Re: Jesus with Original Sin?

Didn’t know where to put this thread.

Was Jesus born with original sin?

If not, then why was he baptized by John the Baptist then if he wasn’t born with original sin as infants are when they are several days old and they are baptized by water?

I’m trying to work on my apologetics and my wife played the evangelical card saying she wants me to be prepared to answer those objections. Mind you I did tense up because I could never convince her and If I can’t convince her, then I can’t convince anyone else.

P.S: I used the following verses and she still wasn’t convinced.

Matthew 19:14,Luke 18:16, Acts 2:38-39, Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16

I did managed to use St. Paul’s description of circumsion of the Jews and how water baptism replaced this rite(if thats what you can call it) to welcome the child into the new covenant.

Woah, wait a minute! There is a denomination out there that thinks Jesus had original sin? That is incredible! I’ve never heard that before. I’ve heard denying the divinity of Jesus but never that Jesus had original sin.

Well the answer is incredibly easy, ask them if they believe Jesus is God if yes, then how could He have original sin? God has no sin. If no, then show them that He is God and go back to the first part.

Was Jesus born with original sin?

If not, then why was he baptized by John the Baptist then if he wasn’t born with original sin as infants are when they are several days old and they are baptized by water?

Let’s break this down somewhat.

Was Jesus born with original sin?

No. Jesus was like us in all ways but sin the book of Hebrews tells us.

Jesus is True God and True Man and as such was sinless.

If not, then why was he baptized by John the Baptist then if he wasn’t born with original sin as infants are when they are several days old and they are baptized by water?

Jesus came not to do away with thw law but to fulfill it.

St. John the Baptists Baptism was a mere baptism of water and repentance that prefigured better things to come (see Hebrews 10:1).

In Christian baptism we ALSO have water and repentance, but we have MORE. We receive the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was baptized by John “to fulfill all righteousness”.

This baptism from John also illustrated Jesus’ eternal Messiahship.

Jesus had no sin, and regarding Jesus apart from fulfilling “all righteousness”, and teaching for the people, He had no reason compelling Him to be Baptized as He had nothing to “repent” of.

Hope this helps.

God bless.


Was Jesus born lacking original holiness and justness? No, he was not born lacking those things. However, he did humble himself physically down to our nature and limitations.

If not, then why was he baptized by John the Baptist then if he wasn’t born with original sin as infants are when they are several days old and they are baptized by water?

The Church does not practice John’s baptism. John’s baptism was simply an outward symbol of repentance. John also initially declines to do so, knowing Jesus had nothing to repent. It’s not the sacrament practiced by the Church on Pentecost and after. Jesus submitted himself to things in order to be an example for other men when Jesus had no need to (he allowed himself to be circumcised, and observed the Mosaic law throughout his life, etc…).

But the Church is very clear that the baptism given by John is not the sacrament of baptism performed by the Church.

Just to add to what others above have stated. Even John wondered why Jesus wanted to be baptized.

Matthew 3:14-15

14 [a]John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” 15 Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.

So then how can I clearly explain infant baptism even though I used the following verses:

Matthew 19:14 14 “but Jesus said, ‘Let the little children alone, and do not stop them from coming to me; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of Heaven belongs.’”
**Luke 18:16 **“16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.”
Acts 2:38-39"38 ‘You must repent,’ Peter answered, 'and every one of you must be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

39 The promise that was made is for you and your children, and for all those who are far away, for all those whom the Lord our God is calling to himself.’

My wife was practicing with me and wanted me to prepare to defend the position of infant baptism…I used the above scriptures and my wife, playing the opponent, said that these verses show no evidence of infant baptism. So I said "But it doesn’t show evidence that it is only limited to adults and children who reach the age of reason.

However, I mention that the pratice of circumcision for the Jews was a way to bring into God’s covenant the infant and that St. Paul preaches circumcision of Christ, meaning water baptism, was now the norm of bringing in an infant into the new covenant of Christ. Is this a good way of explaining it? Please help…I want to get better at defending my faith.

If you put “Infant baptism” in the search bar of the Catholic Answers home page, you will be rewarded with several articles that address this issue. Here are a couple to get you started;,

These are greats sources of information. Thanks…

However, what if I come across one of those hardcore Sola Scriptura folk that demand scripture only evidence not using the early church fathers and the aforementioned verses from Matt 19:14,Luke 18:15-16,Acts 22:16 etc?

I came across St. Paul in Col 2:11-12 in how he describes ‘circumcision of Christ’ as the new way to become a part of the new covenant and no longer using the Jewish law as described in Leviticus 12:2-3…Would this comparison be a better way to defend the stance on infant baptism? Please advise.

However, I mention that the pratice of circumcision for the Jews was a way to bring into God’s covenant the infant and that St. Paul preaches circumcision of Christ, meaning water baptism, was now the norm of bringing in an infant into the new covenant of Christ.

Water Baptism IS the norm for bringing infants into the New Covenant. Just not water baptism of “John’s baptism”.

If you would like, I would be happy to PM you with more information on this Baptism issue. Your call anrmenchaca47.


…I’m sorry to say that you are barking up the wrong tree… no once can convict anyone else!

Only the Holy Spirit has the power to Convict us!

…the best that we can do is Witness to Jesus.

…sadly, Catholics are on the losing end of this struggle (facing non-Catholics and sharing their Faith effectively)… you must learn about your Faith before you share it with others…

…you must study the Word of God in the understanding of the Church… but you must share your study/understanding in a lovingly fashion… it is not about forcing others to capitulate or about beating them to the “punch.”

…take every issue/theme slowly… let’s see what Scriptures tell us about Jesus:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]21 For our sake God made the sinless one into sin, so that in him we might become the goodness of God.

(2 Corinthians5:21)

22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.” (1 St. Peter 2:22)
So Christ did not inherit Original Sin nor did He Commit sin.

…so why be Baptized by John?:

13 Then Jesus appeared: he came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John. 14 John tried to dissuade him. ‘It is I who need baptism from you’ he said ‘and yet you come to me!’ 15 But Jesus replied, ‘Leave it like this for the time being; it is fitting that we should, in this way, do all that righteousness demands’. At this, John gave in to him. 16 As soon as Jesus was baptised he came up from the water, and suddenly the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming down on him. 17 And a voice spoke from heaven, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; my favour rests on him’.

(St. Matthew 3:13-17)
…it is interesting how Scriptures seem to place us in a cliffhanger and just let us simmer… John attempts to correct Jesus (John Knows that he is the lesser of the two) and Jesus simply reminds him of the Big Picture… it’s like and inside secret… we read and read but cannot find a clear cut answer…

…what Jesus meant is determined by John’s Ministry… who Called John? What was John’s Mission?:

23 He had gone into the Temple and was teaching, when the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him and said, ‘What authority have you for acting like this? And who gave you this authority?’ 24 ‘And I’ replied Jesus ‘will ask you a question, only one; if you tell me the answer to it, I will then tell you my authority for acting like this. 25 John’s baptism: where did it come from: heaven or man?’ And they argued it out this way among themselves, ‘If we say from heaven, he will retort, “Then why did you refuse to believe him?”; 26 but if we say from man, we have the people to fear, for they all hold that John was a prophet’.

(St. Matthew 22:23-26)

31 I did not know him myself, and yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptising with water.’ 32 John also declared, ‘I saw the Spirit coming down on him from heaven like a dove and resting on him. 33 I did not know him myself, but he who sent me to baptise with water had said to me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is going to baptise with the Holy Spirit”. 34 Yes, I have seen and I am the witness that he is the Chosen One of God.’ (St. John 1:31-34)
If Jesus were not Baptized (remember that He had not yet began His Ministry), would others not hold that against Him… worse even, use that as an excuse? How could Jesus pass judgment on those who refuse to accept John’s (and later on His Own) Baptism?

…so Christ’s Words ring true:
'…it is fitting that we should, in this way, do all that righteousness demands’

Maran atha!




…here’s what escapes most people… when the first Covenant was instituted were adults or children the subject of the Covenant sign or were the male offspring?

…once the Covenant sign was instituted, did Israel wait till the children mature to adulthood and if not why were adults circumcised if the circumcision is to be performed on newborns?

It is the same for Baptism, the sign of the New Covenant: Israel (both of the flesh and of the Faith) is Called to the sign of the Covenant… those who were adults when the sign was first Instituted were ushered into the Faith at their particular age… yet, there’s no mandate to keep children or women from the sign of the New Covenant…

Concerning Baptism (the Spiritual Circumcision) there’s only one practice that eventually (within weeks/months, I suspect) fell away:

[FONT=“Garamond”][size=]29 If this were not true, what do people hope to gain by being baptised for the dead? If the dead are not ever going to be raised, why be baptised on their behalf?

(1 Corinthians 15:29)
Note that the Apostles are not Teaching that Believers should not be Baptized for their dead loved ones… the Teaching is that Baptism Saves (brings to the Fold) even those who died prior to the Incarnation of the Word, His Death, Resurrection and Ascension!

This practice would eventually fade into non-practice… yet, not once is there a mandate to keep children/infants from being brought into the Fold through Baptism!

…how damaging would it have been for children and infants to have the whole family brought into the Faith while they would be forced to wait till an “appropriate” age (Jesus was Baptized around 30 years of age)… and where is that “age” determined in Scriptures?

Maran atha!




…if they fail to understand that Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, ask them to demonstrate, through Scriptures where “whole families” means only adult-age children or only children of “x” age; further more, ask them to demonstrate, through Scriptures, where it is forbidden to Baptize children and infants.

Maran atha!


Because the Law of Moses commanded it under certain circumstances.

Ask them where in the Bible does it say Bible only??

Well, I already used this one. And keep in mind I was practicing with my wife(because she sees potential in me in regards to defending my faith)and she still wasn’t convinced that even though the bible does not contain the word bible nor trinity yet it is implied, she goes on to say that there still is no indication that infants were baptized but only adults and children that reach the age of reason.

DISCLAIMER: To any one who reads these posts, please keep in mind that my wife was only trying to play the other position so that I could effectively defend this one of many topics.


…yet, she is falling for that protestant lure… where in Scriptures does it state: ‘Baptize only children who have reached the age of reason?’

…Conversely, we have (at least in the US) hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of infantile people who have reach the “age of adulthood,” yet reason (commonsense) fails them; further, there are various standards in the world about the “age” of adulthood/reason; some people, as in the past, would consider their children old enough to reason (and be a responsible member of their community) at the ripe age of 10, 11, 12 or 13.

…it is claimed that some cultures would pit their young against each other in order to wean out the weak…

…so what is that “age of reason” standard and where is it spelled out in Scriptures?

…and, as we are speaking of “reason,” how long must a corpse be dead before it loses its “reason” capability–or was the “reason” capability of the ones who Baptized themselves for the dead enough?

Maran atha!


I’m down!!!

Here is how I would respond to this:

I don’t know that there was a certain numerical age set for baptism. In Jewish households in the first century girls became responsible for repentance at the age of 12 and boys at 13. Judaism does not have “Original Sin.” They believe babies are born innocent. I don’t know if ages 12 and 13 were used for baptism in the beginning or not.

I do know that every example of a baptism in the Bible involves a consenting individual who believed and repented. I am not aware of a time when baptism was commanded or described without belief and repentance. Acts 8:12 makes no mention of children, but only adult men and women. Were there no children in this town? Were only childless people believing? Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

There are 5 mentions of household baptisms in the Bible. The only one of these that mentions that all in the household were baptized, also states that the whole household believed.
Acts 16:31 - They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.
Was the entire household old enough to believe and be accountable for repentance? Or did the “all” and “whole” just mean those members of the large extended family household old enough to believe and repent? Either way we do not see a mention of those unable to believe being baptized. (If I said that everyone in my neighborhood voted on election day, would you think that even the infants and toddlers voted? Or would you realize I meant everyone of legal voting age in my neighborhood voted?)

Acts 10:44-47 mentions people in Cornelius’ household who were filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues receiving baptism. This does not mention if infants and toddlers who were not speaking in tongues were baptized as well.

Lydia was baptized with members of her household Acts 16:15 - When she and the members of her household were baptized…
It doesn’t mention if everybody in her household was baptized or if her household included young children.

Acts 18:8 - Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:16 - (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
These verses don’t reveal what ages were baptized and whether it was every single body in the house or not.

So, there is evidence in Acts 8 that in Samaria only men and women were being baptized. In Acts there were 2 examples where the “whole household” and “entire household” believed in Jesus - in one of these households “all” were baptized. We don’t know if this means that all were old enough to believe, or if it means that all in the household who were old enough believed.

Does the Bible say to not baptize an infant? No. But if we baptize someone who does not profess belief and repent of their sinful ways, are we really following Biblical teaching? Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, This says to baptize disciples, not to baptize people so later they can become disciples.Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This does not say repent AND/OR be baptized. It does not say become baptized now and repent when you are 7 or 13. If we try to separate repentance of our sinful ways from the actual baptism, we are changing what the Bible teaches us about baptism.

Hi, Susan!

Glad to hear from you (had not seen your comments for a while now)! :hug3::hug3::hug3:

I concur with you; the problem lies in “sola” Scriptura; when we divorce Church history from the Church we have holes in our knowledge/understanding…

Consider the Baptisms that took place for the dead loved ones…

How much reason/faith/knowledge does the dead have?

Yet, the Church accepted the practice of Baptizing oneself for a dead beloved…

Since Baptism is a Sacrament, not a symbolic empty act, the Faith that you purport to be upheld or to substantiate the utility/profit of infant Baptism is that of the infant’s parents and God-parents… it is similar to the Communion of the Saint… the Church does not operate in a vacuum… everything depends upon the Holy Spirit and He is the Lord Giver of Life Who can bring them bones back from non-existence and Who can Pray for us in manners that we cannot comprehend but that is comprehensible and in accordance with God.

So an infant need not be even aware of what Baptism is… his/her parents’ and God-parents’ Faith (along with the whole Church) brings him/her into that Communion with the Body of Christ.

Maran atha!


Does the Catholic Church practice baptism of the dead? I am only familiar with the Mormons doing this.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit