Baptism... And the True Church

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

It seems that you’re totally, completely, utterly relying on your own understanding.

I have addressed that accusation before… it is the understanding that has been revealed to me through the Holy Spirit… and it is completely substantiated by scripture, as I have proven.

On the other hand, the truth that you have learned from men (the Catholic Institution) cannot be substantiated when we finally reach the end of your arguments…

If original sin was a valid doctrine, Jesus would have contracted it from Mary… and would have been guilty. But, He wasn’t guilty, He was the perfect Lamb of God… spotless and without blemish.

Your doctrine of original sin, and the guilt that is imposed by Adam’s sin doesn’t coincide with the birth of Jesus, and the Word of God becoming flesh.

“Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Death passed to all men, so that all have sinned. Sin and death are not the same thing. In normal men, the state of being dead causes that man to sin (because he is separated from God)…

But in the case of Jesus… He is God. He wasn’t born dead because He is life (John 14:6).

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[jemfinch]

Sorry, If it makes it easier to read I will stop doing that.

Thanks. Primarily, it’s an issue with quoting: things you use quote ] tags for do not show up when I quote your message, and usually the Bible verse you mention is worth quoting again.

I think we can both agree that a person is not guilty of “actual sin” when they are born.

Yes, of course we can agree on that.

And since you are under the impression that the “sin nature” is equal with the guilt of sin, maybe we should be discussing the “sin nature” and what it’s implications are.

Original sin is the Christian explanation of why we’re born with a “sin nature.” I don’t think we have much to discuss as to what a sin nature is: what I want to know is if you don’t accept original sin, why do we have a sin nature?

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I have addressed that accusation before… it is the understanding that has been revealed to me through the Holy Spirit…

So, fundamentally, you cannot be shown to be wrong and you cannot accept any counter-arguments, because you think that the doctrine you’ve reached was handed to you from the Holy Spirit. Why should we bother to argue with you, then?

and it is completely substantiated by scripture, as I have proven.

You’ve proven that the Bible can be taken out of context and misinterpreted to support false doctrine, but that’s not news. Every heretic in history has supported his heresy with Scripture. Paul even warned us, “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

With a warning like that, and with the only proof you have for your interpretation of Scripture being, “it has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit,” can you blame us for refusing to accept your authority?

On the other hand, the truth that you have learned from men

Just because you won’t admit that your doctrine has men for its origin doesn’t mean it’s not so.

cannot be substantiated when we finally reach the end of your arguments…

It’s been plenty substantiated, and you’ve not even approach the end of our arguments. You’ve barely scratched the surface of the arguments we’ve presented here, and I know you’ve ignored quite a few (probably a majority) of the ones I’ve presented. You have no foundation from which to say that Catholic doctrine has not been substantiated when you’ve been unwilling or unable to respond to the arguments presented in this thread.

If original sin was a valid doctrine, Jesus would have contracted it from Mary… and would have been guilty.

If “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” were a valid doctrine, Jesus would have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Of course, you don’t believe that, but by disbelieving that, you prove false your claim that Jesus’ preservation from Original Sin disproves the whole doctrine.

Your doctrine of original sin, and the guilt that is imposed by Adam’s sin doesn’t coincide with the birth of Jesus, and the Word of God becoming flesh.

Your doctrine of death being contracted by all men without a sin for which it is the wages doesn’t coincide with the clear teaching of Scripture that death is the wages of sin.

Death passed to all men, so that all have sinned. Sin and death are not the same thing. In normal men, the state of being dead causes that man to sin (because he is separated from God)…

You still haven’t given an alternative explanation. If you’re going to claim that Original Sin is a false doctrine, you need to provide a true doctrine that explains the same phenomenon that Original Sin explains: the fact that we are all born spiritually dead.

It’s not enough just to say we’re wrong. You need to tell us what “truth” you have to replace our “false doctrine.” Tell us why man is born spiritually dead, John.

Jeremy

 

[bibleapologist]

Jemfinch,

Sorry It has taken me a couple of days to reply…

and with the only proof you have for your interpretation of Scripture being, “it has been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit,” can you blame us for refusing to accept your authority?

I wouldn’t blame you for accepting what I had to say… if that were the case, but I have shown you proof for these truths according to the KJV (which Eden boasts is from the Catholics).

It’s been plenty substantiated, and you’ve not even approach the end of our arguments. You’ve barely scratched the surface of the arguments we’ve presented here, and I know you’ve ignored quite a few (probably a majority) of the ones I’ve presented. You have no foundation from which to say that Catholic doctrine has not been substantiated when you’ve been unwilling or unable to respond to the arguments presented in this thread.

Given the fact that I have been accused of not responding to your points before (which you haven’t substantiated), I have made an extra special effort to respond to “every” statement you have made. Please tell me, in reference to our discussion on “original sin” where I have dodged even one allusion to an argument you have made.

If “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” were a valid doctrine, Jesus would have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Of course, you don’t believe that, but by disbelieving that, you prove false your claim that Jesus’ preservation from Original Sin disproves the whole doctrine.

Believing that is not proving false my argument against original sin… Jesus is God, He cannot fall from His own Glory or He ceases to be God. Romans 3:23 is a historical statement, that proves that all have sinned… by their own actual transgressions.

We know as a Biblical fact that Jesus did not sin, but we are discussing the issue of guilt here… You are claiming that guilt originates from sin being passed to a child the moment they are conceived… since we know that Jesus was never guilty of sin, and He was born of flesh, logically original sin cannot be a valid doctrine.

But, we do know that Jesus was “able” to sin and forfeit His Godhead, because He was tempted by Satan after He fasted 40 days. And we are told in Hebrews 4:15, that Jesus was tempted in all points, but NEVER sinned.

Your doctrine of death being contracted by all men without a sin for which it is the wages doesn’t coincide with the clear teaching of Scripture that death is the wages of sin.

It does in that no man was conceived until after the fall in Gen. 3.

Mankind was different in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not corrupted… until the moment they sinned. In that very moment the law of death began to work in their flesh, and they were seperated from God spiritually. After they were thrown out of the Garden, Eve conceived, and passed her corrupted flesh to Cain, that same flesh that was dying because of sin.

You still haven’t given an alternative explanation. If you’re going to claim that Original Sin is a false doctrine, you need to provide a true doctrine that explains the same phenomenon that Original Sin explains: the fact that we are all born spiritually dead.

I have, rather than believing the doctrine of ‘original sin’ I am teaching the doctrine of ‘death from Adam’. And I am teaching that ‘sin’ is a decision each one of us makes to transgress the law… therefore we are justifiably condemned, until we accept the righteousness of Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Pryority7]

Jemfinch,

Sorry It has taken me a couple of days to reply…

I wouldn’t blame you for accepting what I had to say… if that were the case, but I have shown you proof for these truths according to the KJV (which Eden boasts is from the Catholics).

Given the fact that I have been accused of not responding to your points before (which you haven’t substantiated), I have made an extra special effort to respond to “every” statement you have made. Please tell me, in reference to our discussion on “original sin” where I have dodged even one allusion to an argument you have made.

Believing that is not proving false my argument against original sin… Jesus is God, He cannot fall from His own Glory or He ceases to be God. Romans 3:23 is a historical statement, that proves that all have sinned… by their own actual transgressions.

We know as a Biblical fact that Jesus did not sin, but we are discussing the issue of guilt here… You are claiming that guilt originates from sin being passed to a child the moment they are conceived… since we know that Jesus was never guilty of sin, and He was born of flesh, logically original sin cannot be a valid doctrine.

But, we do know that Jesus was “able” to sin and forfeit His Godhead, because He was tempted by Satan after He fasted 40 days. And we are told in Hebrews 4:15, that Jesus was tempted in all points, but NEVER sinned.

It does in that no man was conceived until after the fall in Gen. 3.

Mankind was different in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not corrupted… until the moment they sinned. In that very moment the law of death began to work in their flesh, and they were seperated from God spiritually. After they were thrown out of the Garden, Eve conceived, and passed her corrupted flesh to Cain, that same flesh that was dying because of sin.

I have, rather than believing the doctrine of ‘original sin’ I am teaching the doctrine of ‘death from Adam’. And I am teaching that ‘sin’ is a decision each one of us makes to transgress the law… therefore we are justifiably condemned, until we accept the righteousness of Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Uh…the death of Adam IS Original Sin! It’s the condition we’re all born with…death is one of the results of original sin. What are you getting at? Are you kidding?
P7

 

[jemfinch]

I wouldn’t blame you for accepting what I had to say…

Not accepting, you mean.

if that were the case, but I have shown you proof for these truths according to the KJV (which Eden boasts is from the Catholics).

No, you most certainly haven’t. The best you can do is offer your own personal interpretation of the Bible as evidence for your claims. Let’s eximine the evidence I have for your claims:

1. It makes logical sense to you.
2. You claim to be specially led by the Holy Spirit into the Truth.

Now, let’s look at the evidence I have for my claims:

1. It makes logical sense to me.
2. It makes logical sense to my Christian friends and family.
3. It’s what the Church teaches.
4. It’s what the Church has always taught. It’s not a theological innovation.
5. The Church claims to be led by the Holy Spirit into the Truth.
6. It’s what the vast majority of Christians both now and throughout history have believed.
7. It’s what makes the most sense of the Bible as a whole.

Given the fact that I have been accused of not responding to your points before (which you haven’t substantiated),

It’s hard for me not to consider you to be disingenuous, John. Either you have a very short memory, a complete lack of reading skills, or you lie to make yourself feel or look better. I substantiated my claims way back in post #129, which you completely ignored. Since then, I could make at least one, maybe two more complete posts showing serious arguments that you’ve ignored, but #129 showed me that it would be a waste of time.

Heck, this entire argument is a waste of my time: you don’t read what I say, you don’t respond to arguments I make, and your own position is invincible because you honestly seem to think that your doctrines are given to you directly by special revelation of the Holy Spirit.

I have made an extra special effort to respond to “every” statement you have made.

Honestly, John. Don’t even pretend.

Please tell me, in reference to our discussion on “original sin” where I have dodged even one allusion to an argument you have made.

First, and most importantly, though I’ve said it twice (in #310 and #335), you’ve never interacted with my response to your accusation that the Catholic practice of infant baptism is based entirely on the doctrine of original sin.

Romans 3:23 is a historical statement, that proves that all have sinned… by their own actual transgressions.

We know as a Biblical fact that Jesus did not sin, but we are discussing the issue of guilt here… You are claiming that guilt originates from sin being passed to a child the moment they are conceived… since we know that Jesus was never guilty of sin, and He was born of flesh, logically original sin cannot be a valid doctrine.

Your argument is false. If, “logically,” original sin is shown false by the exception in Jesus Christ, then, by that same logic, the doctrine that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” is shown false by the exception in Jesus Christ.

Your argument amounts to this, John: “Since there’s an exception to the rule, it cannot be a rule.” Of course, that’s completely, utterly, ignorantly false, but I suppose that doesn’t matter when attempting to uphold theological innovations.

It does in that no man was conceived until after the fall in Gen. 3.

Uh, that has nothing to do with death being the wages of sin.

Mankind was different in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were not corrupted… until the moment they sinned. In that very moment the law of death began to work in their flesh, and they were seperated from God spiritually. After they were thrown out of the Garden, Eve conceived, and passed her corrupted flesh to Cain, that same flesh that was dying because of sin.

But you would claim, would you not, that Adam and Eve passed their spiritually dead nature to their children as well?

If so, then you have to explain how this spiritually dead nature, this separation from God is passed from parent to child, and especially why this happens if the child is guilty of nothing. Why does God withold supernatural grace from infants if they are guilty of nothing? Why doesn’t every infant get the same opportunity that Adam and Eve had, the opportunity to begin life in God’s supernatural grace?

And I am teaching that ‘sin’ is a decision each one of us makes to transgress the law…

Actual sin certainly is that.

therefore we are justifiably condemned, until we accept the righteousness of Christ.

We don’t accept the righteousness of Christ, we become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Jeremy

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Jemfinch,

I wouldn’t blame you for accepting what I had to say… if that were the case, but I have shown you proof for these truths according to the KJV (which Eden boasts is from the Catholics).

John
www.gideonsword.net

I’d like to address this statement to end some of your confusion.

The bible, yes the one both you and I read, is part of the Church. It comes from the Catholic Church. Although yours has been rewritten to be more inline with your man made beliefs.

Did King James go back to the original texts from the apostles to interpert his bible. No he used the bible that had been protected by the Catholic Church for over a thousand years to come up with one that was to his liking. He translated from the Latin, not greek, and aramaic That makes it King James inspired, right?

Research the history of your bible, try to explain with out using part of the Catholic Church to explain how the bible came to be. Start with the writter of KJV, King James then go back to the time of Christ. No using ECF or any christian councils or gatherings of the faithful because these are examples of the Catholic Church in action.

It can only be done if you ignore history and everything about Christianity. Any answer given will prove that.

 

[Philthy]

I have knowledge of good Bible believing churches that in just a few years have all but totally lost their effectiveness as witnesses to the truth, and have gone into apostacy.

I know you meant that to prove a point, but all it does here is prove that believing in the Bible - alone - doesnt cut it. And dont forget that there was no bible for the earliest Christians.
ba:

Really, the only infallible concrete teaching we have concerning doctrine is the letters of the Apostles which we have in the English King James Version… which Eden claims was given to us by the Catholic Church.

Oh really? Mark, Paul, James and Luke don’t count?
ba:

Why would we relegate our ability to debate on proofs that verify that these practices were actually practiced, rather that attempting to prove whether or not they were right in what they practiced?

John
www.gideonsword.net

Well that’s easy to answer. Because the bible was never meant to be a complete reference manual for Christianity for all time; and debating on the limited material presented in the NT is inconclusive. Therefore, it is useful to go beyond that to validate the various “theories” that arise. And when you do that, guess what?? You find that the earliest Christian practices were most consistent with the practices of the Catholic Church. Very simple.

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

First, and most importantly, though I’ve said it twice (in #310 and #335), you’ve never interacted with my response to your accusation that the Catholic practice of infant baptism is based entirely on the doctrine of original sin.

This is what you’ve been in such a tissy about me dodging?

Uh, this is a thread concerning the topic of “baptism”… that is why we’re discussing original sin… because it is the ONLY thing infant baptism has that even vaguely resembles a Biblical doctrine.

It does in that no man was conceived until after the fall in Gen. 3.

Uh, that has nothing to do with death being the wages of sin.

I never said it did.

But you would claim, would you not, that Adam and Eve passed their spiritually dead nature to their children as well?

If so, then you have to explain how this spiritually dead nature, this separation from God is passed from parent to child, and especially why this happens if the child is guilty of nothing. Why does God withold supernatural grace from infants if they are guilty of nothing? Why doesn’t every infant get the same opportunity that Adam and Eve had, the opportunity to begin life in God’s supernatural grace?

I understand your point Jeremy, but you are logically justifying a doctrine that is not biblical. By the same method, I can prove that the Bible never explicitly states that actual sin is passed to a child.

So, we could either say that God unjustifiably condemns infants by imposing a state of spiritual death upon them from conception;

Or, we could say that God unjustifiably condemns infants by imputing sin upon them that they never had the choice to commit.

Or, we could say that the Bible is right in that “death” was passed to those infants, and in their state of separation from God they sinned… but, God being merciful gave His only begotten Son that they might live.

I think the latter explanation would apply more biblically.

we become the righteousness of God in Christ.

Yes, and that is by reception of Christ’s righteousness…

"Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) "

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philty,

Oh really? Mark, Paul, James and Luke don’t count?

Well, I spoke of “letters” which came from “Apostles” (who are the teachers of doctrine). Mark didn’t give us a letter, Paul WAS an Apostle, whether James was written by James of Zebedee is in question, and Luke gave us two historical books. I don’t get you’re point.

Well that’s easy to answer. Because the bible was never meant to be a complete reference manual for Christianity for all time;

And how do you claim to know the intentions of the Holy Spirit?

and debating on the limited material presented in the NT is inconclusive.

That is not because the NT is inconclusive, it is because some people’s preconceived notions won’t allow them to draw the conclusions made by the NT.

Therefore, it is useful to go beyond that to validate the various “theories” that arise. And when you do that, guess what?? You find that the earliest Christian practices were most consistent with the practices of the Catholic Church. Very simple.

When you do that, you bring vain philosophies that water down and corrupt pure doctrine. You are not bringing proof of truths found in the New Testament… you are watering down truth by interjecting the same preconceived notions over and over again.

“Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

je

So, we could either say that God unjustifiably condemns infants by imposing a state of spiritual death upon them from conception;

Or, we could say that God unjustifiably condemns infants by imputing sin upon them that they never had the choice to commit.

Or, we could say that the Bible is right in that “death” was passed to those infants, and in their state of separation from God they sinned… but, God being merciful gave His only begotten Son that they might live.

I think the latter explanation would apply more biblically.

In a nutshell (and entirely biblical):

1. We are by nature children of wrath. Original sin is real. It is not something the Catholic Church invented. We are born of the flesh, not of the Spirit. We are not born in a state of holiness. We are born in a state of original sin.
2. Through baptism we are “born again” and made new creatures in Christ; through baptism our sins are forgiven. Through baptism we become members of the body of Christ, which is the Church. Through baptism we receive the Holy Spirit; through baptism we are saved. Baptism is necessary for salvation.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

 

[NotWorthy]

quote originally by Philthy

Well that’s easy to answer. Because the bible was never meant to be a complete reference manual for Christianity for all time;

And how do you claim to know the intentions of the Holy Spirit?

Ooh! Ooh! That’s any easy one. Because it doesn’t say it’s a “complete reference manual for Christianity” in the Bible.

Sorry, I’m just using the same argument that “Bible Christians” use against Catholics!!!

 

[jemfinch]

As per your custom, John, you’ve ignored a serious argument in my post. You’ve completely ignored my breakdown of the evidence for your claims in comparison to the evidence for my claims, and started your response further down in my post. You try to make it appear that you’ve responded to my post, when in fact you’ve not done so at all.

This is what you’ve been in such a tissy about me dodging?

I’ve been “in such a tissy” about your dodging since the second page of this thread, since I realized that your modus operandi is simply not to quote the parts of comments you can’t respond to. Don’t pretend that it’s a recent thing: you’ve been dodging arguments since the beginning, and the post I’m now responding to is no different.

Uh, this is a thread concerning the topic of “baptism”… that is why we’re discussing original sin… because it is the ONLY thing infant baptism has that even vaguely resembles a Biblical doctrine.

And as I’ve claimed before, now three times, infant baptism is not based on the Catholic understanding of Original Sin. Original Sin has nothing to do with infant baptism: infant baptism was a practice long before the Catholic understanding of Original Sin developed.

This is my claim, and this is a claim you’ve never interacted with, because you dodge all arguments you can’t handle.

I never said it did.

Let’s look at this line of “conversation” in full, shall we?

jemfinch:

Your doctrine of death being contracted by all men without a sin for which it is the wages doesn’t coincide with the clear teaching of Scripture that death is the wages of sin.

bibleapologist:

It does in that no man was conceived until after the fall in Gen. 3.

jemfinch:

Uh, that has nothing to do with death being the wages of sin.

bibleapologist:

I never said it did.

Clearly showing your lie. Your comment to which I was responding said, explicitly, that it is a response to my claim that your belief doesn’t account for the fact that death is the wages of sin. You replied, “It does, in that …” and try to explain how it did, completely missing the point of my comment, and then when I called you on it, you said that you never claimed it was in response to my point. History, as always, proves you wrong.

I understand your point Jeremy,

No, you don’t. If you did, and if you were intellectually honest, you would interact with my point. Up to now, you’ve just ignored it.

but you are logically justifying a doctrine that is not biblical.

Not biblical according to whom? According to you? Pardon me if I don’t accept your authority.

By the same method, I can prove that the Bible never explicitly states that actual sin is passed to a child.

Actual sin isn’t passed to the child. Congratulations for proving that the Bible doesn’t explicitly state a falsehood.

Or, we could say that the Bible is right in that “death” was passed to those infants, and in their state of separation from God they sinned… but, God being merciful gave His only begotten Son that they might live.

I think the latter explanation would apply more biblically.

That’s not an explanation at all. You have to explain why infants are born spiritually separated from God. You need to explain why Adam’s death passed to them. That’s your problem, John. You and I have the same evidence and the same understanding of the nature of natural man, but I explain why it happens using the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, and you simply don’t explain it. You ignore the need for an explanation. You say, “Original Sin is a false doctrine,” but you have no “true” doctrine to replace it.

And again, as usual, you’ve left out your statement that I “provided no substantiation” for my accusation that you dodge posts and my response showing you in the second page where I substantiated it.

As per your usual, you’ve ignored all evidence against you.

Jeremy

 

[Odell]

Well that’s easy to answer. Because the bible was never meant to be a complete reference manual for Christianity for all time;

Philty,
And how do you claim to know the intentions of the Holy Spirit?

It is a simple fact The bible was not complete as it is today until 300 some years later. Christians got around fine without it for 300years therefore the bible was not a reference at all in those days the Church was. The church explains the trinity in no way the bible explicitly says. One God three persons of whom all are consubstantually one in the same none over the other but all equal. The bible does not say it but the Church does. You cant explain this. One could say that Jesus was only half man half God and it in no way would contradict scripture. But it does contradict the Churches doctrine

Or, we could say that the Bible is right in that “death” was passed to those infants, and in their state of separation from God they sinned… but, God being merciful gave His only begotten Son that they might live.

But you cant come up with a doctrine of why. The Church has a doctrine called original sin we explain it you dont.

“Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

this is precisly why we do not listen to you all you have is preconcieved notions and tradition of men that you claim is suported by scripture but in fact is not. Our tradition in no way contradicts scripture in fact the bible says that you should follow our tradition either by word or scripture. All you have is scripture but the Chruch has what the bible says we should have both.

 

[Eden]

bibleapologist:

By the same method, I can prove that the Bible never explicitly states that actual sin is passed to a child.

Bibleapologist doesn’t know what the Church teaching on original sin is, he just knows he doesn’t like it because it’s “Roman Catholic”.

He interprets the doctrine of “original sin” to mean that babies are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. This is a misunderstanding of original sin, as other posters here have repeatedly tried to illustrate. What we inherit from Adam is not personal guilt but a fallen nature that is subject to death.

“God created man for incorruption” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:23), but “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men” (Romans 5:12).

What is the Baptist explanation for infants being subject to death?

 

[CRW]

Baptism confers the grace of justification (De dide)

As justification consists, negatively, in the remission of sin, positively, in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man (D 799), Baptism, provided that the proper dispositions (Faith and sorrow for sin) are present effects; a) the eradication of sins, both original sin and, in the case of adults, also all personal, mortal or venial sins, b) inner sanctification by the infusion of sanctifying grace, with which the infused theological and moral virtues and the gifts of the Holy Ghost are always joined. Together with sanctifying grace the justified person also receives a claim to those actual graces which are necessary for the fulfillment of the obligations assumed in Baptism.

In the Decree on Original Sin, the Council of Trent declared: :If any one denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which conferred in Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away…let him be anathema.” D 792, cf. 696, 742, 895.

The Council of Trent declared that after the promulgation of the Gospel there could be no justification without Baptism or the desire for same… (D 796). The necessity of Baptism for salvation is, according to John 3, 5 and Mk. 16, 16, a necessity of means and according to Mt. 28, 19, also a necessity of precept.

The validity of child-Baptism cannot be proved with absolute certainty from Holy Writ, but it can be indicated with a high degree of probability. When St. Paul (1 Cor.1.16) and the Acts of the Apostles (16, 15, 33; 18, 8) repeatedly speak of the Baptism of a whole “household,” then any children present in the family are included, all the more so because circumcision, which was replaced by Christian Baptism (Col. 2, 11; “circumcision of Christ), and the late Jewish Baptism of proselytes were performed on children.

On the 8th December, 1854, Pope Pisus IX, in the Bull “Ineffabilis” promulgated the following doctrine as revealed by God, and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful; “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of the Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.

Gn. 3, 15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He (the seed of the woman) shall crush thy head, and thou shall crush his heel.
Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost without the cooperation of man (De fide).

Since Mary was born without original sin, that Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost, Mary could not pass on original sin to Jesus Christ. Quotes from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

 

[bibleapologist]

jemfinch,

As usual, the disparaging nature of your prolix has left me weary.

So as not to take up valuable discspace on catholic.com’s database, I will sum up my reply to your post with one point.

That’s not an explanation at all. You have to explain why infants are born spiritually separated from God. You need to explain why Adam’s death passed to them. That’s your problem, John. You and I have the same evidence and the same understanding of the nature of natural man, but I explain why it happens using the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, and you simply don’t explain it. You ignore the need for an explanation. You say, “Original Sin is a false doctrine,” but you have no “true” doctrine to replace it.

As per your accusation that I lied when I stated that I never said that Genesis 3 had anything to do with death being the wages of sin… I did not lie. Genesis 3 (and the subsequent procreation) is proof that the death of Adam and Eve (which was the wages of sin), was passed to all men (through procreation). Cain, being the first child of Eve was born dead (spiritually), separated from God.

But we do not have any evidence of Cain sinning until he offered his sacrifice to God. Does that mean he didn’t sin before then? Probably not, he was separated from God… the only standard of righteousness he had was his mother and father… who were sinners.

The doctrine I have offered to deny “original sin” is the doctrine of “death being passed to all men”… “for that all have sinned”… why have they sinned… because they are spiritually dead and they have no perfect standard of righteousness whereby they may compare their actions.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Bibleapologist doesn’t know what the Church teaching on original sin is, he just knows he doesn’t like it because it’s “Roman Catholic”.

He interprets the doctrine of “original sin” to mean that babies are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. This is a misunderstanding of original sin, as other posters here have repeatedly tried to illustrate. What we inherit from Adam is not personal guilt but a fallen nature that is subject to death.

“God created man for incorruption” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:23), but “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men” (Romans 5:12).

What part of all my posts have you failed to read that caused you to think I thought anything different than that?

You say that I interpret “original sin” to mean that babies are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin… but that is the very point I have been contending with jemfinch and Odell.

In fact, many times, by many Catholics on this thread I have been told that Babies need to be baptized to facilitate grace… otherwise they will be judged for original sin.

Sin, and the guilt of it was never passed to babies… so what is the point of infant baptism… THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR IT. Because they are not guilty… they have not sinned yet.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

What part of all my posts have you failed to read that caused you to think I thought anything different than that?

You say that I interpret “original sin” to mean that babies are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin… but that is the very point I have been contending with jemfinch and Odell.

In fact, many times, by many Catholics on this thread I have been told that Babies need to be baptized to facilitate grace… otherwise they will be judged for original sin.

Sin, and the guilt of it was never passed to babies… so what is the point of infant baptism… THERE IS NO BIBLICAL BASIS FOR IT. Because they are not guilty… they have not sinned yet.

John
www.gideonsword.net

You have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity (including infants), should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. You do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).

So, I’ll ask again. If not because of original sin, how do you as a Baptist, explain why infants are subject to death?

 

[jemfinch]

As usual, the disparaging nature of your prolix has left me weary.

As usual, the incomplete nature of your response leaves much to be desired.

And prolix is an adjective, not a noun. I think the word you were (wrongly) looking for was prolixity.

So as not to take up valuable discspace on catholic.com’s database,

Oh, is that the reason you ignore all the strong arguments against you?

As per your accusation that I lied when I stated that I never said that Genesis 3 had anything to do with death being the wages of sin… I did not lie. Genesis 3 (and the subsequent procreation) is proof that the death of Adam and Eve (which was the wages of sin), was passed to all men (through procreation). Cain, being the first child of Eve was born dead (spiritually), separated from God.

Uh, we’re not arguing about that, John. That’s a fact that we both accept. The question at hand is not whether people are born spiritually dead, but why they’re born spiritually dead. And you’ve yet to answer that question.

But we do not have any evidence of Cain sinning until he offered his sacrifice to God. Does that mean he didn’t sin before then? Probably not, he was separated from God… the only standard of righteousness he had was his mother and father… who were sinners.

And you still don’t understand the difference between original sin and actual sin.

The doctrine I have offered to deny “original sin” is the doctrine of “death being passed to all men”…

We’re not arguing about that. We’re debating why death passed to all men. You’re not offering anything at all in opposition to original sin.

“for that all have sinned”… why have they sinned… because they are spiritually dead and they have no perfect standard of righteousness whereby they may compare their actions.

And you still miss the point.

I just wish you’d admit that you’re not interested at all in evidence against your positions, and that you’re not really here to engage in honest debate, but simply in an attempt to spread your false doctrines.

Jeremy