Biblical and historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian

[Billyray]

How do you know that the evidence in that book is reliable? How do you know the information is true? It's all second and third hand information.

Two reasons

1. The NT is eyewitness testimony from multiple witnesses.

2. Spiritual confirmation.

[Libby]

Two reasons

1. The NT is eyewitness testimony from multiple witnesses.

2. Spiritual confirmation.

Okay. The spiritual confirmation was what I was looking for. Wouldn't you consider that the more important of the two?

I would, personally, put that first.

LDS claim eyewitness testimony of the Book of Mormon, as well. Plus, the very important spiritual confirmation.

[Billyray]

Okay. The spiritual confirmation was what I was looking for. Wouldn't you consider that the more important of the two?

I would, personally, put that first.

No I think both are important.



LDS claim eyewitness testimony of the Book of Mormon, as well. Plus, the very important spiritual confirmation.
But their is no evidence in the Americas that support the history of the Book of Mormon. This is a major difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

[Libby]

But their is no evidence in the Americas that support the history of the Book of Mormon. This is a major difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

That doesn't make the book untrue. It just makes it lacking in evidence. (Not to say I believe the claims of the Book of Mormon, but lack of evidence doesn't automatically make a claim untrue). LDS claim a spiritual witness of this book, just as you claim a spiritual witness of the Bible.

There are many claims in the Bible that have no supporting evidence and yet you claim to believe every word is from God.

[neverending]

That doesn't make the book untrue. It just makes it lacking in evidence. (Not to say I believe the claims of the Book of Mormon, but lack of evidence doesn't automatically make a claim untrue). LDS claim a spiritual witness of this book, just as you claim a spiritual witness of the Bible.

There are many claims in the Bible that have no supporting evidence and yet you claim to believe every word is from God.


Libby,
Then I guess you had best not read anything in the Bible nor the BoM since you haven't a clue as to whether these books are from God. I do trust that when Christ said, that HIS WORD WOULD NEVER P*** AWAY, (Luke 21:33) that we could believe it, trust it, for God does not LIE! JS LIED all the time but you know, believe what you want but only God will make the final decision as to where He wants you to spend eternity.

[Decalogue]

There are many claims in the Bible that have no supporting evidence and yet you claim to believe every word is from God.


:( ... aanndd there it is folks ,,, the Standard Mormon L.D.S. fall back ( line of defence ) . When confronted with facts that show the S.L.C. - based Religion is built on sand and fog --- the mormon answer is to bring forward doubts and criticisms of the very written words of God , The Creator ... as we thankfully have recorded in The Holy Bible.

This is exactly what the serpent did in the garden when chit-chating with Eve--- Question the Words of God our Maker. Planting seeds of doubt.

Before you put your head on your pillow Libby , you need to drop on the floor face down and start begging The Redeemer to forgive you of your sins , and your insults of HIS written words , that He gave to us.

IF you were a Christian ( and so also , Mitt Romney , btw ) you would believe the Bible is Inspired by God The Holy Ghost { see 2 Tim. 3:16 } !

If you were a Christian , you would not have anything to do with a group which casts doubts on the veracity of the God-breathed Scriptures { Genesis to Revelation - 66 Books in one Bible , Amen! }, and yet that group , which calls into question the Real Scriptures ... fully accepts the BoM , P.G.P. , D. & C. . :rolleyes:

-------- ----------- ------------ -----------

Your screen address says you are in Southern California. You have NO reason to be horn-swaggled into buying the claims of the self-anointed / self-proclaimed "prophet & President , Joseph Smith. There are answers if you do some looking.

In the City of Orange there is an "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" Visitor Center. Go ask questions , and read the lit. , and tracts and examine. To quote from the front page of the California Penal Code : "Ignorance of the law , is NOT an excuse for violations thereof.". Get and read "The Maze of Mormonsism" by Walter Martin .

If you want to know what good Reformed , Protestant , Christians actually teach , then you have several good options in the So. Cal. area. Visit Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada , or The R.B.C. in Centinela / Lawndale , or Sovereign Baptist Church in Ontario { and listen to Pastor Steve Marquedant , and Jeff M***ey on Sermon Audio dot com }, or Riverside Reformed Baptist Church , or Escondido Reformed Baptist Church , or Grace Community Church in Panorama City , and/or listen the a radio program on KKLA-FM ***led "The White Horse Inn" , or visit "The House of Bibles in Fullerton , and look in their Theology section. Great books and not one of them would proclaim Calvin ( or Luther , or Wesley ) a "Prophet".

I have the "Ins***utes of the Christian Religion" and it is full of good spiritual food , and little gold nuggets of "thoughts' , but it is not inspired , nor was Calvin. I say again ---> Those 3 gents gents delivered many sermons and wrote and lectured , but they never wanted people to follow them , but to follow The Saviour , The Lord Jesus Christ.

In Mormonism --- in order to get to the top level of the celestial heaven ,,, a person must confess that Joseph Smith is a "Prophet-of-God".

In Biblical Christianity the focus is on The Lord Jesus Christ. Turn to Acts chapter 16 : read verses 30,31. Not one word there about beleiving in a "prophet".

Whereas , Calvin and Luther and Wesley ,,, rather than point to themselves --- they pointed people to : " Look unto Jesus " ! Calvin and Luther and Wesley will be bowing at the Throne of God Almighty and singing songs and hymns for ages to come , while the self-appointed "prophet" Joseph Smith will be weeping and gnashing his teeth in eternal flames.

Libby --- Choose this day whom ye shall serve !

[Libby]

:( ... aanndd there it it is folks ,,, the Standard Mormon L.D.S. fall back ( line of defence ) . When confronted with facts that show the S.L.C. - based Religion is built on sand and fog --- the mormon answer is to bring forward doubts and criticisms of The Word of God The Creator ... The Holy Bible.

This is exactly what the serpent did in the garden when chit-chating with Eve--- Question the Words of God our Maker.

Before you put your head on your pillow Libby , you need to drop on the floor face down and start begging The Redeemer to forgive you of your sins , and your insults of HIS written words , that He gave to us.

IF you were a Christian ( and so also , Mitt Romney , btw ) you would believe the Bible is Inspired by God The Holy Ghost { see 2 Tim. 3:16 } !

If you were a Christian , you would not have anything to do with a group which casts doubts on the veracity of the God-breathed Scriptures { Genesis to Revelation - 66 Books in one Bible , Amen! }, and yet that group , which calls into question the Real Scriptures ... fully accepts the BoM , P.G.P. , D. & C. . :rolleyes:

-------- ----------- ------------ -----------

Your screen address says you are in Southern California. You have NO reason to be horn-swaggled into buying the claims of the self-anointed / self-proclaimed "prophet & President , Joseph Smith. There are answers if you do some looking.

In the City of Orange there is an "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" Visitor Center. Go ask questions , and read the lit. , and tracts and examine. To quote from the front page of the California Penal Code : "Ignorance of the law , is NOT an excuse for violations thereof.". Get and read "The maze of Mormosism" by Walter Martin .

If you want to know what good Reformed Protestant Christians actually teach , then you have several good options in the So. Cal.. Visit Trinity Reformed Baptist Church in La Mirada , or The R.B.C. in Lawndale , or Sovereign Baptist Church in Ontario { and listen to Pastor Steve Marquedant , and Jeff M***ey on Sermon Audio dot com }, or Riverside Reformed Baptist Church , or Escondido Reformed Baptist Church , and/or listen the a radio program on KKLA-FM ***led "The White Horse Inn" , or visit "The House of Bibles in Fullerton , and look in their Theology section. Great books and not one of them would proclaim Calvin ( or Luther , or Wesley ) a "Prophet". I have the "Ins***utes of the Christian Religion" and it is full of good spiritual food , and little gold nuggets of "thoughts' , but it is not inspired , nor was Calvin.

In Mormonism --- in order to get to the top level of the celestial heaven ,,, a person must confess that Joseph Smith is a "Prophet-of-God".

Whereas , Calvin and Luther and Wesley ,,, rather than point to themselves --- they point people to : " Look unto Jesus " ! Calvin and Luther and Wesley will be bowing at the Throne of God Almighty and singing songs and hymns for ages to come , while the self-appointed "prophet" Joseph Smith will be weeping and gnashing his teeth in eternal flames.

Libby --- Choose this day whom ye shall serve !

And, here is the standard critics' response. Don't you dare question my Holy book, in the same way I question yours. That double standard in operation, again.

I know very well what Calvinists teach, Decalogue (did you not read all of my post?) and I reject most of it. I don't believe in a God who picks and chooses whom he will "save". I believe in a God who displays love & mercy towards all of his children.

I know about Ex-Mormons for Jesus. I get their newsletter (or did). I recently took myself off of their mailing list. Some nice people there, but I have moved on.

If you will take the time to notice, I did not make any truth claims about the Book of Mormon, whatsoever. I simply said, lack of evidence doesn't automatically make it untrue. That is a fact.

Please don't presume to lecture me about whom I should serve. I serve God and the truth.

[Libby]

Whereas , Calvin and Luther and Wesley ,,, rather than point to themselves --- they point people to : " Look unto Jesus " ! Calvin and Luther and Wesley will be bowing at the Throne of God Almighty and singing songs and hymns for ages to come , while the self-appointed "prophet" Joseph Smith will be weeping and gnashing his teeth in eternal flames.

Who gave you the authority to p*** final judgment on anyone?? Certainly, not the Savior. Final judgment is God's, alone.

[theway]

Now --- as to you mentioning John Calvin , Martin Luther , and John Wesley ...

( I think in Mystery novels/stories what you did is called a "red Herring"... :rolleyes: )

.... Neither of those three gents EVER claimed to be a Prophet ! None , nein , zip , nada , non , no , zero , goose eggs ! Never did they , or the people in the congregations / pews of the Churches/Chapels they taught & preached at ever think those guys were "prophets"...
Yes.... we know. It has been made abundantly clear to us by critics here, that the founders of Protestantism were not men called of God, received no revelations, and were uninspired; I get that. I'm just not sure how that helps your case any?

[Billyray]

Yes.... we know. It has been made abundantly clear to us by critics here, that the founders of Protestantism were not men called of God, received no revelations, and were uninspired; I get that. I'm just not sure how that helps your case any?

Because early and late Christian writings outside the Bible are not scripture.

Now let me ask you do you stand by your "inspired" leaders?

Adam God?

Blood atonement?

The apostles killed Judas by kicking him to death?

Gold grows like the hair on your head?

Jesus was conceived by "natural action"?

On and on and on. . .

[neverending]

And, here is the standard critics' response. Don't you dare question my Holy book, in the same way I question yours. That double standard in operation, again.

I know very well what Calvinists teach, Decalogue (did you not read all of my post?) and I reject most of it. I don't believe in a God who picks and chooses whom he will "save". I believe in a God who displays love & mercy towards all of his children.

I know about Ex-Mormons for Jesus. I get their newsletter (or did). I recently took myself off of their mailing list. Some nice people there, but I have moved on.

If you will take the time to notice, I did not make any truth claims about the Book of Mormon, whatsoever. I simply said, lack of evidence doesn't automatically make it untrue. That is a fact.

Please don't presume to lecture me about whom I should serve. I serve God and the truth.


And Libby....did you totally leave behind the doctrines of Mormonism? If you had, you would not be here defending it? I think you need to do some serious thinking of where your loyalties lie....you can't be a fence sitter and be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. IMHO, you are very confused and I will pray for you that God will lead you to where HE wants you to be.

[neverending]

Who gave you the authority to p*** final judgment on anyone?? Certainly, not the Savior. Final judgment is God's, alone.

These things are said because they are TRUE! History has shown us the kind of man JS was....a necromancer, wife stealer which made him an adulterer, vandal when he and a mob broke into the Expositor newspaper office and destroyed it by breaking the type and worst of all, traitor to this great country by calling out for Mormons to join his militia and fight againt the State of Missouri; the LEGAL State Militia. Are these signs of a godly man, a prophet of God?? No, he never lived any kind of life worthy to call himself a prophet. His prophesies failed, so he was a FALSE PROPHET! If even on prophesy didn't come to p***, then that man should not be listened to. These are the many issues that we as Christians here have tried and tried to show the LDS that they follow an ungodly man, a self-proclaimed prophet. It was all a scam, for he learned much from his father who also was a great con artist, lying to neighbors and searching for buried treasure he told these neighbors was there on their properties but we know nothing was EVER found.
Matt. 7:16, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" JS's fruits were rotten!

[BigJulie]

Matt. 7:16, "You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" JS's fruits were rotten!

While you go through your list of what you think Joseph Smith or what his life was---anyone can take a look at the church today, the people that adhere to its principles and what it stands for. To me, it represents a people who are devoted to God and thereby doing good, famly oriented as well as believing in hard work and kindness. That is my experience. Those are the fruits of the life of Joseph Smith I witness.

[Billyray]

While you go through your list of what you think Joseph Smith or what his life was--

Lying and having a relationship with a 14 year old girl when you are 38 are not high in my book of endearing qualities.

[neverending]

While you go through your list of what you think Joseph Smith or what his life was---anyone can take a look at the church today, the people that adhere to its principles and what it stands for. To me, it represents a people who are devoted to God and thereby doing good, famly oriented as well as believing in hard work and kindness. That is my experience. Those are the fruits of the life of Joseph Smith I witness.


Well, BJ keep thinking like that for the very foundation your church was built on was all lies,scams, adultery, vandalism, traitorous acts againt our country. Now if you want to sweep all these facts under the rug, fine it is a free country. The church still practices polygamy in its temples. So, are you saying that you deny the many gods that JS conjured up? What of works salvation? Having to be married in a temple and live ALL the Laws and Ordinances of your Church enduring to the end. How many people have lived 100% if those Laws?

I agree that the LDS have good family values but so do other churches so we can cross that one off the list, since the LDS do not have a market on family values. Do you think that those outside of Mormonism do not believe in hard work or kindness? Please Julie, you need to think outside Mormonism and realize that there are other people in the world.

[BigJulie]

Lying and having a relationship with a 14 year old girl when you are 38 are not high in my book of endearing qualities.

I'll tell you what, you can stay focused on the trash you think you have dug up from the past and I will continue to look at the fruit of today and what is happening today in the church. ;)

[BigJulie]

I agree that the LDS have good family values but so do other churches so we can cross that one off the list, since the LDS do not have a market on family values. Do you think that those outside of Mormonism do not believe in hard work or kindness? Please Julie, you need to think outside Mormonism and realize that there are other people in the world.

Ithink there are good moral christians out there. Also, disturbing are stats like these:



While the study’s primary report did not explore religion, some additional ****ysis focusing on sexual activity and religious identification yielded this result: 80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex - slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults, according to the teen pregnancy prevention organization.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/why-young-christians-arent-waiting-anymore/


I think when morality and gender are taught as eternal principles rather than just fleshy, earthly principles--that youth are more likely to abstain from pre-marital sex.


In other figures published by the Center for Disease Control, Utah was ranked at or near the bottom in live births to teens, cases of gonorrhea among men, and cases of gonorrhea among women. This data set reports the state with the highest rates of sexual activity and sexually transmitted diseases are in the South, especially Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

[Billyray]

I'll tell you what, you can stay focused on the trash you think you have dug up from the past and I will continue to look at the fruit of today and what is happening today in the church.

BigJ these are facts about Joseph. Character does matter especially for a person who claims to be a true prophet of God. Sometimes truth hurts.

[BigJulie]

BigJ these are facts about Joseph. Character does matter especially for a person who claims to be a true prophet of God. Sometimes truth hurts.

Read the OT sometimes and tell me what you think.

[Billyray]

Read the OT sometimes and tell me what you think.

What part did you have in mind?

[BigJulie]

What part did you have in mind?

I don't know---how about where the donkey does the correcting? ;)

Read the D&C and see how many times Christ calls on Joseph Smith to repent. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) understand that Joseph Smith is not a perfect man. We also understand he is the prophet of the restoration of the gospel of Christ and when we follow the gospel of Christ, we see great fruits.

[Billyray]

. . . (Mormons) understand that Joseph Smith is not a perfect man. . . .
Why not?

1. You are commanded to keep all of the commandments all of the time

2. God doesn't command you to do something that you cannot do.

[BigJulie]

Why not?

1. You are commanded to keep all of the commandments all of the time

2. God doesn't command you to do something that you cannot do.

We are commandment to love the God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. Do you disagree? If you agree, what does that mean to you?

What does santification mean to you?

[Libby]

And Libby....did you totally leave behind the doctrines of Mormonism? If you had, you would not be here defending it? I think you need to do some serious thinking of where your loyalties lie....you can't be a fence sitter and be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. IMHO, you are very confused and I will pray for you that God will lead you to where HE wants you to be.

I am not the subject here, NE, and Decalogue thinks we should stick to the subject. :) Really, I'm not on the fence about Mormonism. Yes, I do think some of what they teach is true (whether or not Joseph was a prophet). But, I don't buy the whole package. I just think all the hoopla about their religion is kind of silly, when Christianity faces some very similar problems.

[MacG]

then where exactly did he get the other 23?...and if they were just "created" by God, then how would Christ be any different from Adam---also a creation of God?

Heya Julie,

Interesting question. I suppose that the question where did Adam get is 46 Chromosomes is similar? The next question is where did Eve get her second X if Adam's bone had XY? God put Adam into a deep sleep to take a rib from him sounds kinda like the Holy Spirit overshadowing (what ever that is) Mary.

In regard to Jesus being like Adam if God simply supplied the missing DNA you would be correct in terms of physique. In terms of Spirit that animates the body, God blew life into the lungs of Adam whereas God the Father ordered Jesus (God the Son) into the body prepared for Him. " 5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" Phil 2:5-8

Blessings,

MacG

[Decalogue]

And, here is the standard critics' response. Don't you dare question my Holy book, in the same way I question yours. That double standard in operation, again.

I know very well what Calvinists teach, Decalogue (did you not read all of my post?) and I reject most of it. I don't believe in a God who picks and chooses whom he will "save". I believe in a God who displays love & mercy towards all of his children.

I know about Ex-Mormons for Jesus. I get their newsletter (or did). I recently took myself off of their mailing list. Some nice people there, but I have moved on.

If you will take the time to notice, I did not make any truth claims about the Book of Mormon, whatsoever. I simply said, lack of evidence doesn't automatically make it untrue. That is a fact.

Please don't presume to lecture me about whom I should serve. I serve God and the truth.

:rolleyes: Talk about "back-peddling"...

It was you that brought up the names of Calvin and Luther and Wesley. That is why I posted the info I did above. I did not want anyone reading the website to buy your false notion that those 3 gents were even a little bit like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

I have been inside churches that are descended from those 3 gents , and I very much like it when either the Pastor mentions a quote from one of them , or a quote is inserted into the Church Bulletin/announcements page.

Why ? Because those men studied and knew the old languages and knew how to exegete a p***age of holy Scripture so that the listener / person in the pew , would see that they are born in sin , and that they need a Saviour from that sin.
They then pointed the people to the ONE Redeemer who can help. John 14:6 !

Don't get upset with me . Look in the mirror and do some soul-searching . If you are taking time to type on your keyboard on this Thread and you are friendly with Mormonism ... well then , you are not friendly with The Lord God !

[Billyray]

We are commandment to love the God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. Do you disagree? If you agree, what does that mean to you?

What does santification mean to you?

I am happy to answer your questions if you want but this forum is really about your beliefs not mine.




1. You are commanded to keep all of the commandments all of the time

2. God doesn't command you to do something that you cannot do.

Do you believe points 1 and 2 above?

[BigJulie]

I am happy to answer your questions if you want but this forum is really about your beliefs not mine.



I was trying to understand your idea of sanctification because we believe it is a process that will take this lifetime and the next. We believe if our faith was perfect, we would be able to do all things God commands us (such as Peter walking on water.) But faith and obedience leads to more faith and more obedience which we call santification. That is why I asked you about what you believe about santification--not to talk about your faith, but to answer questions about mine. So, Billyray, you have already said that your faith is not perfect---therefore, how does your faith become perfect?

[Billyray]

So, Billyray, you have already said that your faith is not perfect---therefore, how does your faith become perfect?
I don't think I will ever have "perfect" faith in this life. As far as sanctification I have given you this in the past multiple times but I will be happy to give it to you again. This is a process where a person becomes more and more Christ like over time.

[Billyray]

We believe if our faith was perfect, we would be able to do all things God commands us. . .

1 Nephi 3: 7 . . . for I know that the Lord giveth no bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

This verse says that you can keep the commandments because God does not give you a commandment that you can't keep.

[BigJulie]

1 Nephi 3: 7 . . . for I know that the Lord giveth no bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

This verse says that you can keep the commandments because God does not give you a commandment that you can't keep.

Yes---but God understands this is a process called sanctification as we learn to be perfect in Him.

[BigJulie]

I don't think I will ever have "perfect" faith in this life. As far as sanctification I have given you this in the past multiple times but I will be happy to give it to you again. This is a process where a person becomes more and more Christ like over time.

How does this happen? According to you? How does a person "become more and more Christ like over time"?

[Billyray]

How does this happen? According to you? How does a person "become more and more Christ like over time"?

Through the work of the Holy Spirit.

[Billyray]

Yes---but God understands this is a process called sanctification as we learn to be perfect in Him.

So God give people commandments that they can't keep?

[Libby]

:rolleyes: Talk about "back-peddling"...

It was you that brought up the names of Calvin and Luther and Wesley. That is why I posted the info I did above. I did not want anyone reading the website to buy your false notion that those 3 gents were even a little bit like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Who is backpeddling? I stand by what I have said, regarding Calvin and the other Church "Fathers". In some regards Calvin was much worse than Joseph Smith. He allowed his friend to be murdered over a minor difference in Christian belief. That was standard practice in your church's history. But, you think it's just wonderful that he could exegete a p***age of the Bible well. Wow. The sins of those who agree with you are easily forgiven. Those who do not agree with you...not so much.

And, I think Calvin and company were very similiar to Joseph Smith, in that their teachings were the foundation of new churches of their day.

[Billyray]

And, I think Calvin and company were very similiar to Joseph Smith, in that their teachings were the foundation of new churches of their day.

They are not alike at all Libby. Calvin used the Bible whereas Joseph used his made up scriptures for the basis of his teachings.

[BigJulie]

Through the work of the Holy Spirit.

I agree--and through the work of the Holy Spirit does one do more and more that Christ commands and does that strengthen their faith as they see the "fruits" of their labor?

[BigJulie]

So God give people commandments that they can't keep?

No---through faith and thereby obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ, through the process of santification, we come to understand that in God, all things are possible. It is just not the one time deal you think it is---rather, it is a process in which God perfects us known as santification.

[Billyray]

No---through faith and thereby obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ, through the process of santification, we come to understand that in God, all things are possible.

Does God give you a commandment that you cannot keep?

[dberrie2000]

I don't think I will ever have "perfect" faith in this life.

Then how much faith is required for salvation?


As far as sanctification I have given you this in the past multiple times but I will be happy to give it to you again. This is a process where a person becomes more and more Christ like over time.

But that is the same claim the LDS have. They believe it is line upon line in obedience to Christ also.

[neverending]

Ithink there are good moral christians out there. Also, disturbing are stats like these:




I think when morality and gender are taught as eternal principles rather than just fleshy, earthly principles--that youth are more likely to abstain from pre-marital sex.


BJ: this makes me laugh for I've known many a Bishop's daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. Here in Utah County just south of where I live, the child molesters are out in full force and this is the one county within Utah that has more LDS than any other, because Brigham Young University is there. So, you see Julie, your church may teach good morals to their children but the kids do what they want regardless. They follow their natural tendencies for even they are sinners. The natural man is an enemy to God, so says your BoM. It matters not what religion one is, teenagers DO WHAT they want, ignoring what they've been taught, ignoring the talks with their parents. Do you have teenagers in your home? Do you understand the the peer pressures that our teens face today? Let's get real here. Your family values do not always matter to some teens. Teens today are exposed to more than you are aware of or you wouldn't have made such a naive statement. We raised two kids, taught them moral values but in the end, they did what they wanted. It's the way of teens today and I blame TV, video games and movies. Teens have this idea that they are somehow immune to getting hurt or getting pregnant, "oh, that happens to other kids, not me". That is why teens take so many chances....I know, not only with my own kids but with taking cl***es in Child Development when attending college to become a Nurse.

[neverending]

I don't know---how about where the donkey does the correcting? ;)

Read the D&C and see how many times Christ calls on Joseph Smith to repent. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) understand that Joseph Smith is not a perfect man. We also understand he is the prophet of the restoration of the gospel of Christ and when we follow the gospel of Christ, we see great fruits.


Julie,
Guess you forgot what Christ told his disciples that he would never leave us nor forsake us. IF you believe in what Christ taught and said, then there was NO need for a restoration. As long as there was even one person alive who believed in Christ, his teachings and gospel were still here on earth. JS, went to far with his lies. Do you not see how your church is all based on lies? How can your foundation stand when it was built on sand?

[BigJulie]

Julie,
Guess you forgot what Christ told his disciples that he would never leave us nor forsake us. IF you believe in what Christ taught and said, then there was NO need for a restoration. As long as there was even one person alive who believed in Christ, his teachings and gospel were still here on earth. JS, went to far with his lies. Do you not see how your church is all based on lies? How can your foundation stand when it was built on sand?

No---I have lived the gospel, I have lived the truths. What you see if a misconception of my beliefs---that is all.

[BigJulie]

BJ: this makes me laugh for I've known many a Bishop's daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. Here in Utah County just south of where I live, the child molesters are out in full force and this is the one county within Utah that has more LDS than any other, because Brigham Young University is there. So, you see Julie, your church may teach good morals to their children but the kids do what they want regardless. They follow their natural tendencies for even they are sinners. The natural man is an enemy to God, so says your BoM. It matters not what religion one is, teenagers DO WHAT they want, ignoring what they've been taught, ignoring the talks with their parents. Do you have teenagers in your home? Do you understand the the peer pressures that our teens face today? Let's get real here. Your family values do not always matter to some teens. Teens today are exposed to more than you are aware of or you wouldn't have made such a naive statement. We raised two kids, taught them moral values but in the end, they did what they wanted. It's the way of teens today and I blame TV, video games and movies. Teens have this idea that they are somehow immune to getting hurt or getting pregnant, "oh, that happens to other kids, not me". That is why teens take so many chances....I know, not only with my own kids but with taking cl***es in Child Development when attending college to become a Nurse.

I know there will be good and bad Christians and Mormons--I am looking at the overall stats and overall, truth helps in living a chaste life.

[Billyray]

Then how much faith is required for salvation?

What is required? That I place my faith in Christ to save me.

[Billyray]

But that is the same claim the LDS have. They believe it is line upon line in obedience to Christ also.

1. Do you believe that you should obey all of the commandments all of the time?

2. Are you capable of do so?

[Billyray]

I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian.
Would you OK with me calling myself a Mormon even though I don't believe in the tenets of Mormonism?

[BigJulie]

Would you OK with me calling myself a Mormon even though I don't believe in the tenets of Mormonism?

What are you asking? Are you asking if it would be okay to call yourself a Mormon is you don't live by the teachings of Mormonism?

Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't live by the teachings of Christ and think that just saying you believe or have faith is enough?

[Billyray]

What are you asking? Are you asking if it would be okay to call yourself a Mormon is you don't live by the teachings of Mormonism?


If I don't believe/teach/live by the teachings of Mormonism would it be OK to call myself a Mormon?

[BigJulie]

If I don't believe/teach/live by the teachings of Mormonism would it be OK to call myself a Mormon?

No, but by that standard, you should not be calling yourself a Christian either.

[neverending]

I know there will be good and bad Christians and Mormons--I am looking at the overall stats and overall, truth helps in living a chaste life.

Julie,
Please, I don't care if you try all day to say you have the truth....No ONE keeps the commandments everyday, no one! You are naive to think such a thing. Your church believes it has the truth but again, why are there so many unwed mothers of LDS back ground who get pregnant, drink and do drugs? I've seen it. My own brother got caught up with the wrong crowd when he was 16, he was my father's favorite and they shared so much together. My parents were staunch members of the LDS Church and we were all taught the same. My brother got into smoking, and doing drugs. He sluffed school and almost didn't graduate from High School. He got his girl friend pregnant and got married when he was 18. Not a good way to start a marriage. So, you can say all you want that, "truth helps in living a chaste life" but that is not so! Teenagers WILL do what they want regardless of what they have been taught, it is just the way things are today and even during my teen years. Has this not been so down through the different generations? Some children are born to be rebellious, no matter how hard you try to teach them.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=neverending;102422]Julie,
Please, I don't care if you try all day to say you have the truth....No ONE keeps the commandments everyday, no one! You are naive to think such a thing. Who says I do---I just understand that Christ creates a way for me to keep the commandments and that by so doing, I am obeying Him. Does He expect perfection? Yes,--but He also expects it line upon line and precept on precept. So, as long as I am following the spirit, I am obeying.

Okay, I will tell you of my personal experience. I have a dear friend who is born-again Christian. We both have the same number of children. We both raised them to love God and took them to church. We both taught them to be chaste. The children are now grown. All are good kids. But, her children lived the life they thought was good which included living with their boyfriend, drinking, swearing, etc. Mine lived the live they thought was good and didn't.

[Libby]

They are not alike at all Libby. Calvin used the Bible whereas Joseph used his made up scriptures for the basis of his teachings.

They are absolutely alike in the way I said they are alike...religions established on the, supposed, inspired teachings/revelations/interpretations of man. Not saying Calvin gave revelation, but he did teach/interpret scripture (just as Joseph Smith did) and he had his own unique spin, very different from what the Roman Catholics had been teaching for centuries, before that.

[neverending]

[quote] Who says I do---I just understand that Christ creates a way for me to keep the commandments and that by so doing, I am obeying Him. Does He expect perfection? Yes,--but He also expects it line upon line and precept on precept. So, as long as I am following the spirit, I am obeying.

Okay, I will tell you of my personal experience. I have a dear friend who is born-again Christian. We both have the same number of children. We both raised them to love God and took them to church. We both taught them to be chaste. The children are now grown. All are good kids. But, her children lived the life they thought was good which included living with their boyfriend, drinking, swearing, etc. Mine lived the live they thought was good and didn't.


BJ:
I am so happy for you that you were such a wonderful mother. Now I will repeat myself. ALL CHILDREN WHETHER MORMON OR CHRISTIAN DO HAVE FREE AGENCY. NOT ALL CHILDREN WILL LISTEN NOR OBEY, IT MATTERS NOT WHAT THEY WERE TAUGHT! Do you understand now? You evidently were blessed with children who gave you no troubles but I do believe that God gives us children that he knows we are capable of dealing with. In your case, God probably knew that you wouldn't be able to deal with rebellious children. I had only 2 children and my son caused enough trouble for 10 kids but today, he works hard, is honest, makes a 6 figure income and has 3 beautiful daughters whom he loves more than life itself. My daughter has 5 children all are super kids but my daughter married into money and it is all that matters to her.

Once you've raised your children, taught them right from wrong, taught them values, it is up to them to chose to live those values or not. We can not live our lives for our children no matter how much we'd like to. I hope you will stop judging your friend for with what you've shared here, you are NO friend. Have you ever stopped to think of the pain her children are causing her? I am glad you're not my friend to say such things behind my back!

[Billyray]

Not saying Calvin gave revelation, but he did teach/interpret scripture (just as Joseph Smith did) and he had his own unique spin, very different from what the Roman Catholics had been teaching for centuries, before that.
Do you believe that the Catholic church can support their unique beliefs from the Bible?

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=neverending;102433]


BJ:
I am so happy for you that you were such a wonderful mother. Now I will repeat myself. ALL CHILDREN WHETHER MORMON OR CHRISTIAN DO HAVE FREE AGENCY. NOT ALL CHILDREN WILL LISTEN NOR OBEY, IT MATTERS NOT WHAT THEY WERE TAUGHT! It does matter what they are taught---as you obviously believe or you would not be posting on this site. But here is the truth of the matter---the more correct the truth, the more likely it has a chance to "save" or children understanding that they have agency. So, if you teach a child that 1 + 1 = 3, they are going to have less chance of doing well in math than the child who is taught 1 + 1 =2. Understanding the eternal nature of marriage, the eternal nature of chas***y and the eternal nature of gender help children to understand not only that God commands them to marry, be chaste, etc., but WHY He commands them to. This helps children because they have a goal in their purity that goes beyond this life.

[Libby]

Do you believe that the Catholic church can support their unique beliefs from the Bible?

You know what, Billy? I think anyone can support just about anything they want to, from the Bible. I have even seen Hindus and Buddhists support some of their beliefs from the Bible. And Islam claims Jesus, as well. Everybody has their own spin. So, in answer to your question, yes, I think they believe they can very well support their beliefs from the Bible.

[Billyray]

You know what, Billy? I think anyone can support just about anything they want to, from the Bible. I have even seen Hindus and Buddhists support some of their beliefs from .
OK start with infant baptism. What verses can you use to support this practice?

[BigJulie]

You know what, Billy? I think anyone can support just about anything they want to, from the Bible. I have even seen Hindus and Buddhists support some of their beliefs from the Bible. And Islam claims Jesus, as well. Everybody has their own spin. So, in answer to your question, yes, I think they believe they can very well support their beliefs from the Bible.

Thank you for your valient effort to try to bring some common sense into the arena here Libby. This site reminds me more and more of what I read in Timothy.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

After a while, doesn't it seem that we are engaged in just vain babblings and trying to answer "foolish and unlearned questions"? I think you have explained yourself well and where you stand. I hope I have done the same. I think Dberrie has attempted to do the same. At some point, it does seem pointless and just "increasing ungodliness" and "gendering strifes."

[Libby]

OK start with infant baptism. What verses can you use to support this practice?

I have no idea, but the Christian Reformed Church, I attended for two years, believed in infant baptism, and they did support it with scripture. It was more inference than something that was plainly written (kind of like the Trinity doctrine), and had to do with the New Covenant. According to their doctrine, infant baptism took the place of circumcision, in the Old Covenant. Circumcision was a "sign" of the Old Covenant, and baptism is a "sign" of the New Covenant.

[Libby]

Thank you for your valient effort to try to bring some common sense into the arena here Libby. This site reminds me more and more of what I read in Timothy.

2Ti 2:16 But shun profane [and] vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2Ti 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

After a while, doesn't it seem that we are engaged in just vain babblings and trying to answer "foolish and unlearned questions"? I think you have explained yourself well and where you stand. I hope I have done the same. I think Dberrie has attempted to do the same. At some point, it does seem pointless and just "increasing ungodliness" and "gendering strifes."

Yes, I think you all have done very well in explaining your views.

It is a sort of exercise in futility, on boards like this, I agree. I don't really take it too seriously. It's all delusion, doncha know. :D

[Billyray]

I have no idea, but the Christian Reformed Church, I attended for two years, believed in infant baptism, and they did support it with scripture.

Which verses best supports infant baptism?

[Libby]

Which verses best supports infant baptism?

I don't remember specific verses, off the top of my head, and I am not going to do research on this. I had asked my Pastor about it, because I hadn't known that the Reformed Church did infant baptisms...I was surprised. I remember he referenced some verses where whole families had been baptized, once the head of the house accepted Christ.

[Billyray]

I don't remember specific verses, off the top of my head, and I am not going to do research on this. I had asked my Pastor about it, because I hadn't known that the Reformed Church did infant baptisms...I was surprised. I remember he referenced some verses where whole families had been baptized, once the head of the house accepted Christ.
Acts 16
14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.


Here is the verse that you are speaking about. Nowhere in this verse does it mention an infant. You have to ***ume it into the text. And nowhere in the NT do you find anyone baptizing an infant. It simply in not in the text. The model is that those who hear the gospel and place their faith in Christ are subsequently baptized as a profession of their faith.

Now lets look at sprinkling. What verses do you use to support this practice from the Bible?

[Libby]

Acts 16
14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.


Here is the verse that you are speaking about. Nowhere in this verse does it mention an infant. You have to ***ume it into the text. And nowhere in the NT do you find anyone baptizing an infant. It simply in not in the text. The model is that those who hear the gospel and place their faith in Christ are subsequently baptized as a profession of their faith.

Now lets look at sprinkling. What verses do you use to support this practice from the Bible?

Billy, just because you disagree with the interpretation, doesn't mean they are not supporting their beliefs with the Bible. They believe they ARE, indeed, just as you believe you can support your belief in the Trinity with the Bible, even though that specific word is never used, nor very well defined, anywhere in the Bible. It is mostly inference.

This just goes to show that even mainline Christians don't agree with each other on some fairly important issues. The Bible can be read and interpreted in a mul***ude of ways.

[Billyray]

Billy, just because you disagree with the interpretation, doesn't mean they are not supporting their beliefs with the Bible.

Can you show me a single infant baptism in the Bible?

[Libby]

Can you show me a single infant baptism in the Bible?

Can you show me the word "Trinity" in the Bible?

[Billyray]

Can you show me the word "Trinity" in the Bible?
The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the concept is.

Now are you going to show me a single infant that was baptized and while you are at it can you show me sprinkling?

[Decalogue]

Hey everybody on this Thread --- and especially the L.D.S. and friends of L.D.S. mormons ...

Let's get back to the THREAD TOPIC ! Okay ?!?!

"Biblical and Historical reasons why Mitt Romney is not a Christian" is the Thread ***le and it is being hijacked and derailed by mormons and mormon supporters.

Right now --- this Lord's Day evening November 13th ... go to the front page of the website . Point and Click on "Enter" , and the next thing you'll see is a photo of Jill and to the left it says "Blog Talk Radio" ...

...Simply point and click your mouse-thingy ma-jig on the little arrowhead thing and listen. I just heard a real good lesson from Walter Martin and it would be good for any Mormon out there to listen and hear some good preachin' mixed in with some good teachin'. which I never heard in a Mormon Chapel , Branch or Ward or from the radio broadcast from Temple Square .

Remember --- This is the Walter Martin Ministries website ,,, not the L.D.S. website , so maybe just quiet down some and try and be good guests here and learn something.

The next lesson / lecture from Walter Martin on the playlist is about "The Maze of Mormonism" and he quotes from The Bible , and from Presidents of the L.D.S. group. Get your Bible open and follow along. { Galatians is in the New Testament between 2 Cor. and Ephesians. }

You may never leave Mormonism .... but I think that if you listen to the lecture and read along with the Scriptures he reads , you will at least understand why Biblical Christians think that L.D.S. Mormonism is wrong. If it is wrong , and not a part of "Christianity --- then Mitt Romney , ( by being a member ) could not logically be a "Christian". Please listen.

[neverending]

[quote] It does matter what they are taught---as you obviously believe or you would not be posting on this site. But here is the truth of the matter---the more correct the truth, the more likely it has a chance to "save" or children understanding that they have agency. So, if you teach a child that 1 + 1 = 3, they are going to have less chance of doing well in math than the child who is taught 1 + 1 =2. Understanding the eternal nature of marriage, the eternal nature of chas***y and the eternal nature of gender help children to understand not only that God commands them to marry, be chaste, etc., but WHY He commands them to. This helps children because they have a goal in their purity that goes beyond this life.

BJ: YOU JUST DON'T GET IT DO YOU! All my comments back to you went right over your head! Please read along, slooowly so you may get what I have been trying to tell you.
First off I am sick and tired of hearing that your church is the ONLY one that teaches truth! ***OSH! Have you EVER in your life stepped outside your comfort zone and attended a Christian Worship Service? You would learn much for our sermons are ALWAYS about God and Jesus Christ and how we should trust and turn to them in ALL things. That we should walk the narrow path which leads us to God. We believe in family values, morals, living good lives, what do you think we're teaching our children? To be dishonest, to lie and steal, drink, smoke, do drugs and sleep around? I am appalled that you think so highly of yourself and think ONLY MORMONS TEACH VALUES!

Again, even though you teach your children these things does NOT guarantee that your children will walk with God....they must live their own lives. Does this make sense to you? As I said, God knew that you are the kind of person that wouldn't be able to deal with rebellious children.....you were blessed. I've seen many LDS families endure heartaches due to rebellious children so don't pretend that every LDS family has all these little angels running around, for that is NOT TRUE! I told you about my son, he was rebellious which began not long after my father died; he was very close to his grandfather and it hit my son harder than I knew. It wasn't until my father had been gone 3 years before I found my son crying in his room and we had a long talk. I hugged him and told him how much I wished he had shared these things with me sooner but he was proud and was trying to act like a man, he was only 14.

Now, as for this friend you mentioned. Have you ever given any thought to how she feels about her children? Have you EVER given it any thought, to how you would deal with one of your children having gone down a path that you knew would cause them pain along with yourself? Watching your grown child going down such a path is like waiting for a train wreck for there's nothing you can do but wait for it to happen. You can try and tell them that you don't approve of what they're doing but they most likely will get mad and tell you to stay out of their life. These are the things I am sure your friend has had to face. Have you EVER tried to be sympathetic with your friend and what she is feeling? I highly doubt it because you have your superior at***ude and of course, you think you have the truth and she doesn't....this example is pure evidence of how Mormons are so judmental and self-righteous! Your posts on this subject turns my stomach!

[Libby]

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but the concept is.

Now are you going to show me a single infant that was baptized and while you are at it can you show me sprinkling?

My Pastor said the "concept" is in there, so it must be, right? Calvin thought so, as well. Did you know he supported infant baptism?

[Libby]

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God" (Inst.4, 16, 8).

[Billyray]

Calvin declares that "infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God" (Inst.4, 16, 8).

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

[Libby]

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

What?! I thought Calvin was a Master at exegesis! :)


Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

Okay, you made me drag out my Ins***ute books. I was curious as to what scriptures Calvin used (because I knew his belief was based on the Bible, somehow). He wrote several pages on this subject and referenced scripture, as he went along. It was a building process (his mind was like a steel trap - very logical).

He starts out with the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 17:14) and claims Christians are still under covenant with the Lord, just that it's a New Covenant. Interesting, because LDS make that same claim. Accordingly, he claims that Jewish sons were called "holy seed". the outward sign of which was circumcision. Children of Christians, therefore, being under the New Covenant, were to bear the outward sign of baptism.

He goes into a LOT of detail. If you're interested, the Ins***utes are online and you can access this, yourself.

He, then, proceeds to reference Matt 19:13-15, about Christ telling his disciples to allow the little children to come unto him. He has a lot to say about this (more than I want to post). Also, Luke 18:15, Matt 19:14, Mark 10:13. In the next section (Section 8) he explains that the Bible is NOT silent on infant baptism. He says infants are not excluded when there is mention of a whole family being baptized, so he is surmizing that they are to be "included". Calvin can certainly make a good argument, you have to give him that, on just about all counts. It's so funny to read him, though, because he includes personal remarks and is not above namecalling. :)

He makes a comparison to women and the Last Supper. He said, if we were to take only that (the original Last Supper) into consideration, we would have to come to the conclusion that women were not allowed to partake (which was not the case).

He makes a pretty elaborate argument, and you really have to read it all, to get the proper context and all.

[neverending]

Decalogue, I am sorry for going off topic but sometimes things are said that I must respond to as was the case with BigJulie. Hope you will forgive me.

[Billyray]

If you're interested, the Ins***utes are online and you can access this, yourself.

Why go online when I have his book on my bookshelf?

[Billyray]

He, then, proceeds to reference Matt 19:13-15, about Christ telling his disciples to allow the little children to come unto him

Does this mean infant baptism?

[Billyray]

In the next section (Section 8) he explains that the Bible is NOT silent on infant baptism.
Then give me a verse.

[neverending]

Yes, I think you all have done very well in explaining your views.

It is a sort of exercise in futility, on boards like this, I agree. I don't really take it too seriously. It's all delusion, doncha know. :D


Oh yes, ALL SMOKE and MIRRORS! JS being the HEAD of the delusion!

[Decalogue]

Decalogue, I am sorry for going off topic but sometimes things are said that I must respond to as was the case with BigJulie. Hope you will forgive me.

neverending ... Hey --- YOU are not the problem :) .

My "beef" is that since Jill has other "fish-to-fry" and a family also , the Thread ***le / topic that she set up and made a "sticky" of is being intentionally taken off course by people that get away with wasting much bandwidth. They ( the mormons & friend-of-mormonism ) think they must defend the lying adulterers who founded Mormonism , and for them , that means insulting Christian Pastors/Theologians/Commentators/Reformers/Bible Translators , and the teachings of the Holy Bible. { Just like the "angel" told J.S. in that grove of trees . btw :rolleyes: }.

Can't you hear the serpent's hiss whenever you read stuff by the defenders of Mormonism ?
Harsh words from me ...? Nope . Read Genesis chapter 3 folks. The enemy of our souls will do anything to get us from trusting in the Divinely inspired Holy Bible.

The Devil himself is the one that whispered in Joseph Smith's ear , and as we can see by the pro-Mormon / anti-christian posters on this Thread ... he is still active. Turn over to 2 Corinthians chapter 11 verses 14,15. He appears as an "angel of light". Turn over to 1 Peter chapter 5 verse 8. He prowls about like a roaring lion ... Some folks mistakenly ***ume that the devil is in Hell right now. Wrong ! That comes later on folks when The Lord God has him tossed into the final Lake of Fire .

ONLY the devil and his ***ociates could come up with the wicked sex-based religion of mormonism wherein a God-being has sexual relations with one of the earth girls ( Mary of Nazareth ) and produces a physical "son". And then IF you buy into that wicked religion and go along with their stolen Freemasonry temple oaths and secrets ... you can someday have your own planet and start populating that planet with your wife ( wives) . :eek:

It is the Mormons and friend-of-mormons ( and possibly Romney campaign staffers ? ) who intentionally bring up other names ( such as Libby did ) , and is continuing to do - by turning this thread into a rabbit trail about Calvin and other topics.
All interesting topics - to be sure , BUT you'll notice that Libby does not post her comments over in the "Protestantism" sub-section under the "Christianity" section names .

When told by me that she needs to repent and get right with God , through bowing to the real Jesus Christ and following him alone ... she got upset. If she was a real Bible-believing , Blood-bought , born-again Christian , then she would would have apologized for defending Mormonism , and the vile religion of Mitt Romney. Instead , she has to cast doubts upon a man (men ) who actually could read greek , hebrew , latin and could properly preach (exegete ) a sermon which pointed people to Jesus Christ and the unmerited grace of our Heavenly Father.

Again people --- This website is very lightly moderated because as I said before ; Jill has other things to do. Other websites with full-time Moderators would have "warned" , then "suspended" for 2 weeks , and then later "banned" posters like BigJulie and Snow Patrol and Libby and Sir and others because they either intentionally go waaaayyyy off track or lie about facts-already-in-evidence.

I say again to any Mormons out there in internet land : I do not hate well-meaning , good average Mormon folks. Many of my own family are Mormons , and I'm a descedant of Handcart pioneers. The Tabernacle Choir makes great music with their voices and that wonderful organ , BUT - that does NOT mean that Mormonism is a CHRIST-ian religion . Christians are people that trust in Christ Jesus alone for salvation from the sin we inherited from Adam & Eve.

Please read "The Maze of Mormonism" by Walter Martin , and "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" by The Tanners , and also "Mormonism: Hope or Dispair" by John L. Smith. Listen to the message about the Maze of Mormonism under the "Blog talk radio" section of the main page of the website. Please. Eternity is a looooong time to be wrong.

Mormonism is rooted in the speeches/teachings/recorded discourses of Joseph Smith and his chief deputy Brigham Young. If any L.D.S. or friend of L.D.S. on this website denies what those 2 guys taught and did ... all the while saying that they were and are "prophets-of-God" ... , well then it is a small wonder why there is sooo much prescription "tranquilizers" used in Utah , and the teenage suicide rate is sooo high in Mormon-land... Many L.D.S. members know the religion is a lie , but they will lose their ***s and/or business contracts if they leave Mormonism.

It is a works based religion , and if any mormon really starts examining the real religion and history of Smith & Young , and they Territory of Desseret , and the history of Nauvoo , Illinois and Missouri , and the Mountain Meadows M***acre , and the Temple blood oaths against the U.S. Government , well , probably they would be on Tranquilizers also.

[Libby]

Why go online when I have his book on my bookshelf?

Well, then, go to that book and read the verses and how he defends infant baptism (instead of asking me). :)

[Libby]

Btw, Billy, I am not defending infant baptism. I don't believe water baptism is necessary, at all. I'm just saying that it CAN be defended biblically. Obviously, you disagree, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people (even scholars) do it, and believe that they are defending with the Bible. Same with other issues.

[Billyray]

Well, then, go to that book and read the verses and how he defends infant baptism (instead of asking me). :)

Because there aren't any verses that speak about infant baptism. That is the whole point I was trying to make when we were speaking about the Catholic church. The same goes with sprinkling.

[Libby]

Because there aren't any verses that speak about infant baptism. That is the whole point I was trying to make when we were speaking about the Catholic church. The same goes with sprinkling.

Yes, I knew you wanted to make that point, but my point is that people do, indeed, make biblical arguments, even if baptism of infants is not, specifically, mentioned (although, Calvin makes the argument that it IS mentioned in verses that cite "family baptisms"). People make all kinds of biblical arguments by inference, and the Trinity is probably the prime example.

[Billyray]

Yes, I knew you wanted to make that point, but my point is that people do, indeed, make biblical arguments, even if baptism of infants is not, specifically, mentioned (although, Calvin makes the argument that it IS mentioned in verses that cite "family baptisms"). People make all kinds of biblical arguments by inference, and the Trinity is probably the prime example.

That is why I don't rely on extra Biblical writings for theology. If I don't have any support from the Bible then I can't hold to that opinion. This goes for things such as; infant baptism, sprinkling, Mary being a co-redemtrix, ***hing for the NT church, Melchizedek priesthood among NT men etc.

[Libby]

That is why I don't rely on extra Biblical writings for theology.

Everyone relies on extra-biblical writings for theology, Billy. That's why you have so many different interpretations and denominations.

[Billyray]

Everyone relies on extra-biblical writings for theology, Billy.

OK give me one.

[Libby]

OK give me one.

Are you not the proud owner of a copy of The Ins***utes?

Calvinism (and all of the churches based on Calvin's theology - Reformed, Presbyterian, etc)
Wesleyianism
Lutheran
Catholicism
Baptists (John Smyth)

All denominations have their roots in someone's interpretation of the Bible. Those commentaries/interpretations are "extra-biblical")

[Libby]

I am off to the hospital. One of my cousin's is dying of lung cancer and I have been sitting with him.

Later.

[neverending]

Decalogue,
THANK YOU for such a well thought out post and for trying to explain what so many of us (the Christians) here on WM have been saying and saying for far to long. I've been out of Mormonism for 30 years and yes, I lost much in leaving; my relationship with my parents for starters and a lifelong friend who blamed me for why our friendship ended. In due respect, I never discussed religion with her because I knew it would only lead to an argument but I was the bad guy.
It would be wonderful of these LDS members here would take time to listen to WM or read his book (books) get a hold of the Tanner's book too for I can attest to the fact that the Tanner's book along with one other was what nailed everything down for me and I knew that God wanted me out of Mormonism. Course I had had my doubts before reading any book when going through the temple to be married but had no way to speak out about it for I had made blood oaths to not speak about what goes in within the temple. It is nothing but an old boys club for those who will pay their dues (10% of their income) to get their special card to enter into that secret place. I don't care what kind of spin they try to put onto their religion, it is NOT Christian.

"In May of 2000 the United Methodists' national convention declared that that the Mormon Church has "some radical differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of God; the nature, origin, and purpose of Jesus Christ; and the nature and way of salvation." The United Methodists objected to the LDS notion that the Mormon deity is a "gendered, married and procreating god" with "a body of flesh and bones." The Methodists noted that Mormonism is not at all a monotheistic religion but rather one that "more closely resembles a tri-theistic or possibly a polytheistic faith."
The 2.8 million-member Presbyterian Church U.S.A. worked five years on a statement that outlined the differences between it and the LDS Church. In this document it claimed that the Mormon Church was a "a new and emerging religion that expresses allegiance to Jesus Christ in terms used within the Christian tradition" even though it is not "within the historical apostolic tradition of the Christian Church of which the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is a part." The document also stated that Mormons who become Presbyterians must be re-baptized and that Presbyterians "should not hesitate" to share the gospel with the Mormon people.
Now I doubt that few people would cl***ify either the United Methodists or the Presbyterian U.S.A. of being a group of narrow-minded conservatives.
It should also be noted that the Missouri Synod of Lutherans has also published material in the past that declares Mormon doctrine as non-Christian. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America lists Mormonism as a cult along with Jehovah's Witnesses and the Christian Science movement. Even the Roman Catholic apologetic group Catholic Answers has carried articles claiming Mormonism is not Christian. Now, I know some Mormon might say, "But wouldn't Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox have problems with your Protestant views?" I am sure they would. But that really sidesteps the issue. In 1998 BYU professor Robert Millet responded to the objections of the Southern Baptist Convention by saying that those who condemn Mormon theology as not being Christian should at least understand the doctrine. Are we really to believe that Methodists, Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and several Protestant theologians and scholars really have no clue as to what Mormon doctrine really entails? If that is the case then Mormonism is really more esoteric (and therefore un-Christian) than first realized". (http://www.mrm.org/is-mormonism-christian)

[dberrie2000]

OK give me one.

The Athanasian creed.

[Billyray]

The Athanasian creed.

I don't rely on that for my theology.

[dberrie2000]

Then give me a verse.

John Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail


Calvin's leading premise in his argumentation in favour infant baptism is that baptism is parallel to circumcision from the first covenant and the differences that exist between them exist in externals only(Inst.4, 16, 3). When comparing circumcision with baptism Calvin ***erts that we must "diligently" consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. Calvin maintains that the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming the covenant is common, namely regeneration(Inst.4, 16, 6). According to Calvin, "only the manner of confirmation is different"(Inst.4, 16, 6). What was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. The function of baptism is the same as the function of circumcision. It is,

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to ***ail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.
Differences Between Circumcision and Baptism Are Falsely Alleged
In Calvin's day there was a vocal minority called the "Anabaptists" who had a myriad of objections to the baptizing of infants. John Calvin, however, is rather convincing in his refutation of these objections.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this ***ertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodÕs ins***ution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).

Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.

Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).

[Billyray]

John Calvin: Infant Baptism
by Rev. Bryn MacPhail


Calvin's leading premise in his argumentation in favour infant baptism is that baptism is parallel to circumcision from the first covenant and the differences that exist between them exist in externals only(Inst.4, 16, 3). When comparing circumcision with baptism Calvin ***erts that we must "diligently" consider what is common to both, and what they have apart from us. Calvin maintains that the covenant is common, and the reason for confirming the covenant is common, namely regeneration(Inst.4, 16, 6). According to Calvin, "only the manner of confirmation is different"(Inst.4, 16, 6). What was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism. The function of baptism is the same as the function of circumcision. It is,

"God's sign, communicated to a child as by an impressed seal, confirms the promise given to the pious parent, and declares it to be ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but to his seed; and that he wills to manifest his goodness and grace not only to him but to his descendents even to the thousandth generation"(Ex.20:6; Inst.4, 16, 9).

Calvin is essentially saying that although "God's sign" has changed(circumcision to baptism) the promise remains the same. Therefore, any attempt to ***ail infant baptism must be viewed as an attack on the commandment of circumcision.
Differences Between Circumcision and Baptism Are Falsely Alleged
In Calvin's day there was a vocal minority called the "Anabaptists" who had a myriad of objections to the baptizing of infants. John Calvin, however, is rather convincing in his refutation of these objections.

Some Anabaptists in Calvin's day argued that circumcision could not be equated with infant baptism because circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were purely carnal(Inst.4, 16, 10). Calvin counters by claiming that if we regard circumcision as a literal sign, "we must estimate baptism to be the same"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin bases this ***ertion on Colossians, chapter two, where Paul makes neither more spiritual than the other. Paul says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the "circumcision of Christ"(Col.2:11). Paul afterwards adds that in baptism we were "buried with Christ"(Col.2:12). Calvin sees this to mean nothing except that "the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision"(Inst.4, 16, 11). Calvin believes that the apostle Paul is demonstrating that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.

One of the more reasonable and biblical objections to infant baptism is made by those who regard baptism as a sacrament of repentance and faith. These advocates of believer's baptism avow that baptism must be preceded by faith and repentance(Inst.4, 16, 23). These people argue that since this is not possible in the infancy stage, "we must guard against admitting infants into the fellowship of baptism"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Calvin refutes "these darts" by directing our attention to the testimonies of Scripture that show that circumcision was also a sign of repentance(Jer.4:4; 9:25; Deut.10:16; 30:6). If God communicated circumcision to infants as a sacrament of repentance and faith, as Calvin argues, it does not seem absurd if they are now made participants in baptism. Although infants, at the very moment they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, "they were truly circumcised to the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature"(Inst.4, 16, 20). Likewise, infants are baptized into "future repentance and faith" and "the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit"(Inst.4, 16, 20). To refuse infants baptism then, according to Calvin, is to "rage openly at GodÕs ins***ution"(Inst.4, 16, 20).

Calvin believes that infants, regarding baptism, have to be put in "another category"(Inst.4, 16, 23). Calvin reasons this from the fact that in ancient times anyone who joined in religious fellowship with Israel had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before he could be marked with circumcision(Inst.4, 16, 23). This was because he was of foreign nationality, with whom the covenant had been made.

Abraham and Isaac exemplify this difference between adults and children. Many opponents of infant baptism point to the fact that in the life of Abraham, the Lord does not command Abraham to be circumcised until after he shows faith in the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks, "why, in Abraham's case does the sacrament follow faith, but in Isaac, his son, does it precede all understanding?"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin answers by suggesting that it is because Abraham as a grown man was a stranger to the covenant, while his son had a "hereditary right" to the promise(Inst.4, 16, 24). Calvin asks "if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the help of understanding, there is no reason why they should be barred from the sign merely because they cannot swear to the provisions of the covenant"(Inst.4, 16, 24). Subsequently, those who embrace the Christian faith as adults are not allowed baptism unless they first have faith and repentance. On the other hand, Calvin declares that any infant who derives their origin from Christians, "have been born directly into the inheritance of the covenant" and therefore are expected to be received into baptism(Inst.4, 16, 24).
Can you give me a specific verse so we can look at it.

[dberrie2000]

Then give me a verse.

On Infant Baptism
Before bringing together all that has been said and applying it to infant baptism, it is
appropriate to examine briefly Calvin’s basis for infant baptism and the peculiarities of baptism
when applied to infants instead of adults.
In his Ins***utes, Calvin offers two biblical lines of defense for the practice of baptizing
the children of believers: the covenant, and Christ’s own dealings with children and infants.
Calvin understands that the covenant God made with Abraham and his children is still in force.
The sign and seal of that covenant under the old administration was circumcision, but under the
new administration the same covenant has a new sign and seal, that is, baptism. Calvin
consistently reasons by ****ogy between circumcision and baptism.6 Calvin considers it
“incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office
among us [New Covenant believers]” (4.16.4). While God does not specifically command New
Covenant believers to baptize their children, he did explicitly command Old Covenant believers
to circumcise theirs. Further, Calvin sees that New Covenant as a magnification and extreme
growth of the grace of God. If our children were included in the covenant graces of God under
the Old Covenant and were given the sign of that covenant, how much more under the New
Covenant should they be included and given the sign of the covenant. Calvin reasons that “if the
4 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Repr., Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998), 21:319 (Eph 5:26).
Calvin warns that we should not seek the efficacy of the sacrament in the sacrament itself. This was mentioned
above, but bears repeating: the blessings of the sacraments are not found in the sacraments but in Christ alone.
Calvin understands that the Holy Spirit invisibly and internally ministers Christ and his benefits to us though the
visible and external ministry of the sacraments.
5 Ibid., 20:70 (1 Cor 1:13).
6 Calvin uses this ****ogy quite effectively in defense of the practice of infant baptism against the
Anabaptists; see 4.16.20 for a powerful example.
WRS Journal 14:1 (February 2007) 25-30
4
covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians that
under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews” (4.16.5). For Calvin, baptism
does not bring the infant into the covenant, but baptism is given to the infant because of the
child’s status in the covenant. Thus, he makes bold to say that “baptism is properly administered
to infants as something owed to them” (4.16.5).7

[Billyray]

On Infant Baptism
Before bringing together all that has been said and applying it to infant baptism, it is
appropriate to examine briefly Calvin’s basis for infant baptism and the peculiarities of baptism
when applied to infants instead of adults.
In his Ins***utes, Calvin offers two biblical lines of defense for the practice of baptizing
the children of believers: the covenant, and Christ’s own dealings with children and infants.
Calvin understands that the covenant God made with Abraham and his children is still in force.
The sign and seal of that covenant under the old administration was circumcision, but under the
new administration the same covenant has a new sign and seal, that is, baptism. Calvin
consistently reasons by ****ogy between circumcision and baptism.6 Calvin considers it
“incontrovertible that baptism has taken the place of circumcision to fulfill the same office
among us [New Covenant believers]” (4.16.4). While God does not specifically command New
Covenant believers to baptize their children, he did explicitly command Old Covenant believers
to circumcise theirs. Further, Calvin sees that New Covenant as a magnification and extreme
growth of the grace of God. If our children were included in the covenant graces of God under
the Old Covenant and were given the sign of that covenant, how much more under the New
Covenant should they be included and given the sign of the covenant. Calvin reasons that “if the
4 John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (22 vols.; Repr., Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998), 21:319 (Eph 5:26).
Calvin warns that we should not seek the efficacy of the sacrament in the sacrament itself. This was mentioned
above, but bears repeating: the blessings of the sacraments are not found in the sacraments but in Christ alone.
Calvin understands that the Holy Spirit invisibly and internally ministers Christ and his benefits to us though the
visible and external ministry of the sacraments.
5 Ibid., 20:70 (1 Cor 1:13).
6 Calvin uses this ****ogy quite effectively in defense of the practice of infant baptism against the
Anabaptists; see 4.16.20 for a powerful example.
WRS Journal 14:1 (February 2007) 25-30
4
covenant still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians that
under the Old Testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews” (4.16.5). For Calvin, baptism
does not bring the infant into the covenant, but baptism is given to the infant because of the
child’s status in the covenant. Thus, he makes bold to say that “baptism is properly administered
to infants as something owed to them” (4.16.5).7

So I guess you are bot going to give a verse so we fan look at it.

[dberrie2000]

I don't rely on that for my theology.

Some do. The language of the creed is very specific concerning it's message:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

[dberrie2000]

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

Can you find any verses in the NT that show that infants were baptized via sprinkling?

Can you find any verses in the NT that describes a baptism for ANY infant?

[dberrie2000]

And I think Calvin is wrong on that point.

But yet--you have no doubt that all infants are sinners???

[Billyray]

But yet--you have no doubt that all infants are sinners???
Yep that is what Romans states.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

[Billyray]

Can you find any verses in the NT that describes a baptism for ANY infant?

I certainly can't and that is why I say it is not Bblical.

[neverending]

Btw, Billy, I am not defending infant baptism. I don't believe water baptism is necessary, at all. I'm just saying that it CAN be defended biblically. Obviously, you disagree, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people (even scholars) do it, and believe that they are defending with the Bible. Same with other issues.


Libby,
What does infant baptism have to do with Mitt Romney? Can you not stay on topic?

[neverending]

Not true... you made it clear before that you called me Richard because you thought i was using a sock puppet. I have no respect for someone who can not admit to their mistakes.


There you go... in using that broad brush you just included the LDS Church. When can I expect my discount Christian card?


theway! There are NO DISCOUNT CARDS, that's something you should take up with Pres. Monson with buying your way into your temple.
I again must repeat myself, LDS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN! You can tell me til you're blue in the face that you are but, again and I'm not the only one who has told you, YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE RIGHT JESUS NOR EVEN THE RIGHT GOD! Will you admit that your Jesus was a created being? Will you admit that your god wasn't always god but was once a man as you but he progressed to attaining his godhood? IF you answer YES to these two questions then as I said, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!

Oh, and I don't give a rats behind if you have respect for me or not! And now you are again sounding like Richard and I again will tell you that I called you that BECAUSE you respond to my comments just like he did. Has that now sunk into your head? I told you too that I am sorry if I offended you but that went right over your head too. I can't help it if you sound like a poster that I've had run ins with on another posting board.

[neverending]

I'm sorry I must have missed that definition of a Christian. Can I please get the official version of it, instead of your critic rant? No offense, but your opinion carries no credibility, seeing as though you have been consistently wrong on so many things, like my name ever being Richard.


And your rants have no credibility in my opinion so where does that leave our discussion? Thrown out the window I suppose. And you have been consistently WRONG on so many things too. I don't need to explain myself again and again. Either you understand why I called you Richard or not. Subject in now closed! And this whole thread has gotten so off topic it's pathetic!

[neverending]

How about you answer my other question first. How do you know that every word in the Bible is from God?

Libby,
Because Jesus said this: "Heaven and earth shall p*** away, but my words shall not p*** away" (Matt. 24:35).

What do these words mean to you? Was Jesus lying when he said these words? His word IS the Bible! His word still stands and has for millenia but I guess what Jesus said means nothing to you?

[Libby]

Libby,
What does infant baptism have to do with Mitt Romney? Can you not stay on topic?

Why don't you ask Billy? I believe he started this line of questioning.

If you guys don't want to read off topic stuff, just scroll on by.

[Billyray]

Why don't you ask Billy? I believe he started this line of questioning.


It all started with your post below

They are absolutely alike in the way I said they are alike...religions established on the, supposed, inspired teachings/revelations/interpretations of man. Not saying Calvin gave revelation, but he did teach/interpret scripture (just as Joseph Smith did) and he had his own unique spin, very different from what the Roman Catholics had been teaching for centuries, before that.

[Libby]

It all started with your post below

I started out speaking very generally about biblical interpretation. I think you are the one who started the baptism questions. (I haven't really gone back to look). Doesn't matter, really. We have both been participating in the discussion and I don't see anything wrong with that. Threads almost always go off topic, eventually.

[Billyray]

Threads almost always go off topic, eventually.

That is true and usually after the 4th or 5th post of the thread.

[Libby]

That is true and usually after the 4th or 5th post of the thread.

Yep.... :)

[neverending]

why don't you ask billy? I believe he started this line of questioning.

If you guys don't want to read off topic stuff, just scroll on by.


i don't have to scroll on by! The subject is mitt romney, not infant baptism, not anything pertaining to any kind of baptism either. Stay on topic or don't post!

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Can you find any verses in the NT that describes a baptism for ANY infant?


I certainly can't and that is why I say it is not Bblical.

But Calvin taught infant baptism, that is the point. And you teach that infants are sinners.

So--if an infant dies--what saves them from hell?

Mitt Romney believes that all infants are born saved.

[dberrie2000]

Libby,
Because Jesus said this: "Heaven and earth shall p*** away, but my words shall not p*** away" (Matt. 24:35).

What do these words mean to you? Was Jesus lying when he said these words? His word IS the Bible! His word still stands and has for millenia but I guess what Jesus said means nothing to you?

I was wondering--what do these words mean to you?:

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

[Billyray]

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


We do obey Christ when we place our faith in him.

[dberrie2000]

Definitions of Christian (n) (http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+Christian&qpvt=what+is+a+christian&FORM=DTPDIA)

[B]believer in Jesus Christ as savior: somebody whose religion is Christianity
from teachings of Jesus Christ: based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels
relating to Christianity, or belonging to or maintained by a Christian organization, especially a church

This is the definition of what a Christian is or a religion that calls itself Christian.

Never--if one has to be able to identify with all three of these parameters--you could not qualify as a Christian, but the LDS could.


Now, answer me this. If a person claims to believe in and follows Christ BUT the Christ they say they believe in is NOT the TRUE Christ of the Bible, then can they be considered a Christian?

Seeing that the faith alone could match very few of the doctrines taught by Christ and His disciples, and found within the NT Biblical text--where does that leave you?


How many of the Christians here have told you over and over again that Mormonism DOES NOT worship the true and living Jesus Christ of the Bible.

But that is just an erection and disembowelment of a straw man.

The fact is--any religion that claims that there is not the first act of obedience to Jesus Christ necessary for His grace unto life eternal has nothing in common with the Bible.

What is it about that we don't understand?

[dberrie2000]

We do obey Christ when we place our faith in him.

I wholeheartly agree with you, Billyray. It's just not a dead faith that is considered obedience to Christ.


Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post---I think when morality and gender are taught as eternal principles rather than just fleshy, earthly principles--that youth are more likely to abstain from pre-marital sex.


BJ: this makes me laugh for I've known many a Bishop's daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. Here in Utah County just south of where I live, the child molesters are out in full force and this is the one county within Utah that has more LDS than any other, because Brigham Young University is there. So, you see Julie, your church may teach good morals to their children but the kids do what they want regardless. They follow their natural tendencies for even they are sinners. The natural man is an enemy to God, so says your BoM. It matters not what religion one is, teenagers DO WHAT they want, ignoring what they've been taught, ignoring the talks with their parents. Do you have teenagers in your home? Do you understand the the peer pressures that our teens face today? Let's get real here. Your family values do not always matter to some teens. Teens today are exposed to more than you are aware of or you wouldn't have made such a naive statement.

Huh? What are you saying here, Never? That it is useless to teach the gospel to our children? That it has no effect in their lives? That all teens have no morals?

[Billyray]

I wholeheartly agree with you, Billyray. It's just not a dead faith that is considered obedience to Christ.

John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


What works are required according to the above verses?

[Billyray]

But Calvin taught infant baptism,

True



And you teach that infants are sinners.

True



So--if an infant dies--what saves them from hell?

Who said that infants go to hell?

[dberrie2000]

Lying and having a relationship with a 14 year old girl when you are 38 are not high in my book of endearing qualities.

Yup--no telling what trash one can dig up on even the most sacred of them all, Jesus Christ. It was a common belief among the Jews that Jesus was the Son of a Roman soldier--giving his name, rank, and serial number.

Here is some of the story:http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_7.htm


The evidence of the Rabbis


The Jewish records of the Rabbis are of extreme importance in determining Gospel origins and the value of the church presentation of the virgin birth story of Jesus Christ. A common appellation for Jesus in the Talmud was Yeshu'a ben Panthera, an allusion to the widespread Jewish belief during the earliest centuries of the Christian era that Jesus was the result of an illegitimate union between his mother and a Roman soldier named Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera.


The Talmud enshrines within its pages Jewish oral law. It is divided into two parts, the Mishna and the Gemara. The first discusses such subjects as festivals and sacred things. The Gemara, is basically a commentary on these subjects. When the Talmud was written is not known. Some authorities suggest a date of 150-160, around the same time the Christian Gospels began to emerge, while others say 450.


The Talmud writers mentioned Jesus' name twenty times and quite specifically documented that he was born an illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the "Panther". Panthera's existence was confirmed by the discovery of a mysterious tombstone at Bingerbrück in Germany. The engraving etched in the headstone read:

Tiberius Julius Abdes Panthera, an archer, native of Sidon, Phoenicia, who in 9AD was transferred to service in Rhineland (Germany). 1

This inscription added fuel to the theory that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and the soldier Panthera. Cl***ical scholar Professor Morton Smith of the Columbia University USA, described the tombstone as possibly `our only genuine relic of the holy family.' 2 In many Jewish references, Jesus was often referred to as 'ben Panthera', 'ben' meaning, 'son of'. However cautious one ought to be in accepting anything about Jesus from Jewish sources, in the matter of Jesus 'ben Panthera', the writers seem more consistent than the men we now call the church fathers.


Scholars, for centuries, have discussed at length why Jesus was so regularly called ben Panthera. Adamantius Origen, an early Christian historian and church father (185-251), recorded the following verses about Mary from the research records of a highly regarded Second Century historian and author named Celsus (c. 178):

Mary was turned out by her husband, a carpenter by profession, after she had been convicted of unfaithfulness. Cut off by her spouse, she gave birth to Jesus, a *******; that Jesus, on account of his poverty was hired out to go to Egypt; that while there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing.3

Later, in p***age 1:32, Origen supported the Jewish records and confirmed that the paramour of the mother of Jesus was a Roman soldier called Panthera, a name he repeated in verse 1:69. Sometime during the 17th Century, those sentences were erased from the oldest Vatican m****cripts and other codices under church control. 4


The traditional church writings of St Epiphanius, the Bishop of Salamis (315-403) again confirmed the ben Panthera story and his information was of a startling nature. This champion of Christian orthodoxy and saint of Roman Catholicism frankly stated:

Jesus was the son of a certain Julius whose surname was Panthera. 5

This was an extraordinary declaration simply recorded in ancient records as accepted church history. The ben Panthera legend was so widespread that two early stalwarts of the Christian church inserted the name in the genealogies of Jesus and Mary as a matter of fact.


Enlarging on that statement, this p***age from the Talmud:

Rabbi Shiemon ben Azzai has said: I found' in Jerusalem a book of genealogies; therein was written that Such-an-one (Jesus) is the ******* son of an adulteress. 6

'Such-an-one' was one of the well-known subs***utes for Jesus in the Talmud, as has been proved and admitted on either side. Shiemon ben Azzai flourished at the end of the First and beginning of the Second Century. He was one of four famous Rabbis, who according to Talmudic tradition 'entered Paradise'. He was a Ch***id (the pious Jews of Palestine), most probably an Essene and remained a celibate and rigid ascetic until his death.


The story of Mary's pregnancy by a Roman soldier also appeared in the sacred book of the Moslems, the Koran. It stated that 'a full-grown man' forced his attentions on Mary, and in her fear of the disgrace that would follow she left the area and bore Jesus in secret. This story was supported in the Gospel of Luke, with the description of the departure of Joseph and Mary from their home prior to the birth. Rape was a common event in Palestine during the Roman occupation and soldiers were notorious for their treatment of young women. It would be unthinkable for Mary to admit such an event had occurred for, under the Law of Moses, a betrothed virgin who had sex with any man during the period of her betrothal, was to be stoned to death by the men of the city (Deut. 22:21). Simply put, Mary faced the death penalty unless she could prove her innocence. 7



I agree with Julie--it is an anomaly that the LDS church is known for it's morality and hard working members, their integrity and honesty--and yet--came from some scoundrel that was lower than dirt.


Matthew7:20--"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

[Billyray]

Matthew7:20--"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
I agree.

Lying and having a relationship with a 14 year old girl when you are 38 are not high in my book of endearing qualities.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I wholeheartly agree with you, Billyray. It's just not a dead faith that is considered obedience to Christ.



John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


What works are required according to the above verses?

All the works that are included in the "belief" in Christ.

As you stated:


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead which means that if we do not have works then we do not have true faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyray
Those who do not have lifesaving faith do not have works. Those who do have lifesaving faith do have works.

Quote:
Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.

Quote:
Billyray---Lifesaving faith IS required FOR salvation so I am not sure what you are talking about.

[Billyray]

John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

All the works that are included in the "belief" in Christ.

According to the verses above what works are required according to Christ?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
But Calvin taught infant baptism,


Billy---True

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
And you teach that infants are sinners.


Billyray---True

Quote:

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
So--if an infant dies--what saves them from hell?


Billyray---Who said that infants go to hell?


Could you explain to us how infants are saved if you believe they are sinners, and they die as infants?

Again--what saves them from hell--if indeed your belief is true that infants are sinners--if they die in infancy?

[Libby]

Who said that infants go to hell?

I think we had this discussion before and you said you didn't know where infants go (one way or the other), because the Bible doesn't speak about it.

[Billyray]

Could you explain to us how infants are saved if you believe they are sinners, and they die as infants?


We are all sinners DB. Haven't you figured that out by now?

[Billyray]

I think we had this discussion before and you said you didn't know where infants go (one way or the other), because the Bible doesn't speak about it.
Correct. With the caveat that it appears that David's child who died young went to heaven. 2 Samuel 12:21-23

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
We do obey Christ when we place our faith in him.


Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I wholeheartly agree with you, Billyray. It's just not a dead faith that is considered obedience to Christ.


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


What works are required according to the above verses?


dberrie----All the works that are included in the "belief" in Christ.

As you stated:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyray View Post---Abraham was justified by faith and not by works. James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead which means that if we do not have works then we do not have true faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billyray
Those who do not have lifesaving faith do not have works. Those who do have lifesaving faith do have works.

Quote:
Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.

Quote:
Billyray---Lifesaving faith IS required FOR salvation so I am not sure what you are talking about.



According to the verses above what works are required according to Christ?

Again--all the works that "belief" in Christ incurs.

We might begin by asking--what works are you referring to when you state--


James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead which means that if we do not have works then we do not have true faith.

So--what works are you referring to?

[Billyray]

John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


Again--all the works that "belief" in Christ incurs.



I don't think you understood my question. Care to try again?

According to the verses above what works are required according to Christ?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Could you explain to us how infants are saved if you believe they are sinners, and they die as infants?


We are all sinners DB. Haven't you figured that out by now?

But you have a problem here, Billyray. We can exercise faith in Christ. An infant can't even understand what faith in Christ is.

[Billyray]

But you have a problem here, Billyray. We can exercise faith in Christ. An infant can't even understand what faith in Christ is.
So what is the problem?

[Billyray]

James clearly teaches that faith without works is dead which means that if we do not have works then we do not have true faith.
What works does James speak about exactly?

[Billyray]

But you have a problem here, Billyray. We can exercise faith in Christ. An infant can't even understand what faith in Christ is.
A 7 1/2 year old sins and doesn't require baptism according to Mormonism. Looks like a double standard doesn't it?

[dberrie2000]

I don't think you understood my question.

I understand your question, Billyray. My answer stands as is. Belief in Christ incorporates obedience to Jesus Christ as it's integral components, just as a car has a transmission and engine as it's integral components.

What is your evidence that faith, belief, or trust does not incorporate obedience to Jesus Christ?

What works do you attach to your statement:


Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.

[Billyray]

I understand your question, Billyray. My answer stands as is. Belief in Christ incorporates obedience to Jesus Christ as it's integral components, just as a car has a transmission and engine as it's integral components.

John 6
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Christ was asked a very specific question about what works were required and what did Christ say? To believe in the one he has sent. Period.

[Billyray]

Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.

What works do you attach to your statement:

None. Works do not contribute FOR salvation. The thief was saved and he did not have works.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Could you explain to us how infants are saved if you believe they are sinners, and they die as infants?


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
We are all sinners DB. Haven't you figured that out by now?


dberrie---But you have a problem here, Billyray. We can exercise faith in Christ. An infant can't even understand what faith in Christ is.


A 7 1/2 year old sins and doesn't require baptism according to Mormonism. Looks like a double standard doesn't it?

You have another problem here, Billyray. The LDS do not believe infants are sinners. You do. The LDS believe infants are born saved. 7.5 year olds the same--innocent.

Again--according to YOUR theology that infants are sinners--how are they saved from hell?

[Billyray]

Again--according to YOUR theology that infants are sinners--how are they saved from hell?
The Bible is silent on this fact with the exception of David's child. But Christ can save an infant because of his sacrifice. I am not sure why you see this as a problem.

[Billyray]

The LDS believe infants are born saved. 7.5 year olds the same--innocent.


So you believe a kid who is one day shy of his 8th birthday is innocent and the next day he is guilty?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

What works do you attach to your statement:

[quote]Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.



None. Works do not contribute FOR salvation. The thief was saved and he did not have works.

So--you state that faith without works is dead, and those who have dead faith are not saved.

Then--there is no works you attach to your "faith without works is dead" statement, and that there is no works necessary for salvation.

Billyray--someone is confused.

[Billyray]

Then--there is no works you attach to your "faith without works is dead" statement, and that there is no works necessary for salvation.

A person is saved by faith in Christ not their works. Just like the thief on the cross was saved by his faith because he did not have works.

[Billyray]

Billyray---Faith without works is dead. Thus there is dead faith and living faith. Those who have dead faith are not saved and do not have works. Those who have living faith (lifesaving faith) have true faith and are saved.



Tell me what this means to you "Those who have dead faith are not saved"

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Again--according to YOUR theology that infants are sinners--how are they saved from hell?


The Bible is silent on this fact with the exception of David's child. But Christ can save an infant because of his sacrifice. I am not sure why you see this as a problem.

That Christ saves through His sacrifice is not the problem--the LDS believe that--and, in fact, is the very reason that the LDS believe that infants are born saved.

The problem is that you believe that infants are sinners.

How does the Atonement bring infants to eternal life in your theology?

Which infants? How?

[Billyray]

That Christ saves through His sacrifice is not the problem--the LDS believe that--and, in fact, is the very reason that the LDS believe that infants are born saved.


Is a seven year old who steals a candy bar committing a sin?

[Billyray]

The problem is that you believe that infants are sinners.

Just like every single person is a sinner. As I said the Bible doesn't speak about infants so anything I say is speculation. But just like Christ saves LDS children who are sinner without baptism he could do the same under Christian theology. So I am not sure what you take issue with.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The LDS believe infants are born saved. 7.5 year olds the same--innocent.


So you believe a kid who is one day shy of his 8th birthday is innocent and the next day he is guilty?

Accountable. And the accountability of youth is not the same as adults, considering the youth and the adult is of sound mind.

Not all youth are capable of understanding right from wrong--and that is taken into account also.

[Billyray]

Accountable. And the accountability of youth is not the same as adults, considering the youth and the adult is of sound mind.

Not all youth are capable of understanding right from wrong--and that is taken into account also.
They may not understand right from wrong but they still sin. And yet they sin and are saved without baptism.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The problem is that you believe that infants are sinners.


Just like every single person is a sinner. As I said the Bible doesn't speak about infants so anything I say is speculation.

I believe that it is possible that the Bible does speak of children:

Galatians4:1-2--"Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father."


But just like Christ saves LDS children who are sinner without baptism

The LDS do not believe infants are sinners.

If you believe they are--could you share how you believe infants sin?

[Billyray]

I believe that it is possible that the Bible does speak of children:


2 Samuel 12
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.

21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”

22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”


As I said there is an indication from this p***age that the infant who dies will go to heaven. (BTW I know the LDS position on David but that is a topic for another thread)

[Billyray]

The LDS do not believe infants are sinners.

What do you call a 7 year old who sins?

[dberrie2000]

They may not understand right from wrong but they still sin. And yet they sin and are saved without baptism.

Because they are not accountable. They are saved through the Atonement of Christ.

One cannot be a sinner unless they are accountable for sin.

Billy--you believe infants are sinners.

[Billyray]

The LDS do not believe infants are sinners.


So infants do not need the atonement of Christ is they are sinless?

[Billyray]

Because they are not accountable. They are saved through the Atonement of Christ.

One cannot be a sinner unless they are accountable for sin.



A person who breaks a commandment is called what?

[dberrie2000]

What do you call a 7 year old who sins?

Depends on what his name is.

[Billyray]

One cannot be a sinner unless they are accountable for sin.


If a young child goes into a store and steals a candy bar that child broke a law but is not accountable for his crime.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Because they are not accountable. They are saved through the Atonement of Christ.

One cannot be a sinner unless they are accountable for sin.


A person who breaks a commandment is called what?

For one, Billyray--infants do not break commandments. They do not even know how, or what a commandment is.

Those who have reached accountability--sin.

[Billyray]

For one, Billyray--infants do not break commandments. They do not even know how, or what a commandment is.

Those who have reached accountability--sin.

Can a person including a child break a commandment and not know that they are breaking a commandment?

Is it a sin to break a commandment if you do not know that it is a commandment?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
One cannot be a sinner unless they are accountable for sin.


If a young child goes into a store and steals a candy bar that child broke a law but is not accountable for his crime.

But yet--you have infants, who have never stole anything---as sinners.

[Libby]

I think, per LDS theology, one can "transgress" without actually sinning. If children are not held accountable, then it would seem that Christ's atonement is covering their "transgressions".

[Billyray]

But yet--you have infants, who have never stole anything---as sinners.

Romans tells us all have sinned.

[Billyray]

I think, per LDS theology, one can "transgress" without actually sinning.

If a child steals a candy bar is that breaking the law?

[Libby]

If a child steals a candy bar is that breaking the law?

Of course.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
For one, Billyray--infants do not break commandments. They do not even know how, or what a commandment is.

Those who have reached accountability--sin.


Can a person including a child break a commandment and not know that they are breaking a commandment?

Again, Billyray--children, as infants, cannot break a commandment. They do not even know what a commandment is.


Is it a sin to break a commandment if you do not know that it is a commandment?

No, not in the case of infants. They have no concept of that idea whatsoever.

Again--can you give us an example of how an infant can sin--seeing that you believe they are sinners?

[Billyray]

Of course.

The same applies to a person who breaks a commandment. That is a sin. Accountability is a different issue.

[dberrie2000]

Romans tells us all have sinned.

Then you would not mind sharing with us just how an infant can sin? What would be an example of their sins?

[Billyray]

Again, Billyray--children, as infants, cannot break a commandment. They do not even know what a commandment is.

Can you break a commandment and not know that you are breaking a commandment?

The issue is that you are mixing up breaking a commandment and accountability. A child can break a commandment and thus commit a sin and yet may not be accountable because he did not know right from wrong.

[Libby]

The same applies to a person who breaks a commandment. That is a sin. Accountability is a different issue.

Sure, I understand that. Do you believe everyone, regardless of their mental abilities, are accountable for sin?

[dberrie2000]

The same applies to a person who breaks a commandment. That is a sin. Accountability is a different issue.

Billyray--you have stated that infants are sinners. That is an accountability issue.

[dberrie2000]

Can you break a commandment and not know that you are breaking a commandment?

The issue is that you are mixing up breaking a commandment and accountability. A child can break a commandment and thus commit a sin and yet may not be accountable because he did not know right from wrong.

Please share with us what commandment you believe that infants break.

[Libby]

Billyray--you have stated that infants are sinners. That is an accountability issue.

Yeah, I was going to mention that, as well. I understand being born with a "sin nature" (the potential to sin), but babies don't sin. I have seen some Christians claim that a baby crying, when it is hungry, is "sin", because it acts "selfishly"...which is perfectly ridiculous, IMO.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post

The LDS do not believe infants are sinners.



So infants do not need the atonement of Christ is they are sinless?

The LDS believe that infants are without condemnation because of the Atonement.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Billyray--you have stated that infants are sinners. That is an accountability issue.


Yeah, I was going to mention that, as well. I understand being born with a "sin nature" (the potential to sin), but babies don't sin. I have seen some Christians claim that a baby crying, when it is hungry, is "sin", because it acts "selfishly"...which is perfectly ridiculous, IMO.

Libby--it's funny that you said that. I had a person relate that exact same thing to me--he described the baby kicking and crying, and attaching that action to sin.

Speak of the belief in absurdities...

[Billyray]

Sure, I understand that. Do you believe everyone, regardless of their mental abilities, are accountable for sin?

My personal opinion is no.

[Billyray]

Billyray--you have stated that infants are sinners. That is an accountability issue.
No it isn't. You can break a law and be a lawbreaker and yet not be held accountable.

[Billyray]

Please share with us what commandment you believe that infants break.

I don't know. But I do know that we are all sinners per Romans 3.

[Billyray]

The LDS believe that infants are without condemnation because of the Atonement.

Since you believe that infants are perfect then why would they need Christ to die for their sins since they don't have any sins?

[Billyray]

Speak of the belief in absurdities...

Romans 3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Can you tell me what this verse says?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The LDS believe that infants are without condemnation because of the Atonement.


Since you believe that infants are perfect then why would they need Christ to die for their sins since they don't have any sins?

Where do you find in my posts where I stated that Christ died for the sins of infants?

Nowhere.

I stated that the infants are without condemnation. The LDS do not believe that infants sin.

And to be sure--you have yet to come up with the first scenario where an infant could possibly sin.

As to the Atonement--all babies are born saved due to the Atonement of Christ. There is a difference between being born saved and Atoning for their sins for their innocence. Little babies have no sin because they do not sin.

The infants are born saved due to the fact that Christ took away the condemnation of all mankind due to the Fall, not because He Atoned for their sins.

[Billyray]

Where do you find in my posts where I stated that Christ died for the sins of infants?

Nowhere.

The infants are born saved due to the fact that Christ took away the condemnation of all mankind due to the Fall, not because He Atoned for their sins.

What condemnation do infants have if they are perfect?

[Libby]

I don't know. But I do know that we are all sinners per Romans 3.

I don't believe that babies commit sin, but I do believe it's possible that they come into this world with "karma" from past lives. In that sense, I believe Romans.

[neverending]

I was wondering--what do these words mean to you?:

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"



First off, this verse is referring to Jesus Christ and HE is the author of salvation, for there is no other way under heaven, where by man CAN be saved. What it means is that we must believe in Jesus and we obey Him because we believe that He was sent by God the Father.



John 6:29 says:"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom He has sent."




God works to create faith in His children, that is in Jesus Christ, because He has decreed salvation is by grace through faith. Faith is absolutely essential, and so He works to create it in us, trusting His Son. We have to live by faith, not merely profess Jesus Christ. It is necessary that faith be built in us, because our choices are to be made on the basis of faith.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Where do you find in my posts where I stated that Christ died for the sins of infants?

Nowhere.

The infants are born saved due to the fact that Christ took away the condemnation of all mankind due to the Fall, not because He Atoned for their sins.


What condemnation do infants have if they are perfect?

None. The Atonement took care of the condemnation of ALL men due to the Fall. Infants included. It's called the Redemption.

Billyray--you do realize the Atonement happened over 2,000 years ago--right?

[Billyray]

None. The Atonement took care of the condemnation of ALL men due to the Fall. Infants included.
If infants are condemned then they are not perfect. If they were perfect then they wouldn't need a savior.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
I was wondering--what do these words mean to you?:

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


First off, this verse is referring to Jesus Christ and HE is the author of salvation, for there is no other way under heaven, where by man CAN be saved.

The question is not who is the author of salvation--but why does this salvation go to those on condition of who obeys Him?


What it means is that we must believe in Jesus and we obey Him because we believe that He was sent by God the Father.

All that is true--but it still does not preclude the fact that the scripture specifically indicates it is those who obey God that receive of His grace.





John 6:29 says:"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom He has sent."


Which does little more than connect obedience with belief. What is your evidence that obedience to Jesus Christ is not an integral component of belief in Christ?


[LEFT]God works to create faith in His children, that is in Jesus Christ, because He has decreed [COLOR=red]salvation is by grace through faith.

Which in no way excludes the fact that faith without works is dead, or that this grace that saves does not go to the obedient in Christ.


Faith is absolutely essential, and so He works to create it in us, trusting His Son. We have to live by faith, not merely profess Jesus Christ.

Then what other things do you thing necessary for salvation that is inclusive in faith, other than confessing His name?



It is necessary that faith be built in us, because our choices are to be made on the basis of faith.

And what are those things that comprise faith, that has to be "built" in us?

[Billyray]

The question is not who is the author of salvation--but why does this salvation go to those on condition of who obeys Him?
Lets ***ume that you are right for the sake of discussion. Do you obey him?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
The question is not who is the author of salvation--but why does this salvation go to those on condition of who obeys Him?


Lets ***ume that you are right for the sake of discussion. Do you obey him?

The question of my obedience can not be the basis of whether the scriptures are true or not.

The question is--are the scriptures true:

Hebrews5:9--"And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"


Let's leave the judgment of personal obedience in the hands of Him it rightfully belongs to--Jesus Christ.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Where do you find in my posts where I stated that Christ died for the sins of infants?

Nowhere.

The infants are born saved due to the fact that Christ took away the condemnation of all mankind due to the Fall, not because He Atoned for their sins.


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
What condemnation do infants have if they are perfect?


dberrie---None. The Atonement took care of the condemnation of ALL men due to the Fall. Infants included. It's called the Redemption.

Billyray--you do realize the Atonement happened over 2,000 years ago--right?


If infants are condemned then they are not perfect.

What part of the above post do you not understand?


If they were perfect then they wouldn't need a savior.

They are perfect because they have a Savior.

And that Savior did His work over 2,000 years ago.

What would prevent infants from being perfect now?

[Billyray]

What part of the above post do you not understand?


dberrie--The Atonement took care of the condemnation of ALL men due to the Fall. Infants included.



The part about infants being condemned. How are infants condemned?

[Billyray]

The question of my obedience can not be the basis of whether the scriptures are true or not.


I take that as no you don't obey him. Who obeys Christ? Can you name a single person?

[neverending]

db: There is nothing else necessary but professing Christ, having a belief in him, just as I quoted John 6:29. Christ never said anything about doing works, only believing. Once one has that belief in Christ and has been saved by His grace, their life should prove their faith in Him. It is that faith that then grows within each Christian and that builds in the believer a desire to do good. How else can we show our faith and love of Christ if we just sit on our back sides and do nothing, but doing good is NOT what saved us, it was our belief!

[Libby]

I take that as no you don't obey him. Who obeys Christ? Can you name a single person?

Anyone who is a serious disciple of Christ will be obedient, as much as possible. If you are asking if any of us can do that "perfectly", then the answer is no. Obedience is possible. We all do that to some extent. Perfect obedience is not possible...thus, Christ's atoning sacrifice.

[Billyray]

Perfect obedience is not possible...thus, Christ's atoning sacrifice.
So not a single person obeys the commandments.

[Libby]

So not a single person obeys the commandments.

I wouldn't put it that way. We all obey some of the commandments, but not all.

[Billyray]

I wouldn't put it that way. We all obey some of the commandments, but not all.
Either you obey the commandments or you don't.

[Libby]

Either you obey the commandments or you don't.

Sorry, but it's not that black and white.

[Billyray]

Sorry, but it's not that black and white.

Sure it is.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Where do you find in my posts where I stated that Christ died for the sins of infants?

Nowhere.

The infants are born saved due to the fact that Christ took away the condemnation of all mankind due to the Fall, not because He Atoned for their sins.


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post--What condemnation do infants have if they are perfect?


dberrie---None. The Atonement took care of the condemnation of ALL men due to the Fall. Infants included. It's called the Redemption.

Billyray--you do realize the Atonement happened over 2,000 years ago--right?


Originally Posted by Billyray View Post--If infants are condemned then they are not perfect.


dberrie---What part of the above post do you not understand?


The part about infants being condemned. How are infants condemned?

Again--what part of my posts do we not understand? Infants are not condemned--the Atonement took care of all condemnation due to the Fall over 2,000 years ago. All of mankind are born saved from that time forward. Without condemnation. But infants never sinned, no matter what time period we are talking about.

Prior to the Atonement--all of mankind were condemned to death and hell due to the Fall. It came upon all of mortal men from birth, from Adam till Christ's Atonement, hence--Jesus Christ became the Savior of all men from the condemnation due to the Fall:

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

An event referred to as the Redemption. Thus, Christ as the Redeemer of man. Savior. He saved all men from the condemnation of the Fall. But He did not save infants from their sins--they have none, and never did.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Billyray View Post
Either you obey the commandments or you don't.


Libby---Sorry, but it's not that black and white.


Sure it is.

If it is that simple Billyray--then repentance and baptism for the remission of sins would be a false doctrine--which the faith alone believe is, but the Biblical record teaches as the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

[dberrie2000]

db: There is nothing else necessary but professing Christ, having a belief in him, just as I quoted John 6:29. Christ never said anything about doing works, only believing.

Which then brings up the question of your previous post:


Neverending---We have to live by faith, not merely profess Jesus Christ.

Again--what components are you adding to faith other than professing Christ, as you statement here indicates you believe there is something more than professing Christ that is necessary?

Necessary for what?



Once one has that belief in Christ and has been saved by His grace, their life should prove their faith in Him. It is that faith that then grows within each Christian and that builds in the believer a desire to do good. How else can we show our faith and love of Christ if we just sit on our back sides and do nothing,

St John14:21-24--"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

24He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."



but doing good is NOT what saved us, it was our belief!

Exactly--obedience to Jesus Christ has nothing to do with salvation in the faith alone theology. All the talk about obedience by the faith alone is independent of Christ's eternal life. It's not necessary.

How does that compare to the teachings of the Savior:

St John5:28-29--"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of ****ation."

I would agree it is not our good works that brings our salvation, but His grace--but the scriptures teach it is those who obey Christ, and follow Him that receive of this grace.

[Billyray]

Again--what part of my posts do we not understand?

The whole thing which is confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense.



Infants are not condemned--

If they are perfect and not condemned then they don't need the atonement of Christ. Right?

[Billyray]

If it is that simple Billyray--then repentance and baptism for the remission of sins would be a false doctrine--which the faith alone believe is, but the Biblical record teaches as the doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Either you obey the commandments or you don't. If you only obey some of them then you can't say that you obey the commandments. BTW do you obey the commandments or are you a commandment breaker?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Infants are not condemned--


Billyray---If they are perfect and not condemned then they don't need the atonement of Christ. Right?

I'm really amazed at your comments. If it were not for the Atonement--then all would be condemned. Have you not read the scriptures:

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
If it is that simple Billyray--then repentance and baptism for the remission of sins would be a false doctrine--which the faith alone believe is, but the Biblical record teaches as the doctrine of Jesus Christ.


Either you obey the commandments or you don't. If you only obey some of them then you can't say that you obey the commandments. BTW do you obey the commandments or are you a commandment breaker?

Could you explain for us what I do or don't do has to do with the fact that the scriptures command repentance and water baptism for the remission of sins?

Acts2;38--"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

You seem to attempt to disqualify the scriptures based on whether I keep the commandments or not. Could you explain that connection for us?

[Billyray]

I'm really amazed at your comments. If it were not for the Atonement--then all would be condemned.
If Christ did not atone for our sins then a baby would be condemned. Why would that baby be condemned? What is the reason exactly?

[Billyray]

Have you not read the scriptures:

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
I have already told you that your interpretation of this verse is wrong. Justification is by faith and ALL who are justified are IN Christ. There are two different types of justification.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
Infants are not condemned--


Billyray---If they are perfect and not condemned then they don't need the atonement of Christ. Right?


dberrie---I'm really amazed at your comments. If it were not for the Atonement--then all would be condemned. Have you not read the scriptures:

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."


If Christ did not atone for our sins then a baby would be condemned. Why would that baby be condemned? What is the reason exactly?

I'm wondering what it is about our conversation you are missing?

In the Fall of mankind--death and hell were brought to all mankind as a condemnation. They suffered physical death and spiritual death--no matter what their faith in God was.

Jesus Christ abridged that gap from God when Adam and Eve were expelled from His presence, -the blood Atonement for the sins of the world(Adam's included), and His resurrection for physical death.

That opened the doors to eternal life for all mankind, as an opportunity, and conquered physical death through His resurrection.

That is what is commonly referred to as the Redemption of mankind. That is the reason that Jesus Christ is commonly referred to as the Redeemer, and the Savior of mankind.

That act insured all that the condemnation incurred through the Fall would have no effect on them, as far as the opportunity to inherit eternal life is concerned.

Now, all mankind are born saved, without any condemnation placed upon them due to the Fall.

Billray--your theology that all infants are sinners is a false and pernicious doctrine.

All infants are born saved--due to the work of the Savior. They are not sinners, as you maintain, and no one who understands the gospel of Jesus Christ would ever attach that label to an infant.

[Billyray]

I'm wondering what it is about our conversation you are missing?


Your explanation doesn't make a lick of sense. On the one hand you say that babies are perfect. On the other hand you say that babies are condemned unless Christ atoned for them.

[Billyray]

All infants are born saved--due to the work of the Savior.

Without the sacrifice of Jesus could a baby go to heaven? Or would that baby be condemned? If so why?

[BigJulie]

Without the sacrifice of Jesus could a baby go to heaven? Or would that baby be condemned? If so why?

Without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all life on this earth would be in a condemned state for the fall of Adam. Christ atoned for the sin of Adam and so all life on earth starts with a clean slate. As a result--all men are resurrected. But judgement will only be for sins personally committed. As a new born is incapable of faith and works, a new born is also incapable of sinning and therefore, return to God in a clean state precisely because Christ paid for the sin of Adam.

[Billyray]

Without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, all life on this earth would be in a condemned state for the fall of Adam.

Why would a perfect baby be condemned?

[BigJulie]

Why would a perfect baby be condemned?

If it wasn't for Jesus Christ, all life would be condemned. It is a result of being born in this world because of the fall of Adam. But, because of Christ, the demands of justice has been met and we are not longer condemned as a result of Adam. Therefore, we are born free from this bondage and all will be resurrected and meet God again. Judgement will then only come to those who have sinned--which a baby cannot.

1Cr 15:21 For since by man [came] death (by Adam), by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead (by Christ).

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the "free gift" referred to in the scriptures.

[Billyray]

If it wasn't for Jesus Christ, all life would be condemned.

Including a perfect baby. So their must be something wrong with that baby that requires the atonement of Christ.

[BigJulie]

Including a perfect baby. So their must be something wrong with that baby that requires the atonement of Christ.

No--nothing wrong with the baby---it was just born into this world which is a fallen state--away from God. So, since the baby fell from God, Christ atoned so the baby could rise again to God.

Think of it like a drop of water that came from the mountains. There is nothing wrong with the water droplet as it makes its way to the sea---but it needs heat for evaporation to make it into a cloud and wind to carry it back to the mountain. The water is fine, but cannot move back uphill on its own power.

Likewise the baby is fine, but needs power outside of itself to get back where it came from.

[Billyray]

So, since the baby fell from God, Christ atoned so the baby could rise again to God.

You are not following me. If there was no atonement could a perfect baby go to heaven? If not why not?

[BigJulie]

You are not following me. If there was no atonement could a perfect baby go to heaven? If not why not?

Nothing could make it back to heaven without Christ.

Think of it like a drop of water that came from the mountains. There is nothing wrong with the water droplet as it makes its way to the sea---but it needs heat for evaporation to make it into a cloud and wind to carry it back to the mountain. The water is fine, but cannot move back uphill on its own power.

Likewise the baby is fine, but needs power outside of itself to get back where it came from.

Because of Adam, all men fell. Because of Christ, all men will rise again or be resurrected and return to God who created them.

[Billyray]

Nothing could make it back to heaven without Christ.


So there is something wrong with the baby that keeps him out of heaven.

[BigJulie]

So there is something wrong with the baby that keeps him out of heaven.

Billyray--are you the same person who just, not that long again back, was not sure if a baby would go to heaven or hell in the first place?

Look at my water ****ogy again and ask yourself if there is something wrong with the droplet of water that would prevent it from returning to the moutain. When you can answer that question and tell me if you believe that the water cannot return to the mountain because it has some type of flaw, we will talk.

[Billyray]

Billyray--are you the same person who just, not that long again back, was not sure if a baby would go to heaven or hell in the first place?


BigJ your theology and my theology are completely different, often times polar opposites. I am trying to get at YOUR theology with the baby issue. On the one hand you say that the baby is perfect in every way. Yet on the other hand that perfect baby is prevented to return to God despite his perfection UNLESS condemnation is removed from that baby. This doesn't make sense.

[BigJulie]

BigJ your theology and my theology are completely different, often times polar opposites. I am trying to get at YOUR theology with the baby issue. On the one hand you say that the baby is perfect in every way. Yet on the other hand that perfect baby is prevented to return to God despite his perfection UNLESS condemnation is removed from that baby. This doesn't make sense.

The baby, along with all of mankind, was condemned to death. To overcome death--all mankind needed the atonement of Jesus Christ. This is why a Savior was provided from the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

You have ignored the question? Is water flawed because it is not capable of returning to the mountain on its own? Is the water condemned to stay always in the sea because it cannot travel back to the mountain on its own?

[Billyray]

The baby, along with all of mankind, was condemned to death.

Why is a perfect baby prevented to return to God without the atonement? Why?

[BigJulie]

Why is a perfect baby prevented to return to God without the atonement? Why?

This is a fundamental principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you do not understand the necessity of a Savior in the life of all mankind in providing a way for all mankind (even the perfect) to overcome death--even with my many attempts to help you--well then, you are just going to have to take that one up with God.

It appears that you think we die because of sin alone. It also appears that you believe that we can overcome death on our own. Strange concepts--neither one scriptural.

[Billyray]

This is a fundamental principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you do not understand the necessity of a Savior in the life of all mankind in providing a way for all manking (even the perfect) to overcome death--even with my many attempts to help you--well then, you are just going to have to take that one up with God.

The problem is that you are wrong. That is why you are having such a hard time answering me. If the baby is absolutely perfect without flaw then there is not a need for an atonement for that baby. However we are told in Romans that we all sin, but you reject this concept.

[BigJulie]

The problem is that you are wrong. That is why you are having such a hard time answering me. If the baby is absolutely perfect without flaw then there is not a need for an atonement for that baby. However we are told that we all sin in Romans, but you reject this concept.

No, I am not wrong. Please name the sin of the new born baby. Paul was either referring to those who are converts (which looking at the verse beforehand, he was speaking to the faithful---thus, old enough to have sinnned or he is referring to the fall and thus we are all in a fallen state, but he is not saying that a new born baby has sinned.

Please, name the sin of the newborn child? Name any one sin you think they have committed?

P.S. I am not having a hard time answering you, but you clearly are having a hard time understanding the concept of both Christ overcoming the fall for all mankind OR why an atonement was needed for all mankind, even sinless babies.

[Billyray]

No, I am not wrong. .

Sure you are you just don't know it.

[Billyray]

Please, name the sin of the newborn child?

I have no idea what sin they have committed but I know that the Bible says that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and that we all need the atonement in order to be saved.

[BigJulie]

I have no idea what sin they have committed but I know that the Bible says that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and that we all need the atonement in order to be saved.

I know, and God saves the faithful---but how is it a newborn has faith?

Is this why you have stated in the past, you are not sure what happens to the newborn and whether they go to heaven or hell?

[Billyray]

I know, and God saves the faithful---but how is it a newborn has faith?

God can save an infant without faith if he so chooses because that infant isn't old enough to make a decision for Christ. But Christians don't make this claim because it is not spoken about in the Bible.

[BigJulie]

God can save an infant without faith if he so chooses because that infant isn't old enough to make a decision for Christ. But Christians don't make this claim because it is not spoken about in the Bible.

Precisely why God provides prophets---so that this rediculous notion of a newborn sinning and whether or not they go to heaven or hell can be put to rest.

You know, it is amazing, because it is there in the Bible for you to understand--but just as you resist the question regarding the water droplet, you resist the truth.

P.S. At this point, I expect you will change the subject. :)

[Billyray]

You know, it is amazing, because it is there in the Bible for you to understand--


The verses about David's son touch on this but other than that please tell me where this is found in the Bible?

[Billyray]

Precisely why God provides prophets---
You have a prophet today? What prophesies has he given you?

[BigJulie]

The verses about David's son touch on this but other than that please tell me where this is found in the Bible?

We already have.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[Billyray]

We already have.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
ESV Study Bible
1 Cor. 15:22 in Adam all die. See Rom. 5:12, 14–15, 17; Eph. 2:1, 5. in Christ shall all be made alive. See Rom. 5:17, 21; 6:4; Eph. 2:5–6. By divine appointment, Adam represented the whole human race that would follow him, and his sin therefore affected all human beings. Similarly, Christ represented all who would belong to him, and his obedience therefore affected all believers (see note on 1 Cor. 15:23).

[BigJulie]

You have a prophet today? What prophesies has he given you?

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Prophets don't just give prophecies, they also help us (as Holy Men) understand the scriptures so that we don't walk away misinterpreting them thinking that babies have sinned and may or may not go to hell.

[Billyray]

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

So no prophesy is that what you are saying? Then why call him a prophet?

[BigJulie]

ESV Study Bible
1 Cor. 15:22 in Adam all die. See Rom. 5:12, 14–15, 17; Eph. 2:1, 5. in Christ shall all be made alive. See Rom. 5:17, 21; 6:4; Eph. 2:5–6. By divine appointment, Adam represented the whole human race that would follow him, and his sin therefore affected all human beings. Similarly, Christ represented all who would belong to him, and his obedience therefore affected all believers (see note on 1 Cor. 15:23).

Yes, Billyray, you have made it clear that your understanding of both your own Bible and your beliefs regarding our beliefs come from commentaries rather than the scriptures themselves. You have also made it abundantly clear that you don't seek the Holy Ghost to understand scriptures which is why you believe newborns sin and may go to hell.

[Billyray]

. . .why you believe newborns sin and may go to hell.
Just so you know that my personal BELIEF is that they don't go to hell. But I don't make claims that I can't back up with scripture.

BTW what do you think that it means to be IN Christ? Do you think that those who don't follow Christ are IN Christ?

[BigJulie]

Just so you know that my personal BELIEF is that they don't go to hell. But I don't make claims that I can't back up with scripture.

BTW what do you think that it means to be IN Christ? Do you think that those who don't follow Christ are IN Christ?

As I noted above--time for you to change the subject (as you have done). And as I said, God is not silent on newborns.

[Billyray]

As I noted above--time for you to change the subject (as you have done). And as I said, God is not silent on newborns.

What verse do you base that on?

[BigJulie]

What verse do you base that on?

This is the problem with only relying on commentaries to understand the Bible. When you do not rely on the Holy Ghost, then you become lost and even the scriptures that explain it, you do not see. You also resist answering questions regarding such things as the water droplet as it may lead you on a path to softening your heart and understanding. I can't help you see what you choose not to see Billyray.

[Billyray]

I can't help you see what you choose not to see Billyray.
Read the verses starting at verse 1 until you come to your proof text and then tell me what this section of scripture is all about. Also identify for me which verse is speaking specifically about infants.

[Billyray]

When you do not rely on the Holy Ghost,

Every time you use that phrase I can expect a perversion of what the verses actually say.

[BigJulie]

Read the verses starting at verse 1 until you come to your proof text and then tell me what this section of scripture is all about. Also identify for me which verse is speaking specifically about infants.

I'll tell you what. Instead of me or Dberrie or any of the others continuing to answer your "unlearned' questions, why not go back and soften your heart and say---hey, this doesn't make sense--why would God call a baby a sinner and say only the faithful (which a baby cannot be) be saved and yet, since you can clearly see that an infant is wonderful and special and hmmm, what did Christ say "suffer the children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Why not pray and ask God in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost to help you. But let me tell you this Billyray, as long as you remain prideful, you will NOT receive an answer.

[Billyray]

why would God call a baby a sinner and say only the faithful (which a baby cannot be) be saved
Can you quote my post where you think that I made the claim that a baby CAN'T possibly be saved?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post
All infants are born saved--due to the work of the Savior.


Without the sacrifice of Jesus could a baby go to heaven? Or would that baby be condemned? If so why?

No person, regardless of age--could enter into heaven without the work of the Savior.

The reason being--there was no resurrection until the Savior conquered death, and the doors of eternal life was shut to mankind due to sin.

All were condemned due to the Fall. Which is exactly what the scriptures state:

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

[Billyray]

Why not pray and ask God in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Ghost to help you.

I have and he has directed me out of the false doctrines of Mormonism.

[Billyray]

All were condemned due to the Fall.

Including infants. So why is a baby condemned?

[dberrie2000]

Can you quote my post where you think that I made the claim that a baby CAN'T possibly be saved?

You stated that infants are sinners. Which means there has to be a way to deliver that infant as a sinner.

If indeed you believe that infants are sinners--what delivers them as sinners?

For those who have reached the age of reason--they can have faith in Christ. An infant cannot. They do not understand any such principle.

So--if they die--what delivers them as sinners?

[Billyray]

Romans5:18--"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

That is correct. We are all condemned. And those who place their faith in Christ will be justified and saved. For children who are unable to make a decision because of their immaturity I trust Christ that he will save them--but I don't have a verse to prove that.

[dberrie2000]

Including infants. So why is a baby condemned?

Billyray--you have started your circling patterns.

I'll tell you what--please give any quote of mine that states that infants are condemned since the Atonement--and we will go from there.

[Billyray]

Billyray--you have started your circling patterns.
Because your position doesn't make sense.

What prevents a baby from returning to God without the atonement if there is nothing wrong with that individual baby?