says nothing about B. According to John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Person A and B go to Heaven and C goes to Hell.

1 Peter 3:21

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

They will take the part where it says "baptism doth also now save us" and say that proves it, but no, it's "The like figure" that saves us, not baptism. And the like figure is the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ. Colossians 2:12 12 "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."

Also it says "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" which proves you then don't have to stop sinning to be saved (you of course should try not to, but don't have to to be saved)

>>850139

Jewtube video was being weird

And of course, like every single thread on this board this has nothing to do with the OP post.

The Orthodox anon has shown that he does not believe we are guilty for Adam's sin, so the OP post then doesn't apply to you.

This thread was not for discussing if infant baptism is legitimate or not. But if you need to baptize infants to wash aways original sin, then how does that work in the OT.

>>850137

> In any case, I just like going over the points of scripture as many times as necessary.

Yes, as as Titus 3 says

10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

If someone just keeps being a heretic it isn't worth the time to keep arguing with them

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

If you thoroughly explain to orthoanon 8 times that that part of John 3 has nothing to do with baptism, he won't ever get it in this thread.

If they don't get it after the second rebuke, they likely won't get it after the tenth

>>850146

Yeah, I guess you're right. I should just obey this command.

>>850134

>He used water and flesh interchangeably. Just like in Duet 23:17-18, it uses sodomite and dog interchangeably. God clearly didn't mean that a literal dog is an abomination

You're drawing a false comparison. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 is a completely different context and I'm not even sure how much your interpretation implies. Either way, that verse is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

> But if "The grace of the cross is transcendent, it is not bound by time" then why do we now need to be baptized in order to be saved, but in the OT we did not?

Maybe because the Old Covenant serves as a foreshadow to the New Covenant? Maybe because both are different covenants? Maybe because the fullness of Christ hadn't yet been revealed to mankind yet?

>>850136

>Ok so you change your tune. The answer is yes there is a parallel. You said it yourself.

I'll admit I confused myself a bit there, but that's only because I caught myself giving into your assumptions when I did not mean to do so. I then attempted to clarify what I meant when I said "parallel", in that I meant Jesus was calling back to Nicodemus confusion about second birth by linking it to natural birth because that is what he thought Jesus was talking about, so in verse 5 Jesus answers him about what Second Birth is, and then qualifies that by calling back to natural birth "flesh of flesh" which is what Nicodemus's original concern was ("how can one enter the womb a second time?") and how he distinguishes this from what he answered him in verse 5, namely, Spirit of Spirit.

>>850136

>Yes right. Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. It is as simple as you said a second ago, but then denied it for no reason except for the apparent reason of being an unbeliever resisting the truth. Jesus Christ gives a single answer in verse 5-6 where he draws a parallel between them; verse 5 mentions both births as you just agreed, verse 6 creates the dichotomy on which those two births exist: one is physical the other is being born again which is equated with getting saved. Nothing to do with baptism here, that comes after getting saved. In fact baptism is compared to circumcision in Colossians 2. Circumcision in the flesh came after birth in the flesh; so likewise baptism comes after being born of the Spirit or born again/getting saved, not before. You can't confuse the two or do things out of order, it is simply not possible to be done before being saved.

Now you're just forcefully reading your interpretation into it. In verse 5, Jesus is answering Nicodemus's question about how one can be born a "second" time, so Jesus says "Unless one is born of water and of Spirit they cannot enter the Kingdom of God." In verse 6 he qualifies this by first referring back to natural birth "flesh of flesh", and then to what he had just explained in verse 5 "Spirit of Spirit". If Jesus were making a parallels to water and flesh in verse 5 and 6, why didn't he just say in verse 5 "You must be born of water, then born of Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God", he should have created the dichotomy then, instead he links both for salvation "water and spirit to enter the Kingdom of God", if your interpretation were then correct, Jesus would be saying natural birth is necessary for salvation, which doesn't make much sense. He doesn't speak about natural birth until verse 6, to qualify what he meant before so as to distinguish what he just spoke about in verse 5 "water and Spirit" from flesh from flesh. Water and Spirit is a single birth, that is, the second birth (born again), it is only in verse 6 when he mentions the two births, the natural birth and the birth from Spirit which he linked together with water in verse 5 to posits a single second birth. If you understood the Greek, you'd know the word "kai" can means "and", "also", "even" or "both", but it can also mean but, hence why in most translations John 3:7 translates kai as "flesh is of flesh, BUT Spirit is of Spirit" because these two are separate births, but in verse 5 water and Spirit are being conjoined pointing to a single birth.

>There is another birth required that is not the first birth, hence it is being "born again." When asked what it is, the distinction is explained by dichotomy between the two, explaining how one must be born of water and of the Spirit, and then explaining the dichotomy of the two, as being born of water means flesh giving rise to flesh, while being born of the Spirit means Spirit giving rise to spirit. Hence there is a dichotomy, not a second physical birth as Nicodemus posited, and we should not marvel that Jesus said unto us that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.

If your interpretation was correct, then Jesus would have made the dichotomy in verse 5, he would have said "One must be born of water [natural birth], then one must be born of Spirit." No, instead he links both together implying that both are necessary for salvation. Being born of water and Spirit are being linked to the second birth, they are not two distinct births.

>Yes right. Verse 5 mentions both births, verse 6 gives the dichotomy explaining how they are different. It is as simple as you said a second ago, but then denied it for no reason except for the apparent reason of being an unbeliever resisting the truth. Jesus Christ gives a single answer in verse 5-6 where he draws a parallel between them; verse 5 mentions both births as you just agreed, verse 6 creates the dichotomy on which those two births exist: one is physical the other is being born again which is equated with getting saved. Nothing to do with baptism here, that comes after getting saved. In fact baptism is compared to circumcision in Colossians 2. Circumcision in the flesh came after birth in the flesh; so likewise baptism comes after being born of the Spirit or born again/getting saved, not before. You can't confuse the two or do things out of order, it is simply not possible to be done before being saved.

Now you're just forcefully reading your interpretation into it. In verse 5, Jesus is answering Nicodemus's question about how one can be born a "second" time, so Jesus says "Unless one is born of water and of Spirit they cannot enter the Kingdom of God." In verse 6 he qualifies this by first referring back to natural birth "flesh of flesh", and then to what he had just explained in verse 5 "Spirit of Spirit". If Jesus were making a parallels to water and flesh in verse 5 and 6, why didn't he just say in verse 5 "You must be born of water, then born of Spirit to enter the Kingdom of God", he should have created the dichotomy then, instead he links both for salvation "water and spirit to enter the Kingdom of God", if your interpretation were then correct, Jesus would be saying natural birth is necessary for salvation, which doesn't make much sense. He doesn't speak about natural birth until verse 6, to qualify what he meant before so as to distinguish what he just spoke about in verse 5 "water and Spirit" from flesh from flesh. Water and Spirit is a single birth, that is, the second birth (born again), it is only in verse 6 when he mentions the two births, the natural birth and the birth from Spirit which he linked together with water in verse 5 to posits a single second birth. If you understood the Greek, you'd know the word "kai" can means "and", "also", "even" or "both", but it can also mean "but", hence why in a lot of translations John 3:7 translates kai as "flesh is of flesh, BUT Spirit is of Spirit" because these two are separate births, but in verse 5 water and Spirit are being conjoined pointing to a single birth.

>There is another birth required that is not the first birth, hence it is being "born again." When asked what it is, the distinction is explained by dichotomy between the two, explaining how one must be born of water and of the Spirit, and then explaining the dichotomy of the two, as being born of water means flesh giving rise to flesh, while being born of the Spirit means Spirit giving rise to spirit. Hence there is a dichotomy, not a second physical birth as Nicodemus posited, and we should not marvel that Jesus said unto us that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven.

If your interpretation was correct, then Jesus would have made the dichotomy in verse 5, he would have said "One must be born of water [natural birth], then one must be born of Spirit." No, instead he links both together implying that both are necessary for salvation. Being born of water and Spirit are being linked to the second birth, they are not two distinct births.

>If someone is in a vegetative state and cannot communicate at all about what they believe, if you baptize them then that is forcing them to since they may not even believe

At worst their wills could be said to be neutral in that moment, assuming we can know what they are thinking anyway.

>No, he does not. But he does say little children not babies/babes/infants.

He uses the Greek word "paida" here which can mean "child, infant, baby, little one, toddler, etc."

>Because they don't believe the Bible. Even if Jesus did say "I am God, worship me." they would say that verse is corrupt and not believe it.

Well they may or may not, that's irrelevant to the discussion though. It's about how they move the goal posts, which is exactly what you also do. I'm saying the same logic they use is the logic you use.

>Again, no. Where do the painters come to Jesus to make a painting of him? Or where do the apostles in their epistles tell us to gove reverance to pictures?

This is irrelevant to the discussion so I'm not going to engage on it with you. If you'd like to see a discussion over it, I recommend you go check out the aesthetics thread (though it may be buried now.)

>How did I do this? I go with what it does say, not with what it doesn't. It does not say that the households had infants, but you add that they do

Wrong. You cherry pick your favorite verses, and then frame it within your own theological tradition, that is, the Baptist tradition, which is a man made tradition. As I have demonstrated above, your interpretations don't necessarily hold, because your interpretations aren't actually about understanding what the text says, but about understanding them in light of your own tradition.

>As the other anon pointed out their are. It says you must believe and give a profession of faith before being baptized. Babies can't believe and understand the gospel nor give a profession of faith.

But how do you know babies can't believe?

>That's saying he is God since from since he was in his mother, not that he believed on God for his salvation

What?

>That's God knew Jeremiah would get saved and he ordained him to be a prophet after he got saved.

It says he before he was born he set him apart, to appoint him as a prophet to the nations. Jeremiah received grace while in the womb.

>I'm pretty sure that was because of the Holy Ghost

It says the Holy Ghost entered Elizabeth only after that happened. I would tend to agree with you though that this was an extraordinary event though, since it seems it was an act of grace, and in baptism grace is given, the moment of belief for a child could come in the baptism, but that is speculation, we simply don't know. Either way, this verse gives support to the fact that in some way, babies can believe. When, how, why, they believe is a mystery to us.

>Also if babies do then believe on God, then why must you then explain them the gospel when they get older? If they believed as a fetus/baby then they should be able to grow up and still believe it when they are older, and not need someone to explain the gospel to them.

Because children don't have the same reasoning abilities as us. You don't have to fully understand something to believe in something. How they believe, that is a mystery to us. The sacraments in the Orthodox Church are, after all, called mysteries. We don't know how these things work, we just know that they do cuz that's what the Bible and Holy Tradition says (the Bible is actually not distinct from Tradition, is is apart of Tradition). We walk by faith, not by sight like you Baptists do.

>>850164

>>850166

Oops, posted this twice, had to make some minor corrections that's why. Sorry. These are basically the same posts.

>>850137

>but gets angry and says he has already proven it but without ever explaining or interacting with the criticism brought forward in the reply to his post.

But I did explain it, I explained it in my very first post. That is why I have been saying that. Stop trying to mischaracterize this because you're the one who is so butthurt.

>>850164

>John 3:7

*John 3:6

>>850167

>paida

paidia

Sorry I'm also on my phone typing all of this so it's hard to type out. Please try to ignore my little mistakes if you can. Sorry.

>>850243

Semantics. Carefully read the last line of what you posted, as it refutes your argument: "contracted … not committed". We are not guilty of the sin committed by Adam, but rather, it is a hereditary stain on our human nature. We are not at all to blame for the act, but do bear the sin itself. You may either comprehend this truth, or prove the Venerable Fulton Sheen right again; the choice is yours. I'm not repeating myself again.

>>850252

You are not telling me where I'm wrong and why

I'm not arguing that roman catholic teaching says everyone had a hand in committing the original sin. I am observing the clear teaching of the ccc that man is born under the guilt of original sin, which requires remission.

Blame is a bad term for this.

>You may either comprehend this truth, or prove the Venerable Fulton Sheen right again; the choice is yours. I'm not repeating myself again.

That is an extremely obnoxious and patronizing thing to say

Why are you on this discussion board if you don't want discussion? Start a blog if you just want to put our your ideas

>>850253

>Why are you on this discussion board if you don't want discussion?

He's an asserthole. He repeatedly asserts his own beliefs without logical backing just to try to convince himself he actually believes them. Fedoras did the same thing.

Imagine if people just defaulted to believing what's logically obvious yet were still capable of entertaining hypothetical ideas. To be honest, the old internet used to be quite capable of that. I'm not sure wtf happened to the individuals on it. People act like plants now. You can't teach them anything new and they can't even think about it in the first place. Make any attempt to reach out to them and you have to deal with their thorns.

It's not like it's anything new. It's just the SJW virus but instead of developing leftist thought it's leading right wing thought down strange heresies under the guise of "truth." If your "truth" contradicts the truth of logic, nature, and the Saints you really have to rethink some things and evaluate if that's really God's truth you believe.

>>850253

>Blame is a bad term for this.

Agreed. I think we're all generally on the same page. Baptist and Orthodox anons claimed that Catholic teachings state we are partially to blame for the sin committed by Adam, which is not true. Then other anons defended him, and I assumed they were jumping in defense of that particular claim.

>obnoxious and patronizing

I do not wish to see people misled into believing the Church holds we are all to blame for Adam's sin, and if a rebuke is necessary, then so be it. The very topic of original sin recently came up in a Catholic book group I attend and people were confused there as well, because semantics. As you said, "blame" is a poor word choice; we inherit original sin.

>>850277

We're not on the same page. The roman catholic position (and many protestants) makes God a moral monster who holds an innocent baby guilty for sin which would damn if not for the invented doctrine of purgatory.

>>850283

>God would be a moral monster if not for my personal belief that the Biblical concept of Purgatory does not exist

There are much harsher teachings in Christianity that make God out to be a "moral monster". E.g.

<Why would God allow someone to be born with physical deformities? My twins were conjoined and died shortly after childbirth. Why would God create my twins knowing full well they would die?

In that case, you have twins who never form a faith in Jesus Christ and, according to some Protestants, go to Hell for being non-believers.

>w-w-well babies get a pass because muh feelings

That's not very sound theology, is it? Babies are born with the hereditary stain that is original sin and must be cleansed before entering Heaven, one way or the other.

>invented doctrine

Your Bible is an "invention" - a collection of inspired texts compiled by Catholics in the 5th century. Purgatory is very real, and despite Reformist efforts to remove all mention of it, is Biblical.

>>850286

I'm aware of those arguments, they're all refuted by apologists. It mostly has to do with the sovereignty of God and His perfect justice.

In this case it would follow that God is monstrous if he levies eternal punishment against innocents if purgatory didn't cover this issue.

>babies get a pass because muh feelings

Not my argument

>compiled by Catholics

Compiled by Christians

This is not an argument for purgatory, its an appeal to authority.

Present your biblical argument for purgatory

>>850134

If the people around him know God, he will know in the mode a baby knows.

I don't understand how he couldn't.

>>850286

You're mistaking us when we talk of your beliefs. The problem we non-romans are trying to avoid by negating personal guilt is the idea that suffering is valuable to save us.

Orthodox place no value in personal pain, while you did by saying the aborted must be cleansed by being in torment at purgatory.

You talk about semantics a lot, please try and see that the RC position is not at all ours even if both answer NO.

>>850287

I'll offer you one, which you might not like because a horny monk in the 1500s hated the concept of Purgatory and removed it from what would become the Protestant Bible: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46.

It is hard to interpret "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." any other way than it is plainly written.

Beyond that, the Internet has plenty of resources you can look at for Bible verses on Purgatory, if you're so inclined. I tire of digging up sources only to have them dismissed based on personal interpretations.

>>850301

I was referencing babies post-birth, but your mention of the unborn does bring up a great point. Pray tell, if a baby is guaranteed to go to Heaven, then why not commit abortion not only to spare them pain and suffering they'll inevitably face in this life, but also guarantee salvation of their souls? From a run-of-the-mill low church Protestant perspective, you'll go to Heaven too for your OSAS "faith" in Christ! An abortionist ends up bringing more people to Heaven through an evil act than a pastor could through evangelization. Pure lunacy.

I'll admit, the RCC's teachings on this matter are very depressing indeed, but it is the only realistic view, in my opinion. I can't help but feel like some Orthodox churches believe what they do as an appeal to modern thought, with a shining example of this being contraception. I might add, many would argue the cleansing "flames" of Purgatory are allegorical, so the child does not necessarily endure pain and suffering, but nevertheless must enter Heaven with sanctifying grace.

>>850307

Yes you're right to guess that along with Luther and Jerome I don't find Maccabees to be inspired scripture so this does not present a compelling argument for purgatory

>horny monk

He married and had six kids, so yes I suppose he had enough sexual vigor. Is that a problem?

Do you think criticizing the character of Luther is relevant?

>>849995

Referring to what >>850243 said, original sin is a loss of our justification and breaking of our relationship with God. It is a "sin" that is contracted, not committed. One of the consequences of this was the closing of the gates of heaven to humanity. Those who died before Christ, if they walked with God (like David) went to Abraham's Bosom, like Lazarith in the Gospel of Luke. Christ's sacrifice opened to us the gates of heaven and in light of this he instituted the sacrament of Baptism so that we might be washed from original sin, without which it is impossible to enter heaven. When Christ descended into "hell" he descended into Abraham's bosom, and when he resurrected he brought the souls who where there with Him to heaven.

Regarding babies who die after baptism, the Church tempers God's justice with his infinite mercy.

<The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into the eternal beautitude (CCC 1257).

<As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism (CCC 1261).

>>850307

>Pray tell, if a baby is guaranteed to go to Heaven, then why not commit abortion not only to spare them pain and suffering they'll inevitably face in this life, but also guarantee salvation of their souls?

Creations cannot know why God wants us to live this life, you're being illogical.

Further, you also did not understand the problem of purgatory since you believe an allegory washes it away. The problem is the kern of your spirituality and manifests itself in everything your flock believe and do, which an allegorical purgatory is only a manifestation of it. Even as an allegory it promotes cleansing suffering in your doctrine. It is the basis of your spirituality and why you don't know God.

From the elation inducing catholic images, to stigmata, to salvific doloris, to "inherited guilt", to lacrimose chants, to passion-of-Christ-theater, your tradition manifests this perspective that suffering is something beautiful and salvific.

>>850035

I was going to quote 1 Corinthians 15:46 at you but then i realized it actually validates your point LMAO

>Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Still, this isn't /pol/, /Christian/ IS about spirtual matters