No I’m not. I never even brought up sin. My point is Jesus is speaking of being humble here. Im saying Jesus isn’t even discussing a child being sinful or sinless here. Not sure why you think the only way my interpretation is correct is if I’m supposing you need to become like a guilty child. Your objection makes no sense?
Look at the second verse, the one you bolded. (Sorry I am not savvy enough to cut and paste etc!) The second verse talks of entering the kingdom and how you have to become as a little child. The third verse makes reference to humbleness and who is then the greatest among them, which they had been arguing about. I had proposed that a child under the age of reason is innocent and that Jesus would be meaning that to gain entrance into the kingdom one must become innocent (happens with repentance) as a child. You indicate that a child is born with the “stain” of original sin of which he is somehow responsible and therefore not innocent. That is why I say " you are supposing you are to become like a child guilty of a sin it never committed."
What does it mean to you to become as a child…not all children are humble.
We love this verse especially in our prayer meeting. Our Bishop who dropped in quite often would say as a child is to have ‘innocent trust’ in the father, doing what the father asks without questioning. So we should have that disposition when coming to Jesus. Apparently Jesus wants that in our attitude as well.
I agree, these are all part of the rite of Christian Initiation of Adults.
" And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ Acts 22:16
Calling upon His name involves repentance and a declaration of faith. These are part of baptism.
An infant need only be cleansed of original sin, not of personal sin. Repentance is needed for personal sins. We follow the apostolic teaching that the parents can make a profession of faith on behalf of the child.
Yes. Everyone is born into the world separated from God through the sin of Adam.
That is a very good lesson to draw from the verse!
I realize full well that the CC does not rely on the Bible alone but I am wondering if you have Scripture that backs up the idea of everybody being born in separation from God rather than just with an inherited sin nature. Also is there any Biblical reference for making a profession of faith on behalf of the child before baptism.
"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. " I cor 15
“12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—” Rom. 5
"1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesha and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. " Eph. 2
We were, by nature, deserving of wrath, separated from God.
The Church teaches that we do have a fallen nature as the result of the sin of Adam, but also that the consequence is that we are separated from God because of this sin. Baptism washes away the of Adam as well as personal sins.
Yeah I’m not real sure why you are proposing this line of reasoning. You yourself can see, understand and admit that the Verse after this one speaks of humbleness that you correctly state relates back to the verse before this verse. This is what we would call the “context” of this passage. Why would you think the verse between these two verses would be a totally different context that has nothing to do with the surrounding verses let alone the entire chapter?
You must be kidding, right? Stop and ask yourself if you are honestly asking this or if what I have gleaned from Jesus’ words is a new thought to you that challenges what you have been taught in some way. You gave me a like for my response to reubenj (post 824) for his post #822 that presented a challenge that could be construed as out of context. I am also puzzled!
Nope I’m honestly asking. Why would I be kidding? Is my question about context not valid?
I was taught to read in the context of what Jesus was teaching in the passage. I was never taught to think up something new to to challenge what Jesus was teaching. Thus the reason for asking you for your line of reasoning why the verse in the middle means something that has nothing to do with what Jesus was teaching.
I was reading up from the bottom and hit the like button when I read Reuben’s part of that post. Although I also like your post for agreeing that is a very good lesson to draw from the verse. So “LIke” deserved.
Anyway. Not sure why you think Reuben’s verse “could be construed out of context”?
The definitions of Humble, which is the context here, are:
- not proud : not arrogant or assertive
- expressing submission
- ranking low in a hierarchy
I think the example of a child trusting the father is well withing the lines of being humble.
One thing I find interesting about us all and me included is how we use verses to back up our belief only to discover that someone with a different slant can’t see our reasoning in the verses. I don’t see in the verses you gave any indication of an infant being separated from God at birth. Yes, we receive a fallen nature and deal with the inclination to sin all our lives and when we get old enough to understand we are individually responsible for ourself, we need to make a choice. A baby baptized to remove the sin of Adam still will deal with its sinful nature when they come of age.
Are you saying that you don’t believe in original sin?
“Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me” Psalm 51
It sounds like what you are saying is that there was no change in mankind’s relationship with God after the Fall - That we bear in our bodies only the consequences of that Fall manifested in the inclination toward sin, but really don’t need a savior until we reach the age of reason?
OK let me try to help expand on this. I’ll try my best in the hopes that you can see my reasoning.
Let’s look at
5 Indeed, I was born guilty,
a sinner when my mother conceived me.
This is a psalm of David and we can see both parts of original sin here.
He tells us he was …“a sinner from conception”…we could say this could refer to us being born with the inclination to sin. I have no objections to that.
However, he also says …“I was born guilty”. Guilty of what? We both agree a baby isn’t guilty of personal sin. So there has to be something else that this baby is guilty of, from conception? This is what we call the sin of Adam (original sin). We aren’t born guilty because something we did, we are guilty because of what we inherited.
Can you see where I am going with this? or is there a different slant you would put on Psalm 51:5?
As for separation from God I don’t think their is a direct verse that says babies are born separated from God. However, as I pointed out the psalms tells us babies are born guilty. And guilt separates us from God, just like it did with Adam and Eve. After the fall they were kicked out of the garden and separated from God.
Personal sin or not the bible tells us babies are born guilty and I am sure you would agree that the guilty can not get into heaven unless they are born again in Christ.
Hope this helps
Yes, I should have mentioned humility which is what a child-like trust is. Trust comes with humility. When we start questioning/doubting the Lord, it is obviously not child-like and therefore lacks humility in accepting what is given and taught to us.
I thought that was a given, especially as it was mentioned in the preceeding post and so I didn’t put it up. Guess it’s a shortcoming on my part not to make my thought clearer.
Yes ,we both agree they get to heaven and as you mention some of the details above, but the question was in response to you saying you were not aware that OT saints are “born again”, yet Christ says one must be born again to do so…otherwise the “righteous” need not be born again, which is contradictory
Again, I would say no one "looks’’, forward or backward, unless they are born again.
Not explicitly, yet folks were regenerated and “the Spirit of God” certainly strived with man
Well, not trinity with that psalm , but for sure two persons, and in another verse he recognizes the messiah “is not after the manner of men”.
That some or many Jews get it wrong, both now and then, does not dissuade from a remnant getting right, or seeing it as God willed.
But you are right, not sure there is writ to show any OT saint espoused a Trinity as we do, but this Psalm comes close.
you had asked where or why i state that there has always been two kinds of people and so I stated gen 3 ( i would even say born again and not born again).
As to “seed”, I am not going against what the verse says “her seed”. For sure both man and woman have "seed’’. Perhaps Eve is preferred as woman, for they seem to nurture the seed more than man, at least for 9 months, whilst the man only implants. Much like satan , not just implanting but indeed nurturing his children unto ultimate death.
“Ye are of your father the devil,… the father of lies” John 8
I really asked you then if it is not realizing one must be born of the spirit to understand His movements, why do you think Jesus chided him ? What was it that Nic was supposed to know as a rabbi ? …I believe many posts ago you mentioned it, and I was hoping you could refresh my memory
Once again this is your opinion.
As everyone on this thread (even other non-Catholics), except for you, has said John 3 is a new teaching for Nicodemus.
If you are going to claim that the OT saints were born again, and Nicodemus should have known this then you need to point it out in scripture.
WHAT??? Once again prove FROM SCRIPTURE, not your opinions of what you think, where we are taught that before Christs sacrifice the people in the OT were “born again”.
Once again your opinions SCRIPTURE PLEASE
No they don’t. Only the man has the seed. Have you even studied reproductive anatomy? The seed of the man gets planted in the egg of the woman. After it’s implanted it doesn’t become her seed.
We are all God’s children. It’s our actions that can be born of the devil.
I don’t think this, you do and you have yet to prove why you make this claim.
I don’t know this was my question to you, why are you asking me for the answer???
No you are the one that brought it up here…
Not sure why you are saying I’m the one making this claim?
yes , the NT is much more explicit on the new birth than theOT, as it is on just about everything else. Yet a new heart, a new spirit is in the OT , as I have shown. Not to mention that OT saints entered the kingdom of God/heaven after Christ opened the gates with Calvary, and Jesus said ,“you must be born again to enter” , which included OT saints…they apparently did not have a stoney heart, a carnal heart, but had a new fleshly/spiritual heart , by the grace of God
perhaps we need to go over what is born again. It is not needful of being indwelt by the Spirit, nor being "gifted by the Holy Ghost(Pentecost), though OT saints at times they were filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit . It is a revived spirit, that was dead in sin:a repentant heart that turn s form a fleshly life to a spiritual, by faith and grace of God ( and yes all are indwelt now in NT, and receiving power and giftings)
well, in terms of dna, the real nature of a seed, i thought both man and woman contribute pretty much equally.
Never the less was Genesis wrong to say Eve had “seed” ?
Yes, just as the devil is an angel of God. We are splitting hairs. Anyways , it is pretty straightforward what Jesus says and what Genesis says: that Jesus says some of his enemies had Satan as a father , and that Satan has seed/offspring
You know you can’t use the proofs I’ve given you, reword it a little and make it sound like this is what you meant from the beginning.
The Bible gives us no evidence of what occurred when Jesus preached to the souls in Abraham’s Bosom. They were souls, they did not have bodies. Jesus told us that a human, with a body, must be Baptized to be born again. The souls of the righteous dead had no bodies to baptize and had no new "fleshly/spiritual heart.
The only thing the Bible tells us is Jesus went and preached to them before opening the gates of heaven.
Oh yeah Once Again…WHERE"S THE SCRIPTURE?
Seriously??? Where are we taught we can be born again without the Holy Spirit? Not only do you throw out the water now you throw out the Spirit???
Sorry my friend this is not how reproduction works. DNA is not the “real nature of the seed”. The seed is from the man and it is called a seed because it implants in the woman.
No because the verse never says Eve has seed. It says seed of the woman. You are assuming this verse is speaking of Eve when in actuality it is speaking of Mary’s seed (Jesus).
Look at the verse again it says…
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
There’s another very important word in there.
Enmity is a positive, active and typically mutual hatred or ill will toward something or someone.
Now if your definition is right and this verse is saying that there are two kinds of people the born again (seed of the woman) and the not born again (seed of Satan).
Then that would mean their is mutual hatred between these two kinds of people.
So how exactly does a born again believer “Hate” a not born again child of Satan without disobeying Christ when he said…
27 “But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your cloak do not withhold your coat as well. 30 Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. 31 And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return;[c] and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
Now if the son of Satan is sin then yes there can be enmity between Mary’s Seed (Jesus) and Satan’s Seed (Sin).
On a final note, if you still want to apply a literal meaning to the text and say the woman is Eve then you would also have to say this verse stands for Eve and one of her righteous sons, such as Abel or Seth.
Because the verse goes on to say…
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”
This is a singular HE. I prefer to say the HE in this verse is Jesus but if you want to pick one of Eve’s other offspring you are welcome to do so. But to say this is saying ALL of the born again believers would be grammatically incorrect.