Original Sin

[snakelegs]

i was having a discussion with a friend who is a former christian and this question came up.
do all christians believe in the concept of Orginal Sin?
my thoughts were that they would have to because that is why they believe that the sacrifice was necessary. after all, if not for original sin, why the sacrifice?
could someone clear this up?
thanks.

[Abdul Fattah]

Perhaps a better question would be:
If you don't believe in origenal sin, can you still be considered a christian? I think not believeing in it goes in against the whole 'savior' concept. Then again, I find that believing in original sin goes in against heaven and hell. But I guess that's off topic here.

[Woodrow]

i was having a discussion with a friend who is a former christian and this question came up.

do all christians believe in the concept of Orginal Sin?

Not all believe in it, for example baptists do not believe in it but they believe man is born with an inclination to sin. Mormoms, Christians Scientists, Quakers, Some Eastern Orthodox denominations, Unitarians, some adventists, some Presbytarians and Jehovah witnesses reject the concept of original sin completly. there may be others.

my thoughts were that they would have to because that is why they believe that the sacrifice was necessary. after all, if not for original sin, why the sacrifice?

true, but it is 2 edged and can be used to show that Christ(as) was not capable of forgiving all sins, as this now requires Baptism in addition to Christ(as) in order for sins to be forgiven.

could someone clear this up?

One of the reasons I could not stay as a Christian.

thanks.

Your Welcome

[snakelegs]

Not all believe in it, for example baptists do not believe in it but they believe man is born with an inclination to sin. Mormoms, Christians Scientists, Quakers, Some Eastern Orthodox denominations, Unitarians, some adventists, some Presbytarians and Jehovah witnesses reject the concept of original sin completly. there may be others.



true, but it is 2 edged and can be used to show that Christ(as) was not capable of forgiving all sins, as this now requires Baptism in addition to Christ(as) in order for sins to be forgiven.




One of the reasons I could not stay as a Christian.



Your Welcome

wow - it's even more confusing than i thought. if baptism is also required then why was the sacrifice necessary?
i figured this would be a good place to ask because we have quite an assortment of christians (as well as former christians) here.
so then, do all christians believe in either original sin or the concept that we are born inclined towards sin?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Isambard]

Id imagine logically, a christian who accepts evolution cannot believe in original sin as Adam and Eve would simply be a myth and thus the whole ****ing of the offspring would be bunk.

Of course there are those who believe both but it really doesnt make sense.

[snakelegs]

it's not a matter of making sense. i am just trying to find out what they believe. until now, i thought original sin was the reason used to explain the necessity of the sacrifice.

[Isambard]

it's not a matter of making sense. i am just trying to find out what they believe. until now, i thought original sin was the reason used to explain the necessity of the sacrifice.

It is, thou it still doesnt make alot of sense as later on God says sins of the father dont carry onto the children.

But I guess christianity really is the religion of faith as its the only way to see the Bible's contradictions on every other line and still say it makes sense
;D

[Woodrow]

Not all denominations that call themselves Christian believe in Original Sin, but the majority of those believe man is predisposed to sin. However, there are a few denominations that do not believe that either.

It should cause a problem in Christian thought. The concept of original sin is needed to explain the sacrifice of Jesus(as), the sacrifice of Jesus is needed to justify the belief in a trinity. However, neither Original sin nor Baptism were a part of Judaism. John the Baptist was not Jewish he was a Sabien. Jesus(as) was Jewish. I never could understand why a Jew would need to be Baptised by a sabien.

Just my thoughts, but it seems some reverse engineering took place and the concept of Original sin was an innovation to fill in the gaps.

Original sin is not mentioned any place in the Bible.

the first mention of original sin is by Augestine of Hippo in the fourth century C.E.

The second principle, the affirmation of liberty even under the action of efficacious grace, has always been safeguarded, and there is not one of his anti-Pelagian works even of the latest, which does not positively proclaim a complete power of choice in man; "not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God" (De Prædest. SS., n. 10). The great Doctor did not reproach the Pelagians with requiring a power to choose between good and evil; in fact he proclaims with them that without that power there is no responsibility, no merit, no demerit; but he reproaches them with exaggerating this power. Julian of Eclanum, denying the sway of concupiscence, conceives free will as a balance in perfect equilibrium. Augustine protests: this absolute equilibrium existed in Adam; it was destroyed after original sin; the will has to struggle and react against an inclination to evil, but it remains mistress of its choice (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, III, cxvii). Thus, when he says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

[snakelegs]

It should cause a problem in Christian thought. The concept of original sin is needed to explain the sacrifice of Jesus(as), the sacrifice of Jesus is needed to justify the belief in a trinity.

this is exactly why i raised the question.
it's really confusing. and now you have raised another question - why wasn't the sacrifice enough - why was baptism needed as well?

[abu_hurriya]

this is exactly why i raised the question.
it's really confusing. and now you have raised another question - why wasn't the sacrifice enough - why was baptism needed as well?

Baptism isnt required, at least not in my denomination. We see it as a public expression of faith.

[poga]

:sl:original sin is releted to food
but is hunger sinful or wrong diet is sinful:sl:

[snakelegs]

Baptism isnt required, at least not in my denomination. We see it as a public expression of faith.

does your sect believe in original sin?

[abu_hurriya]

does your sect believe in original sin?

Yes, but not as catholics and most other protestants believe. we believe that we inherited the sins of adam. christianity also teaches that baptism forgives sins, but only through jesus' work on the cross. jesus died once and for all for all the sins of the world.

[SATalha]

Can i ask a question.

What happens to babies that die at an early age? Will they have that original sin?

[snakelegs]

Yes, but not as catholics and most other protestants believe. we believe that we inherited the sins of adam. christianity also teaches that baptism forgives sins, but only through jesus' work on the cross. jesus died once and for all for all the sins of the world.

how does your sect's concept of original sin differ from the catholics' and most other protestants'.
the sacrifice is due to this inherited sin of adam. (isn't that the same as original sin?)
for which sins is baptism to forgive that the sacrifice did not?

[Woodrow]

Now I am curious again. If the purpose of baptism is not to remove sin, what is it for and how did it originate? If it is for the forgiveness of original sin, what was the purpose in Jesus(as) being sacrificed?

If it is to be simply a sign of faith, what faith is it a sign of as it existed before Christianity?

[Grace Seeker]

Now I am curious again. If the purpose of baptism is not to remove sin, what is it for and how did it originate? If it is for the forgiveness of original sin, what was the purpose in Jesus(as) being sacrificed?

If it is to be simply a sign of faith, what faith is it a sign of as it existed before Christianity?

Woodrow, the answer you get might actually vary depending on who you speak to. Catholic believe that they way they do baptism and the meaning they have is what has been in existence in Christianity from the beginning. However, Baptists think that Catholic have lost their way with respect to baptism and have a completely different view of both how it is to be done and (therefore ultimately) its purpose. Then you get Methodist like me whose practice is remarkably similar to the Catholic ritual, but there are subtle (yet I think important) differences in our understanding.

You've asked this question in the middle of a thread about original sin, and it simply cannot be fully discussed here without changing the content of this thread. Suffice it to say, the one thing the disparate views of baptism have in common is an understanding that Jesus commanded us to baptize, though we have different understandings as to who it is for and what is accomplished in it, in the final analysis we do it in obedience to Christ's instructions and to signify that one belongs not to the world, the devil, nor even one's self, but that one belongs to God.

Some understand that there is a washing away of original sin. Some understand that there is a washing away of all sin. Some don't understand it as a washing at all, but as an act of dedication. Some see it as a regenerative act in and of itself, in which God acts (or some even without the person's knowledge of God actings). Others see it as a human decision and declaration which God then acknowledges. Some see it as only a symbolic act and others as filled with sacramental power.

As I said, the answer you get is going to depend on who you are talking to.

[snakelegs]

graceseeker,
i started this thread. i just want to say that it is fine with me to discuss baptism on this thread because it is sort of related and i too have become intrigued.
the sacrifice was to atone for original sin and yet baptism is also necessary?

[Grace Seeker]

Perhaps a better question would be:
If you don't believe in origenal sin, can you still be considered a christian? I think not believeing in it goes in against the whole 'savior' concept. Then again, I find that believing in original sin goes in against heaven and hell. But I guess that's off topic here.

Well, this question is simple. Yes, it is possible to not believe in original sin and still be a Christian. It is possible that even those Christians who do believe in original sin would still consider a peson who does not believe in original sin a Christian. That may not always be true, but in general while the belief in original sin would be fundamental to most Christians, it would not generally be a litmus test of Christianity.

[Grace Seeker]

I notice that other than abu_hurriya, who (in another thread) is considering becoming a Muslim, that I am the only Christian who has responded here. I would ask then that you might grant me a little leeway in being selective in my responses. I have not the time to respond to everything, there are some concepts that I might not be as conversant on as others, and there are some that I simply may not think as essential as others as well. So, if I miss something that is truly important to you, please bring it to my attention a second time, but also know that I simply am not going to write an entire systematic theology in this space, which, whether you realize it or not, is what is being called for to adequately deal with the depth of the questions here.

Lastly, others speaking from what I suppose is their knowledge of what they believe Christians believe, but have expressed things foreign to my actual belefs. I don't know that it is worth going back to correct such statements, but I do caution those who read responses from those who are not Christians that they may or may not have understood and properly shared the beliefs of actual Christians.

Before I answer much about baptism, as I have expressed above, there are some differing understandings with regard to baptism among Christian groups. Thus, for those who pay attention to such things, it is worth noting that I am a United Methodist pastor. The United Methodist Church is generally classified as a mainline protestant denomination. Its roots go back to the Anglican Church (i.e. Church of England) from which it separated, not over theology but as a consequence of the American Revolution. Until recently the United Methodist Church was the largest protestant denomination in the United States with about 8 million members, plus another 4 million scattered around the world; the largest protestant denomination is now the Southern Baptist Convention.

OK. That's enough of an introduction. Now to baptism:

To be honest, through the history of my own denomination, baptism has been viewed in diverse and even contradictory ways.

For instnace: John Wesley -- an Anglican priest who was the spiritual forefather of Methodism -- retained the sacramental theology which he received from his Anglican heritage. He taught that in baptism a child was cleansed of the guilt of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the Church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew. While baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was nonetheles the "ordinary means" that God had designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in human lives.

On the other hand, although Wesley affirmed the regenerating grace of infant baptism (I hope that is not to technical a term; it basically means that God gives new spiritual life in baptism because original sin has spiritually killed everyone), he also insisted on the necessity of adult converstion for those who had fallen from grace. It should be obvious that this means Wesley is trying to have his cake and eat it too. How he handled that was to say that a person who matures into moral accountablity must respond to God's grace in repentance and faith. Without personal decision and commitment to Christ, the baptismal gift is rendered ineffective.


Now, as to Woodrow's question, what role then does the cross have to play? It is Christ's work on the cross that baptism initiates one into. The whole concept of baptism is that by it we are spiritually joined with Christ being baptized into his death and subsequently raised with him into new life.

Romans 6
3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

True baptism is not something practiced only by Christians; there are other non-Christians groups that baptized for their various reasons. For that matter, circumcision is not something practiced only by Jews. But we do understand that it is a symbol to the Jews of the covenant relationship that they understand they have with God. So, too, baptism serves a similiar function for Christians:

Colossians 2
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

You will note in that passage the connection between baptism and Jesus' death and resurrection that I spoke of above. It is as if by the sacrament of baptism, God gives us new life in the same way that Jesus' dead body was given new life by the power of God. And the concept of circumcision is also attached to baptism, that it is an initiation into a new covenant community, a new family, that in being joined with Christ in baptism we all become children of God, and can look forward to our own resurrection:

Romans 8
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

I'm sure that's enough to answer maybe one question, and raise 20 more. So, I'll stop here for the moment, and see if I'm tracking well with those who are interested in this thread, or if I need to be addressing other issues entirely.

[Woodrow]

Peace Grace Seeker,

I do appreciate your answers and I do understand that you are answering from the perspective of a Methodist. You are right it is not fair of us to expect you to answer for all Christians. although most Mainstream Christian are very similar there are those who call themselves Christian that have practices and beliefs that differ greatly from those of most other Christians.

[MustafaMc]

Greetings, GraceSeeker.

Baptism probably existed previously, but John (Yahya) the Baptist was known for baptizing penitent people for the remission (forgiveness) of sins
Mark1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. and Luke 3:3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;

If sins were remitted by repentence and baptism by John prior to Jesus' (as) alleged death on the cross, why was his crucifixion neccessary?

After Jesus' accension, baptism became an integral part of Christianity. Acts 2:38 And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

As a former member, I know that the Church of Christ is adamant about the importance of baptism specifically for the remission of sin and that there is no salvation without it. There is a sense of urgency with baptism taking place very soon after accepting Jesus as one's Savior. Interestingly, baptism in another denomination is held to not be valid by the CofC because the intention is not for the forgiveness of sins. I grew up as a Baptist and was baptized as a teenager, but that was not sufficient when I became a member of the Church of Christ while in college.

[Grace Seeker]

Mustafa, I have a problem with some of the Church of Christ's concepts with regard to baptism, particularly that part you mentioned where they would not accept as valid the baptism of other Christian bodies. Quite simply, I think they are in error on that point. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which sees itself as the only one and true Church in all of Christendom, recognizes as valid the baptisms performed by other Christian bodies.

But then again, I understand that when we get to heaven, despite it being a place of celebrtion, that one must be quiet when walking by the Church of Christ section in order to maintain the illusion that they are the only one's there. :p

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings, GraceSeeker.

Baptism probably existed previously, but John (Yahya) the Baptist was known for baptizing penitent people for the remission (forgiveness) of sins
Mark1:4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. and Luke 3:3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;

If sins were remitted by repentence and baptism by John prior to Jesus' (as) alleged death on the cross, why was his crucifixion neccessary?

If one reads the Tanakh, one sees that there were other rituals that God asked the people to do as well, and many of these were also for the forgiveness of sins. So, the same question that you asked of baptism could be asked of the various sacrifices and offerings that God commanded. I think that the letter to the Hebrews probably best addresses why the cross was still necessary:

Hebrews 8
6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.


Hebrews 9
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.


Hebrews 10
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

(I know that's a pretty long section to read, but believe it or not I did try to edit it down to the essentials.)


Yes, there are other rituals by which the people could find remission of their sins. But not one of these would have the permanent effect of the Cross. Perhaps you have noticed how children will play. They fight and get mad at each other, as a parent you put a stop to it and tell them to make up. Surprisingly, they actually do, and can return to playing with each other. But sooner or later, that same self-interest in wanting to play a certain way or with a certain toy will exert itself again and another fight will ensue. And then you will repeat the whole process all over again. So, the question is did they really "kiss and make-up" and learn to "play nice" or not? I think the answer to that question depends on whether one is looking at the short-term exeperience of the moment or at the long-term character and nature of the children. Yes, I do think that children who learn to "kiss and make-up" probably experience genuine forgivenss. But I also know that unless you change the underlying nature that is part of a child's pyschology, that nothing has changed at all. So too with this concept of the forgiveness of sins among us adults. We might respond to the call of John that we should live different and better lives. We might even make an honest committment to live that way both with God and other people, but unless our basic nature is changed, then that which produced the sin behaviors in the past still exists within and these sins are likely return, despite our best efforts.

As a Christian, I believe that in going to the cross, Jesus atoned for all of my sins -- past, present, and future. And, more than that, I believe that he created a new way for me to relate to God, no longer in my own power or ability, but in God's own power that could come and live in me in the person of his Holy Spirit. Not on my own will I ever be perfect, but God living in me can change my very will to be replaced by the will of God and that Will will change everything about how I ultimately live my life.

So, when does this change take place? That is actually the question behind this discussion of the importance and place of baptism. And there are several different answers to it. In one sense, that change took place 2000 years ago when Christ died for my sins. Yet, clearly I am still a sinner. So, did Christ's work on the cross prove ineffectual? Not at all. Christ has done the work, but I need to appropriate it in my life. And that happens when I make a personal commitment to Jesus.

So, if it is Christ's work and my acceptance of it that brings about salvation, then what purpose is baptism? Is it not redundant?

I cannot answer that second question. But I know that baptism is something commanded by Christ. We do it for obedience, if for no other reason. But I also believe that it does indeed have some other purposes. I believe that it is first a symbol signifying a inner working of God's grace. Second, I believe it is testimony of one's purposeful connection to Christ, an identification with him and his work as having significance in MY OWN life. Third, I believe it is actually a means of grace, a sharing of God's grace that becomes active in my life. Baptism is not the only means of grace. Communion, prayer, reading the scriptures -- these are other means of grace. But in baptism I believe we have an expression of God's unique prevenient grace.

Because of our very nature, it appears that human kind is predisposed to sin. (Yes, I know that Islam might argue that point, but I'm assuming you're wanting a Christian answer, not a refutation of Islamic theology.) We see this in the self-interest that we have even as young children, demand our way and our will. Humans, by nature, seem to be more ego-centered than God-centered. This nature is, in and of itself, understood to be a sinful condition, even when one has not been involved in any explicitly sinful acts. So sinful, so predisposed to the self rather than God's agency in our lives, that without divine intervention we would not even recognize the presence of God and are impotent in our own ability to reach out to God or positively respond to God's grace. But God in his grace does not leave us in this fallen condition, he reaches out to us and pricks our conscience to make us aware of his presence. He comes to us and shares enough of himself with us that he enables us to respond. I believe that God moves thusly in our lives even among those of us who are not aware of it.

In my understanding (shared largely among Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Anglicans), infant baptism is an expression of this grace of God that comes to us that calls us to himself out of our sin and into his presence where we might find our salvation. In this line of thinking, adult baptism is really an expression that one has made this journey with God's help. Others (Baptists, Mennonites, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Reformed) would suggest that infant baptism has no place, and tie baptism to a confession of faith on the believer's part. But in both we see baptism as a declaration of the person being incorporated into the family of God. It is more than just a person acknowledging God, but of God making a claim on that person's life. Those who believe in mankind possessing free will, allow for a person so claimed to nonethelss turn their back on God and walk away. Those who prefer to emphasize God's sovereignty would hold that once so claimed by God that one will not, indeed cannot, walk away and will always belong to God. (What they do with folks who later give no evidence of acting like they belong to God is suggest that they must have been wrong in their human understanding and that these persons never truly gave their life over to God and thus were never actually saved in the first place. Obviously, I have problems with that understanding, but that is too much to include in this thread.)

Another way to describe all of this, from a slightly different theological angle than I have is that of the Evangelical Free Church of American (to which abu_hurriya belongs):

WE BELIEVE:
That man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is, therefore, lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.

That the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His Resurrection provide the only ground for justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ are born of the Holy Spirit and, thus become children of God.

That water baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances to be observed by the Church during the present age. They are, however, not to be regarded as means of salvation.

That the true Church is composed of all such persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the Body of Christ of which He is the Head.

After Jesus' accension, baptism became an integral part of Christianity. Acts 2:38 And Peter [said] unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, that is when we see it becoming an integral part of Christianity. Jesus himself had ordained that the disciples/apostles practice it in his final words to them, as recorded by Matthew:

Matthew 28
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Interesting that is says that even at this point in time, some of Jesus disciples doubted. I wish Matthew would have told us more on that point, but he didn't and it really doesn't have anything to do with this thread. The key point for us is that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize as part of the process of discipling others. Jesus doesn't say that it is for the remission of sins. He just says, "DO IT." I think we can assume that Peter understands from having been one of Jesus' disciples and participating in baptizing people during Jesus ministry, that this concept of the washing of away of sins is retained. But ultimately what is also understood, is that by being baptized in Jesus' name they were declaring their intent to belong to Jesus, that is they were committing to become disciples (students, followers) of Jesus Christ. So the baptism not only washing away sins, but because it was in Jesus' name, it was an acknowledgement of their new relationship with God now in Jesus's righteousness (gained on the cross), not just in their own righteousness by an act of their own impotent will or fallen nature.

[glo]

I do appreciate your answers and I do understand that you are answering from the perspective of a Methodist. You are right it is not fair of us to expect you to answer for all Christians. although most Mainstream Christian are very similar there are those who call themselves Christian that have practices and beliefs that differ greatly from those of most other Christians.

Personally I feel Grace Seeker is more knowledgeable in speaking for other denominations than probably most other Christians here in LI.

Whereas I can speak of what I believe, Grace Seeker can present a broader picture of the Christian faith. Just one of the reasons why I like to sit back and enjoy reading! :D

I am not sure which denomination (if any) I affiliate myself with, but I would describe myself as a born-again Christian. By that I mean I consider myself to have been 'born again' spiritually the moment I made a commitment and dedicated my life to following Christ.
The baptism symbolises that commitment:
To die to one's own desires and wishes, and to emerge with a new life and purpose.

I agree with Grace Seeker's previous statement:

I know that baptism is something commanded by Christ. We do it for obedience, if for no other reason. But I also believe that it does indeed have some other purposes. I believe that it is first a symbol signifying a inner working of God's grace. Second, I believe it is testimony of one's purposeful connection to Christ, an identification with him and his work as having significance in MY OWN life. Third, I believe it is actually a means of grace, a sharing of God's grace that becomes active in my life. Baptism is not the only means of grace. Communion, prayer, reading the scriptures -- these are other means of grace. But in baptism I believe we have an expression of God's unique prevenient grace.

Peace

[snakelegs]

i don't think the aim of sacrifice in jewish ritual was to make perfect.
and the idea of human sacrifice would be unthinkable.
i do not understand - if the sacrifice atoned for all your sins past, present and future - what is to keep you from committing all kinds of sins, as they have already been taken care of in advance by the sacrifice?
do all christians regard baptism as esential?
if you believe in jesus but for some reason failed to get baptised, do you still go to heaven?

[Grace Seeker]

do all christians regard baptism as esential?

See the post I provided from the Evangelical Free Church of America.

if you believe in jesus but for some reason failed to get baptised, do you still go to heaven

Again, you can see previous posts which have answered this. The answer varies. Most denominations would say YES. A few, such as Mustafa's former Church of Christ, would say NO. The Catholic church actually teaches something they call "baptism of desire", they assume that anyone who was really a Christian would want to be baptized (though in the 3rd and 4th centuries it was common to delay it till just before the moment of death) and that if for some reason you died unbaptized that you were baptized by this "baptism of desire", and thus covered just as if you had been "properly" baptized.

i do not understand - if the sacrifice atoned for all your sins past, present and future - what is to keep you from committing all kinds of sins, as they have already been taken care of in advance by the sacrifice?

I take it your are now referring to the work of Christ on the cross. This is one of the problems I have with the whole concept of eternal security (i.e. once saved, always saved) as taught by some in the Baptist tradition. (Mind you pretty nearly all Baptists teach this, my problem isn't as much with the theology, but that way some Baptists teach it.) There is indeed and implication that one can do whatever and if already saved, not be held accountable for it. I say "rubbish" to such teachings.

First, remember that salvation is offered to all, but (in my Methodist understanding) only appropriated by those who turn their lives over to Christ.

Second, that one retains free will to turn one's back on what Christ has done. A person who would do so, would also in essence be turning their back on the cleansing of sins that they had found in Christ and spiritually diving right back into sin again.

However....there is an element in which you are exactly right, for none of us are likely to live perfect lives, even the best of us trying our hardest to be righteous. Thus we depend on God to look past our sinfulness and rather not see us standing before him in our own righteousness, for we have none, but standing before him in Christ's righteousness which is imputed to us. What keeps a person from choosing to live a licentious lifestyle is that we have chosen to turn our lives over to Christ. And as Christ seeks to do the will of his Father, so too then do we seek the same thing in our lives. With this I would agree with the Baptists, those who choose to live a life that does not seek to honor God, have also not chosen to turn their lives over to him, and are living in their own righteousness rather than the freedom from sin and righteousness offered by God through Jesus Christ. Belonging to Christ, is to live in obedience. Even if it sometimes characterized by imperfect obedience, God's will, not mine, is still the goal.

[snakelegs]

thanks graceseeker, for your time and patience. :sunny:

[MustafaMc]

However....there is an element in which you are exactly right, for none of us are likely to live perfect lives, even the best of us trying our hardest to be righteous. Thus we depend on God to look past our sinfulness and rather not see us standing before him in our own righteousness, for we have none, but standing before him in Christ's righteousness which is imputed to us. What keeps a person from choosing to live a licentious lifestyle is that we have chosen to turn our lives over to Christ. And as Christ seeks to do the will of his Father, so too then do we seek the same thing in our lives. With this I would agree with the Baptists, those who choose to live a life that does not seek to honor God, have also not chosen to turn their lives over to him, and are living in their own righteousness rather than the freedom from sin and righteousness offered by God through Jesus Christ. Belonging to Christ, is to live in obedience. Even if it sometimes characterized by imperfect obedience, God's will, not mine, is still the goal.

Believe it or not, I sense a strong similarity with my own beliefs in this paragraph.

Allah (swt) has created us as imperfect creatures with carnal and spiritual natures. We believe that Allah (swt) is a forgiving God and that He loves to forgive. The more that we are truly aware of our limitations and weaknesses, the less that we tend to boast about the righteousness of our lives. We Muslims do not place our hope for salvation in our deeds of prayer, fasting, charity or pilgrimage, but rather on the promises of Allah (swt) that He will cover us with His Mercy. What keeps us from living a sinful life is the knowledge that Allah (swt) sees us wherever we go and whatever we do along with the fear of Allah's (swt) Wrath and His Punishment. We would be hyocritical to chug a few beers and look at pornography just before getting up for one of the five daily prayers. Likewise what leads us to supplemental prayers, fasting, charity and even small deeds of kindness is the hope of forgiveness and Paradise as a reward from our Creator. I am sure that you will read into this statement that we are trying to earn our salvation, but the focus is upon pleasing Allah (swt) rather than on our acts of submission. Modifying your statement slightly: "Being a Muslim, is to live in submission/obedience to the Will of Allah (swt). Even if it sometimes characterized by imperfect obedience, Allah's will, not mine, is still the goal."

[Grace Seeker]

Mustafa,

I'm not at all surprised that you sense some similarity between your beliefs as a Muslim and mine as a Christian. I see many similarities all the time as well. If there was none, how could we ever claim any connection between them or that we were attempting to worship the same God of Abraham? Though there are some in each of our camps who (sadly) are openly hostile to one another, I certainly don't consider Islam a pagan religion and trust that you don't view Christianity that way either.

As to your other comment, yes, I do see a works righteousness in Islam, though that does not mean that attempting to please Allah is bad. Certainly all persons should live their lives in seeking to please God. I find the works righteousness not in the desire to please God, but in believing that our works actually have merit with regard to one's final judgment. My view is that though I might totally repent of all my sin and live a purely righteous life from this time forward, holy and wholly pleasing to God, yet at the end of it I could not say that I have any right to expect even one crumb of mercy from God. He is God and I am not, and as sovereign he can do what he wills with my life and I should celebrate his choice. Rather, though I serve him, I am still totally dependent on him for his mercy and my salvation. Based on his promises, I do expect. Based on my own merit, I know the only thing I am capable of earning is eternal ****ation.

Next to our differeing views with regard to the divinity of Christ, his death and resurrection, this concept of total dependance on God's grace vs. earning merit for righteous living is probably one of the biggest differences between Islam and Christianity. And one of the reasons that despite some appreciation on the part of Islam for the role of Jesus as a human being, that I think that Islam is probably closer to Judaism than to Christianty in its overall religious understanding.

[MadeenJibreel]

Mustafa, I have a problem with some of the Church of Christ's concepts with regard to baptism, particularly that part you mentioned where they would not accept as valid the baptism of other Christian bodies. Quite simply, I think they are in error on that point. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which sees itself as the only one and true Church in all of Christendom, recognizes as valid the baptisms performed by other Christian bodies.

But then again, I understand that when we get to heaven, despite it being a place of celebrtion, that one must be quiet when walking by the Church of Christ section in order to maintain the illusion that they are the only one's there. :p

Say, where did you get the good news about going to heaven? I mean, the way you sound, that's a definite thing? That's a bit too optimistic, wouldn't you say? I mean, in then end, it's the One who created us who will judge us, is that not true? I found this with many Christians, say things like "as long as you accept Jesus as your saviour, etc." you're alrite man, nothing to worry about. I'd be more careful about predicting the future...

[MustafaMc]

As to your other comment, yes, I do see a works righteousness in Islam, though that does not mean that attempting to please Allah is bad. Certainly all persons should live their lives in seeking to please God. I find the works righteousness not in the desire to please God, but in believing that our works actually have merit with regard to one's final judgment.

Yes, I believe that performance of religous duties have merit before Allah on the Day of Judgement. According to Islam, a Muslim who prays each of his five daily prayers, fasts the month of Ramaddan, pays charity due, and makes pilgrimage is in a infinitely better postion than one who only testifies that, "There is only One God and Muhammad is His Messenger" and does not satisfy the religous requirements of Islam. I may yet come up short before Allah, but I believe that if I were to die tonight, I would have a better standing before Allah than if I had died 10 years ago.

My view is that though I might totally repent of all my sin and live a purely righteous life from this time forward, holy and wholly pleasing to God, yet at the end of it I could not say that I have any right to expect even one crumb of mercy from God.

I agree with this point to a degree. However, I place my hope in the Promise of Allah for forgiveness to those who believe in His Oneness and pray, give charity, fast, etc. I certainly don't see myself as boastfully saying on that Day, "Ok, where is my spot in Paradise that I earned from performing my religous duties and other good deeds." I know my imperfections come up short, but I still do my best and hope in the Mercy of Allah to make up the difference.

Rather, though I serve him, I am still totally dependent on him for his mercy and my salvation. Based on his promises, I do expect. Based on my own merit, I know the only thing I am capable of earning is eternal ****ation.

Ditto - in spades!

Next to our differeing views with regard to the divinity of Christ, his death and resurrection, this concept of total dependance on God's grace vs. earning merit for righteous living is probably one of the biggest differences between Islam and Christianity. And one of the reasons that despite some appreciation on the part of Islam for the role of Jesus as a human being, that I think that Islam is probably closer to Judaism than to Christianty in its overall religious understanding.

I don't disagree with regards to the religions per se, but I see more similarity between Muslims and Christians on a more personal level.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't disagree with regards to the religions per se, but I see more similarity between Muslims and Christians on a more personal level.

I probably don't know enough Jews to comments on that. But you may be right.

Most Muslims I know personally have a fairly high level of spirituality to them, that is also true among practicing Christians. (I won't comment on nominal Christians.) For instance, your own comments reflect sentiments that are very common among spiritually-committed Christians:

I know my imperfections come up short, but I still do my best and hope in the Mercy of Allah to make up the difference.

And I think it is that essence of a confident faith practice integrated with humility before God that I find so attractive in both of our faiths.

[Alexius]

First of all, we do not "inherit" the sin or sins of Adam. That is neither logical nor just. What we do bare is the mortality of the body and the soul; that is, we not only have the inclination to sin, but we are born in a state of separation from God in soul. It is with baptism that we are again united to God by his Spirit. We are not guilty of Adam's sin, so an infant is not condemned before baptism, but rather since we are molded after the likeness of Adam, we are in his form.

Some Christians do infact deny the teaching of original or ancestral sin, but it is part of the Christian faith.