[quote=ST100]Ive heard a few passages argued against orig sin and infant baptism.
The first is Ezekiel 18:20 saying “ONly the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guild of his father…” It is argued that this disproves original sin
The second is Romans 7:7-11 where in verse 9 Paul says he was “Once alive outside the law, but when the commandment came, sin became alive; then I died…” It is argued that this shows that we are not born separated from God.
The third is Hebrews 8:6-13 where in verse 11 it says “all shall know me, from least to greatest” talking abuot the new covenant and how it differs from the old covenant. This is used to show that the only adults should be baptised as infants can’t know God (it makes more sense if one reads the whole passage).
How would one respond to these arguments?
In direct response to the verses I would suggest:
Number 1: Read the verses before and after Ezekeil 18:20 and you will see that this verse has nothing tho do with original sin. It in no way denies original sin because it is addressing the actions of people that have reached the age of reason. It is specifically talking about their own personal transgressions, and it declares that God will not hold the son responsible for the trangressions of his father, but the son will be held accountable for his own sins.
Number 2: Read the entire book of Romans and then return to Chapter 7 and the verses contained therein. Notice in Romans 7:5-6 that Paul says, "While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that **we serve ** not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit"
Paul is telling us that before baptism and the gift of faith, we were living under the burden of original sin without the power of God’s grace. Now we are in the new life of the Spirit. This is what happens with baptism(the sacrament of faith). If there were no original sin, our relationship with God would be like that of Adam before the fall and we would already be living in the spirit from the moment of our birth.
Number 3: Likewise Hebrews Chapter 8 in no way directly addresses the issue of infant baptism. However, the chapter does talk about both the old and new covenants and how in each covenant God declares “I will be their God and they shall be my people.” So if the pattern is the same for both covenants then we must accept the fact that infants were brought into the old covenant on the eight day after birth. This was signified in the male children through circumcision. Paul equates baptism and circumcision in COLOSSIANS 2:11-12 where we read, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”
Interestingly enough, the first argument within the Christian Church over infant baptism was not whether or not to baptize infants, but whether or not to do it on the eight day after birth in keeping with the Jewish tradition for circumcision.
I hope this helps.