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, oroginal 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.
Blaine 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?
Perry
From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:31:39 -0700
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 6:23 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Adams FALL UPWARD
> From: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Blaine: I agree. It does seem a bit strange. It always has. > But apparently not to most of the traditional Protestant churches of > the Reformation. They had infants baptized, or Christianed, as they > called it, because they thought the sin of Adam was still upon them. > > Judy: > I don't know which 'traditional' Protestant churches you refer to here > Blaine and they all have different reasons for doing what they do. The > Methodists sprinkle babies and so do the Presbyterians and probably > the Episcopal Church. I know that PCA people view it as the parents > making covenant for the child... but whatever the reason there is one > common basic understanding and this is the fact that every person > born into this world by natural generation comes with a spiritual > inheritance from the first Adam and this is what the scriptures teach. > It is sin singular rather than sins plural which come later.
> Blaine: So, Judy, do I take it from your comments below that infants are born with a residual sin, which must then be cleansed by baptism, sprinkling, or "making a covenant with" the child?
> Blaine:
> The Mormon article of Faith you quoted refers to this practice.
> The BoM speaks even more extensively against infant baptism.
>
> Judy:
> The scriptures do not promote infant baptism
Blaine: I agree. It seems to be more of what I have been calling the Traditional Protestant Belief System.
but Mary and Joseph > did bring Jesus to the temple to present him before the Lord and it > was understood that they would raise him in the faith which should > be the understanding of those who present their babies before the > Lord today.
Blaine: I agree this is a good thing. LDS infants are presented before the congregation for a blessing, in much the same spirit as Jesus being presented at the temple. But baptism does not occur until the child becomes of age to know the difference between right and wrong, or later. Baptism is seen by the LDS as a covenant to "take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ, and to become His disciple. This must be a matter of choice, but with an infant, where is the choice?
> > I assume the BofM has some way other than the blood of Jesus > to get the sin babies are born into
Blaine: That is exactly the point, we do not believe this doctrine. Children are born innocent. Jesus said, "Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God." This refers to their innocent condition. How can they be ready for the Kingdom of God, except they be innocent? If Adam's sin is still there, then they are not "Christianized," and therefore must be condemned to hell. Maybe these little children are the ones that Protestant Priest was referring to when he told DaveH's nephew some individuals go to hell in order to glorify God, thus showing his perfect justice?
off of them and this is where > Christianity and Mormonism part company. Judy
Blaine: Yes. Tradition and the truth never the twain shall meet, apparently.
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:03:55 -0800 Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ..We believe men will be punished for their own sins..To me it seems a
> bit
> strange that God would hold somebody responsible for another's sins, but
> I'm looking at it through biased eyes.
>
> This proves, explicitly, conclusively, that one cannot know God in Christ
>
> while adhering to LDS teaching; that LDS teaching has nothing to do with
> the NT/Gospel.
>
> http://OzG2004.blogspot.com
> ----------
> "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.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find great local high-speed Internet access value at the MSN High-Speed Marketplace. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
---------- "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.
