Alright, its worth another try. Polycarp (69-155), a disciple of the Apostle John, was baptized as an infant. Polycarp also was instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also with apostles in Asia, he was later appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna. In his martyrdom he said Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 9: 3)
which was his exact age. Its always been understood that baptism was what began a persons relationship with God. Or how about Justin Martyr (100 - 166) of the next generation states about the year 150, "Many, both men and women, who have been Christs disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years" (Apology 1: 15). Or
Irenaeus (130 - 200), some 35 years later in 185, writes in Against Heresies II 22: 4 that Jesus "came to save all through means of Himself - all, I say, who through him are born again to God - infants and children, boys and youth, and old men."
Remember, these men knew each other, wrote letters to each other, and had a clear connection with the Apostles. What else would you ask for?
Nor do I
but there is something that just doesnt jive. For example you guys believe that the fall was necessary and that one must do a wrong to fully understand. But then you guys also call it a transgression so its almost like you guys are calling it a good thing on one end and a bad thing (transgression) on another. If you guys agree that the fall did something to the human race Im assuming you think its a something inherited spiritually right? If so, then how are infants excluded from this? Surely they have a soul? Perhaps you can expand on this.
I never made a connection between original sin and circumcision. The connection was between circumcision and baptism. And why in the world do you think infant baptism has anything to do with individual sin? Original Sin has nothing to do with individual sin. Thats precisely what I clarified and you seem to want to go back to it.
Because its not about paying for sins (the Jews already had something that could do that) but about fixing the human nature. Do you not believe it needs fixing? If so, how is that any different? Please dont tell me anything about the age of reason. We can deal with that above. Aside from that what is the difference?
I believe you; I just dont believe that was the case for you early ancestors. I really dont.
Cmon Kat, you know full well such a belief is exclusive to LDS. This really just makes it sound like God baptizes for the Hell of it, with no real meaning. I mean, why baptize someone who is already made it? Clearly paradise isnt talking of a place where people have a second chance; it presupposes that there is a place that is not paradise. So not everybody goes to paradise; otherwise he could have told all them (those on the cross) he would see them in paradise. But he didnt, did he? He only told the thief.
What? You can get into Heaven without baptism? What in the world is the point of it then; if I can enter into a relationship with God without it?
