From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Judy is determined to stick with the tradition handed down
to her and all Protestants that says children need to be baptized
to for the remission of Adam's sin.
Judy:
I stick with no such thing Blaine and I would appreciate your not
putting words in my mouth. I do not believe in baptizing babies,
I was merely giving the reason it is done in some circles which is
for blessing but a faithless sprinkling does nothing to remit sin.
Blaine:
This is a glaring error in doctrine, one that was never a part of
original Christianity.
Judy:
Are you and DaveH now going to presume to explain what the
"faith once delivered to the saints" is all about now Blaine?
Blaine:
Failure to provide scriptural evidence of it being an original Christian
doctrine is more than ample proof it never existed in the first place.
Judy:
Oh that you would be so diligent about providing the same kind of
scriptural evidence to support your BofM Blaine.
Blaine:
It is, I repeat, a TRADITION, that was started by the great and
abominable church sometime after the persecutions ceased when
Constantine made Christianity the state religion. We need to look this
up and find out exactly when and by whom this false doctrine was
started. Then we might have something to talk about.
Judy:
Now this is interesting .. Tradition is wrong when it comes to infant
baptism in Christian circles but OK when it comes to the spurious and
extra biblical nonsense that goes on at your temple in SLC.
Blaine:
As for me, I believe the original doctrine of the early Christian Church
is summed up in these words given from the very mouth of the Savior:
(Luke 18:15-17) "And they brought unto him also infants, that he
would touch them...
Judy:
The parents bringing the infants wanted Him to bless them - same
as the parents who bring infants to Church for Christening today
present them before the Lord for blessing whether it be by sprinkling
or by prayer alone.
Blaine:
and when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called
unto them and said, suffer little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say
unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child shall in nowise enter therein."
Judy:
Jesus here is not speaking of guilt or innocence, He refers to 'faith
or trust' - apparently you rejected the scriptures which explain
further because they conflict with your own Mormon doctrines.
Blaine:
How is a little child different from most adults? It is innocent.
Judy:
Little children are not responsible but neither are they innocent.
They begin to exert their little Adamic sin nature very early on.
We have a grandson 18 months old who already wants to be
the boss and who is very aggressive. Don't tell me babies are
innocent Blaine, you must not have had any.
Blaine:
Adults must be baptized for the remission of sins in order to
become innocent and be admitted into the Kingdom of God.
Judy:
Baptism alone remits nothing. Everyone must hear the gospel
(the correct one that is), respond to the Word of Truth by
receiving Jesus as Savior and Lord becoming born again after
which they must walk after the Spirit so that they do not fulfill
the lust of the flesh.
Blaine:
But little children do not need this, according to the Lord's own
words.
Judy:
You've got to be kidding .. You have posted the Lords own
words with the Mormon twist Blaine. You are not quoting Him
in balance and in context.
Blaine:
Notice, even here, nothing is said concerning a sin of Adam
needing to be remitted--the children are said to be emminantly
qualified, so much so they furnish us with the perfect example
of how we must become before being qualified to enter the
kingdom.
Judy:
Where are they said to be "emminently qualified?" You sure
do read a lot into things twisting what has been said. Oh well
it's not so surprising because Peter the apostle said this would
happen and so did Paul.
From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I really see two different ideas being discussed here:
1) the idea of a child being born with inherent, original sin, resulting
from the fall and inherited from Adam, and
2) a child being born with a sin nature resulting from the fall and
inherited from Adam.
I believe the first leads to the idea of infant baptism to wash away the
inherent sin, as in the RCC, and the second leads to the idea of an age
of
accountability, before which one has a sin nature but is not held
accountable for sins committed prior to some point in one's life.
David seems to be arguing from the viewpoint of the first, while Judy
seems to be arguing from the viewpoint of the second. Do I have this
right?
Judy:
You have my part right Perry but DaveH so far as I can tell believes
the same as Blaine which is that children are born innocent and that
baptizing babies is apostasy and error and is part of protestant
tradition Apparently this is part of the doctrine of Mormonism.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
