Baptism... And the True Church

[CRW]

Quote:** “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.”**End Quote

Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God” (John3,5).

The Old Testament contains references to original sin, Cf. especially PS. 50, 7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did my mother conceive me.” Job 14, 4: “Who can make him clean that is conceived unclean?” The connection between the death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death) is, however, clearly stated in Old Testament cf. Ecclus 25, 33 and Wis 2, 24.The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5, 12-21, in which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from which sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all man, V. 12: “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death, and so sin passed upon all man…19. For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.”

The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s lost of sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by human being. It is removed by the merits of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed though the Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as children. Therefore, children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem peccatorum).The death of the soul is, however, the absence of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of sanctifying grace.

 

[Odell]

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

I would like to know this myself.

Eden
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.

they are born spiritualy dead agreed.

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.

They need to be baptised because they are spiritualy dead. And baptism is a way to facilitate grace.

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.

Because they are born spiritualy dead.

John
www.gideonsword.net

jemfinch,
Cain, being the first child of Eve was born dead (spiritually), separated from God.

why was he born spiritualy dead? Was Adam and Eve spiritualy dead before the fall? If not then why would God create Cane spiritualy dead if he created Adam and Eve spiritualy alive?

Please explain.

Obviosly something was passed on if it was not than each act of Gods creation would not be born spiritually dead.

One last thing no one will enter heaven who is spiritually dead. adults babies whoever you should agree. So babies and adults must become spiritually alive. You realize that by being baptised you recieve the gift of the holy spirit it is a means of becoming spirituly alive no one who has the spirit is dead. now which ever baptism it is because you claim two different kinds of baptisms. But you can not say that one baptism gets the spirit and the other does not. God set up that we are to be baptised by water and in a trinitarin formula. Nothice when Jesus was baptised by water the spirit decended from heaven. They are not saved by the water in of its self it is God working threw the water. And the water simbilising being covered with the spirit. If a baby is born and is not baptised I am sure God will in his grace make the baby spiritualy alive if it hapens to die before being baptised. But we have to be in agreement that no one gets to heaven spritualy dead. And baptism is a means of becoming spiritualy alive.

Someone will probly help me here im sure I did not convey it as well as someone else can. But you must be baptised.

 

[Eden]

If not because of original sin, how do you as a Baptist, explain why infants are subject to death?

I’d really like to know the answer to this, please.

Also, the Catholic Church does not teach that infants carry Adam’s guilt.

The Catholic Church did not accept all of Augustine’s ideas. The Church did not adopt the opinion that involvement in Adam’s guilt and punishment takes effect through the dependence of human procreation on the sexual passion, in which the spirit’s inability to control flesh is evident. Rather, the Church teaches that original sin comes to the soul simply from the new person taking his nature from one whose nature itself had original sin. In this way, the Church argues that original sin is not imputing the sin of the father to the son; rather, it is simply the inheritance of a wounded nature from the father, which is an unavoidable part of reproduction.

The notion of original sin as interpreted St. Augustine was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for the Calvinistic doctrine of “total depravity”) results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam’s fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

So, many Protestant denominations believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. But Catholicism doesn’t agree with St. Augustine’s teaching on this. This is simply not a Catholic teaching.

You’ve been arguing against the Calvinistic understanding of original sin with Catholics in this thread for some reason. So, what is your objection to the Catholic teaching of original sin?

 

[Pryority7]

You know John will either dance around your questions or simply ignore them right?

Let’s see which one of the two he will do…

P7

 

[Eden]

P7:

You know John will either dance around your questions or simply ignore them right?

Let’s see which one of the two he will do…

We’ll see. In the meantime, .

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

So, many Protestant denominations believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. But Catholicism doesn’t agree with St. Augustine’s teaching on this. This is simply not a Catholic teaching.

I agree with your disagreement . If the guilt of Adam’s sin being passed to an infant is not the correct interpretation of Original sin, then why has that position been defended by jemfinch and others?

You’ve been arguing against the Calvinistic understanding of original sin with Catholics in this thread for some reason. So, what is your objection to the Catholic teaching of original sin?

Since we both understand the true origination of the spiritual death of an infant, we are now faced with the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration” and how that facilitates grace. I am under the impression that according to Catholics, baptism is an “act of freewill”. But, for infants that cannot be the case.

Laying aside the arguments concerning “baptismal regeneration”, what biblical basis can there be for imposing a ritualistic act on an infant? I understand that you say ( and the Catholic Church justifies) that since infants are not able to decide to accept grace; the parents (or a sponsor) is used to make that decision. But, that would seem to be in response to a belief that the child being baptized had acquired guilt that he/she had not chosen by an act of sin.

Since that infant has not sinned (by willingly defying the commandments of God) or (rejected Christ), he/she cannot be guilty and therefore justifiably condemned for an act he/she has not committed.

The infant then, is spiritually dead until which time they are capable of believing in Christ. At that time, they are by default also capable of rejecting Christ, and by so doing have assumed guilt. Since the Holy Spirit is given upon “belief in Christ”, infant baptism would be at the very most superflous.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I agree with your disagreement . If the guilt of Adam’s sin being passed to an infant is not the correct interpretation of Original sin, then why has that position been defended by jemfinch and others?

I didn’t see that they did. I recall reading jemfinch’s posts stating that original sin is not actual sin. He presented his position in harmony with the Catechism. I think, honestly, that you read into the responses because you mistakenly believed the Church taught that Adam’s guilt is transferred. Just to reiterate the Catholic teaching, this is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Original Sin (from the Vatican Website):

From Part III Original Sin

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

 

[Eden]

Laying aside the arguments concerning “baptismal regeneration”, what biblical basis can there be for imposing a ritualistic act on an infant? I understand that you say ( and the Catholic Church justifies) that since infants are not able to decide to accept grace; the parents (or a sponsor) is used to make that decision. But, that would seem to be in response to a belief that the child being baptized had acquired guilt that he/she had not chosen by an act of sin.

Since that infant has not sinned (by willingly defying the commandments of God) or (rejected Christ), he/she cannot be guilty and therefore justifiably condemned for an act he/she has not committed.

The infant then, is spiritually dead until which time they are capable of believing in Christ. At that time, they are by default also capable of rejecting Christ, and by so doing have assumed guilt. Since the Holy Spirit is given upon “belief in Christ”, infant baptism would be at the very most superflous.

Catholics do not believe that baptism is symbolic. We believe that at the time of baptism we are infused with the Holy Spirit. We believe that our souls actually change, our souls are marked for Christ. No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born of water and the spirit. That means no one, and infants are someone. We baptize infants because we believe graces are bestowed upon the infant in baptism. The graces bestowed upon them frees them from the power of darkness and into “the freedom of the Children of God”.

We believe this is a beautiful gift which we wish to have bestowed upon our infants as soon as possible after birth.

"The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) “for the day of redemption.”

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/baptism.html

 

[Odell]

Eden,
The infant then, is spiritually dead until which time they are capable of believing in Christ. At that time, they are by default also capable of rejecting Christ, and by so doing have assumed guilt. Since the Holy Spirit is given upon “belief in Christ”, infant baptism would be at the very most superflous.

John
www.gideonsword.net

What if they are never able to acept Jesus such as a mental handicaped kid? They are not spiritually dead if they are baptised.

And are you saying that the Holy Spirit is only given upon blief in Christ?

Catholics believe that baptism is another means of recieving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[NotWorthy]

Laying aside the arguments concerning “baptismal regeneration”, what biblical basis can there be for imposing a ritualistic act on an infant? I understand that you say ( and the Catholic Church justifies) that since infants are not able to decide to accept grace; the parents (or a sponsor) is used to make that decision.

Circumcision, which Baptism now replaces.

Remember, the Old Law is a shadow of the things to come. The shadow, though, outlines the true form.

 

[onenow1]

HI,
His last day on earth he gave this command. Matthew. 28: 19, Go,therefore, make disciples of all all nations;" baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirt.

May we all be of one mind in Christ’s commands.
One sacrifce, one baptism as the true Church teaches!

Peace
ONENOW1

 

[CRW]

The Baptism of young children is valid and licit (De fide).

The reformers, influenced by Christian tradition, retained the Baptism of children although it is not compatible with their notion of a Sacrament. Luther sought to remove the difficulty with the assumption that infants were, in the moment of Baptism, endowed with the ability to make an act of justifying, fiducial faith in a miraculous manner. According to Catholic teaching, faith, as it is not the effective cause of justification, but merely an act of disposition, need not be present. The faith which the infants lack is, according to the teaching of St. Augustine and the Schoolman, replaced by the faith of the Church.