Baptism

[Mickey]

The 2nd judgement does not change the elect or damned status

So why would there be a need for the final judgement?

I can see that our disagreementment lies in the differing teaching between our Churches. We do not have the same understanding of original sin and we do not accept purgatory. We also do not believe in a final disposition of the soul prior to the last judgement. We believe that prior to the final judgement, every soul is in play.

But this is about baptism. If you care to continue this line of discussion, I would suggest another thread.

 

[bona_fides_1]

So why would there be a need for the final judgement?

I can see that our disagreementment lies in the differing teaching between our Churches. We do not have the same understanding of original sin and we do not accept purgatory. We also do not believe in a final disposition of the soul prior to the last judgement. We believe that prior to the final judgement, every soul is in play.

But this is about baptism. If you care to continue this line of discussion, I would suggest another thread.

I was reluctant to discuss this here because its was off topic but since you explicitly asked I addressed it as a single post clarification. I think I have already addressed the principal reasons why a 2nd judgement is necessary. At death a soul’s good and bad deeds have not yet reached their full epoch of cause and effect for all human time. It is only at the completion of time that the human soul (which acquires its experience and knowledge through temporal sequence when not given divine revelation) can take in and comprehend the full extent of its deeds and understand them for net better or worse. It is important to God’s justice that every soul know precisely the magnitude of its reward/punishment on itsself and each other soul and why it is either damned by its own fault (and must admit it) or is given the particular crown in heaven it has earned (there are a range of rewards in heaven - each crown is unique/personal). Also, God being the author of Creation has the sovereign right to declare the final word on all of His works - it is God’s nature to access what He has brought into being. We see this recurring pattern in Genesis: e.g. “God saw that the light was good” or " God made the wild animals according to their kinds…And God saw that it was good." But note in Genesis that God has not explicitly judged man “good” yet - he just blesses man then declares: “God saw all that he had made, and it was **very **good” (as an aside - my own observations are that we later learn of a concept of “perfection” - elevating fallen man who started off as “very good” when joined to natural Creation but the elect perfected through Divine restoration).

Getting too far afield of the original OP so will stop here…

BF

 

[Mickey]

IAlso, God being the author of Creation has the sovereign right to declare the final word on all of His works - it is God’s nature to access what He has brought into being. We see this recurring pattern in Genesis: e.g. “God saw that the light was good” or " God made the wild animals according to their kinds…And God saw that it was good." But note in Genesis that God has not explicitly judged man “good” yet - he just blesses man then declares: “God saw all that he had made, and it was **very **good” (as an aside - my own observations are that we later learn of a concept of “perfection” - elevating fallen man who started off as “very good” when joined to natural Creation but the elect perfected through Divine restoration).

1. That does not answer the two judgments that you allude to-proclaimimg that the particular judgment is a final decision.

 

[bona_fides_1]

1. That does not answer the two judgments that you allude to-proclaimimg that the particular judgment is a final decision.

I can’t risk derailing this OP to respond anymore to this. Please go back and reread my original post - it makes perfect sense. Then read the Catholic Catechism I referenced.

God judges each soul immediately at death to heaven (with perhaps time in purgatory ) or hell. Once one is judged worthy of heaven or hell that can never be changed again for eternity. What CAN be changed is the degree of reward and punishment in either place. Again - this is in the catechism. After the 2nd comming the souls are united with their bodies (the elect received a transfigured/perfected body). The 2nd judgement is made and those already judged worthy of heaven (and residing there) are elevated to even higher reward in heaven (experiencing eternal beatitude with both body and soul) and those already judged worthy of hell (and residing there) are punished more severely both in soul AND in body. God of course knows what the extent of every soul’s good and bad deeds are at death since He is Omniscient - but the human soul does not. This knowledge is conveyed at the 2nd judgement - and we believe that this final knowledge is what intensifies the punishment of the damned and intensifies the reward of the elect. All souls will know the extent of what they lost or gained.

If you would like to open a new topic - feel free to do so then link back here.

BF

 

[Mickey]

Please go back and reread my original post - it makes perfect sense.

Not really.

Once one is judged worthy of heaven or hell that can never be changed again for eternity.

Yes–at the final judgment.

The 2nd judgement is made and those already judged worthy of heaven (and residing there) are elevated to even higher reward in heaven (experiencing eternal beatitude with both body and soul) and those already judged worthy of hell (and residing there) are punished more severely both in soul AND in body.

Again—it does not make sense to have a final judgment if the “decision” has already been rendered.

This knowledge is conveyed at the 2nd judgement - and we believe that this final knowledge is what intensifies the punishment of the damned and intensifies the reward of the elect.

So you are saying that the final judgment entails a mere intensification of a judgment that has already been rendered? This does not sound right.

If you would like to open a new topic - feel free to do so then link back here.

Go for it.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Yes–at the final judgment.

Again—it does not make sense to have a final judgment if the “decision” has already been rendered.

This is not Catholic teaching.
The theology on particular/personal judgment and final general judgement has made perfect sense to Catholic theologians and religious for many centuries. I think you are mixing proverbial “apples and oranges” and confusing “the 2nd judgement” as a re-trial of each soul. This is not what the 2nd judgement is about. The 2nd judgement is a “wrap up” on all of history on nations, the church, humanity at large, creation etc. – not a personal judgement.

So you are saying that the final judgment entails a mere intensification of a judgment that has already been rendered? This does not sound right.
Go for it.

No I am not saying that. Think how current human courts work. A person can be found guilty of a crime like murder then be immediately sent to prison to await final sentencing judgement. The first judgement determines guilt and the 2nd judgement determines the severity of punishment once all material facts are understood. In other words the finding of grave guilt is seperate from the final penalty for the guilt. Minimally the soul will be immediately imprisoned – and so it is. But in civil courts there could also be a death sentence or life imprisonment or hard labor (or appeal etc.). The specific final “just-punishment” determination comes later AFTER the finding of capital guilt. The same general principal or concept applies here for those souls judged worthy of hell. The final severity of punishment in hell is not applied till all of history plays out at the 2nd comming. The fact that all souls are reunited with the body again (at the 2nd judgement) increases the dimension of suffering to not just spiritual but also corporeal. This alone proves the case.

Here is a new link to a new topic. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6545108#post6545108

BF

 

[Mickey]

This is not what the 2nd judgement is about. The 2nd judgement is a “wrap up” on all of history on nations, the church, humanity at large, creation etc. – not a personal judgement.

A wrap up! Oh my!

No I am not saying that. Think how current human courts work.

This is not a legalistic human court we are talking about.

A person can be found guilty of a crime like murder then be immediately sent to prison to await final sentencing judgement. The first judgement determines guilt and the 2nd judgement determines the severity of punishment once all material facts are understood.

Or the decision can be overturned due to DNA evidence that was left out the first time.

In other words the finding of grave guilt is seperate from the final penalty for the guilt.

No. The 2nd (final) judgment is not a “penalty stage”.

But in civil courts there could also be a death sentence or life imprisonment or hard labor (or appeal etc.).

Classic legalism.

 

[bona_fides_1]

And now ladies and gents, after that short editorializating and personal opinion excursion we are back to the OP…

BF

 

[Mickey]

…back to the OP…

Brian…where are you?!?

 

[SavedbyHisBlood]

Aside from the previous dozen or so off subject posts… (no big deal i was a few of them ) I want to see if i can get a list of supportive bible verses for infant baptizm.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

John 3:5
considered to refer to baptism by irenaeus
per my previous post. Ignatius - “…He submitted to baptism, so that by his passion He might sanctify water”

mark 16:16 Belief and baptism are required.

acts 8:38 called baptism after water not prior declaration of belief.

acts 2:37-38

Just to be clear, I am not saying baptism is optional for those who believe. I am questioning the validity of baptism for those, such as infants, that haven’t the capacity to believe.

You believe Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, but how do you reconcile that with what Jesus said in His very next breath, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”?

Doesn’t it sound like He is talking about two births here; our natural birth and our re-birth in the spirit? And suppose this is what He is saying, isn’t it true that people are born of the Spirit before they are baptized? Isn’t that what took place with the very first gentile believers?

Also, If Jesus was saying that water baptism is necessary for salvation, how do you answer the question: “What about those who never heard the Gospel, are they doomed?” I have gotten this question a lot and I have an answer for it, but I am curious how you Catholics respond to this in light of your understanding on baptism.

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino View Post
John 3:5
considered to refer to baptism by irenaeus
per my previous post. Ignatius - “…He submitted to baptism, so that by his passion He might sanctify water”

mark 16:16 Belief and baptism are required.

acts 8:38 called baptism after water not prior declaration of belief.

acts 2:37-38

Just to be clear, I am not saying baptism is optional for those who believe. I am questioning the validity of baptism for those, such as infants, that haven’t the capacity to believe.

You believe Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5, but how do you reconcile that with what Jesus said in His very next breath, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”?

Doesn’t it sound like He is talking about two births here; our natural birth and our re-birth in the spirit? …

I see john 3:6 is all about the conflict between a person struggles in ways of flesh and spirit that is expressed in other verses including jesus.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

john 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

gal 6:8 … For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

 

[Edson]

My son is wanting me to put on Sponge Bob on the PC so I have to make it quick. Here is my thought on Infant Baptism. How do we know as adults that infants do not have a relationship with God? We don’t know that. To our finite minds it is impossible for us to comprehend the glories of the Triune God. How do we know that at the moment of conception that the new creation inside the womb can or cannot have a relationship and/or communicate with God after all John the Baptist jumped inside Elizabeth’s womb as he was filled with the Holy Spirit. Yes I know that was a special occasion but never the less it is possible.

Thanks

 

[panevino]

Just to be clear, I am not saying baptism is optional for those who believe. I am questioning the validity of baptism for those, such as infants, that haven’t the capacity to believe. …

infant is born with a fallen nature/seperated from God given the transgression of Adam.
1 cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:18 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
Adam and Eve were kicked out of eden.Gen 3:23

must be born again to enter kingdom of God
john 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

infants are just right candidates (no personal sin) , being born again they overcome the separation from God caused by adam.
*
luke 18:15and they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.*

baptism of infant is parents cooperation with grace in faith, just as the parents of the infants on the night of passover.

go to go

 

[bona_fides_1]

infant is born with a fallen nature/seperated from God given the transgression of Adam.
1 cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Rom 5:18 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
Adam and Eve were kicked out of eden.Gen 3:23

must be born again to enter kingdom of God
john 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

infants are just right candidates (no personal sin) , being born again they overcome the separation from God caused by adam.
*
luke 18:15and they brought unto him also infants*, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.

baptism of infant is parents cooperation with grace in faith, just as the parents of the infants on the night of passover.

go to go

It’s ironic to me that in the time of Jesus it was common for parents to circumcise their infant males on the 8th day and arrange marriages without their children’s consent but in modern times it somehow becomes an egregious thing for parents to decide such important matters as being part of God’s people through parental decision to baptize them. When did Christianity ever before in all of history before the reformation try to cast off parental authority and leave the infants to fend for themselves until they were old enough to decide for themselves if they wanted to live according to their parent’s faith and teachings? There seems to be a desire to toss the baby’s baptismal water’s out the window in a mad desire to let the baby not bath until it can decide for itself that it needs to be cleaned.

I really think that those Protestants who object to infant baptism are anachronistically back projecting their own modern secular and political ideas concerning personal freedoms and “free-choice in all things” into scripture. But these same fail to address the fact that these infants never had choice in deciding for themselves their own parents nor a voice in their own given lives through their parent’s free choices to have a family. It’s all very irrational to me given that Christ explicitly said “Bring the Children to me!” and because there is not a single verse in scripture that forbids baptism of infants or of those adults who due to mental handicap (e.g. the mind of an infant) can not form their own conscience. Here I keep thinking of the example in scripture where a completely paralyzed man who was unable to do anything more than an infant could do for itself was brought to Jesus for a cure by his own adult friend’s personal initiative:

• Luke 5:18-20 18Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus. 19When they could not find a way to do this because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. 20When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” *

BF

 

[SavedbyHisBlood]

Your wife is parroting a false gospel that has absolutely no scriptural basis…

Can we keep this charitable please? If we disagree with someone thats fine but don’t be rude.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The Apostle John said we do not become the children of God by the will of man, but by the will of God. Since Catholics believe we become the children of God through baptism (correct me if I am wrong) I would like to present a little scenario.

Let’s take to married couples for example, couple A and couple B. Let’s say both couples have a baby. Couple A decides to have their baby baptized and couple B decides not to have their baby baptized. By whose will was their baby baptized or not baptized: the parent’s or God’s?

 

[bona_fides_1]

Can we keep this charitable please? If we disagree with someone thats fine but don’t be rude.

Wow - are you just now getting around to reading our responses to your question? That was 6 days ago. I don’t think it was rude - it was not intended to be since the comment was made to you to italicize how wrong the teaching was. Nor is it a matter of simple disagreement - what I have said is not personal opinion but rather is infallable Catholic doctrine. Sorry if somone took it that way.

The idea of not baptising infants is a “false gospel” - there’s just no way to sugar coat that since we are told that those who teach a false gospel are worthy of a curse (Gal 1:9). We have to start letting non-Catholics understand that it is spiritually deadly to teach the errors they do - souls are at stake. I’d rather risk hurting someone’s feelings than be too passive/soft and give them the impression that its OK to toss out a bunch of personal opinions that are not valid teachings and cause somone to be damned for teaching the errors. Historically there simply was no such teaching against infant baptism at any time in Christian history until after the 16th century when some offshoots sects of the Protestant Reformers started teaching this all new idea.

That said, there definitely where some who for pragmatic reasons (esp. royalty who felt a need to rule with severity and persecute & war with enemies) deferred baptism until they were old and close to death. The reason is because In the early church, after one was baptised, those who committed grave sin were most often excommunicated until one was on their death bed and waiting for their last rites. It was not until the 3rd century that the apostolic authority of loosing and binding relaxed the conditions for absolution and made it possible to receive apostolic absolution more than one time in one’s lifetime. Thank God for that! So ever since unrestricted sacramental confession was made available there was never even a pragmatic reason for deferring baptism since baptism since if one fell into sin they could repent and receive apostolic absolution just like we can today.

BF

 

[Brian_Culliton]

What I have said is not personal opinion but rather is infallable Catholic doctrine.

If what you have been saying here is “infallible teaching” why are there so many contradictions in your statements? You say an infant lacks the NECESSARY grace to gain eternal life then turn around and say that sacramental baptism is the NORMATIVE way for human salvation. You have also thrown out a number of theories all of which astound me for their lack of biblical exegesis.

You did say something interesting though. You said an infant cannot form its own conscience. And therein lies the answer as to why infants need not be baptized. It’s a biblical answer and I hope you find it.

Historically there simply was no such teaching against infant baptism at any time in Christian history until after the 16th century when some offshoots sects of the Protestant Reformers started teaching this all new idea.

What about Tertullian?

In the early church, after one was baptised, those who committed grave sin were most often excommunicated until one was on their death bed and waiting for their last rites. It was not until the 3rd century that the apostolic authority of loosing and binding relaxed the conditions for absolution and made it possible to receive apostolic absolution more than one time in one’s lifetime.

I would be interested in seeing your references on this. Are you referring to Dionysius of Alexandria?

 

[bona_fides_1]

If what you have been saying here is “infallible teaching” why are there so many contradictions in your statements? You say an infant lacks the NECESSARY grace to gain eternal life then turn around and say that sacramental baptism is the NORMATIVE way for human salvation. You have also thrown out a number of theories all of which astound me for their lack of biblical exegesis.

What contradictions? Any apparent contradictions probably arise from your non-Catholic background or else I did not say something clearly enough?

As I have said, out of the womb all human infants except for some rare cases have no sanctifying grace (notable exceptions: Mary was conceived sinless and “full of grace” and John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb by Christ).

I don’t see any contradiction. An ordinary human infant child has at conception a natural but fallen human-nature soul. That said it has no stain of personal sin. But that personal innocence is not sufficient in itself to gain salvation - only God can impart sanctifying grace. But there is no sanctifying grace imparted by the act of conception or by birth. So how does an infant get it?

The way an infant normatively may gain sanctifying grace is by infant baptism. Or we trust in the case of an infant that dies before the age of reason that God may have mercy and sanctify the soul of unbaptised infants. But we have no certainty in this - why its better to baptise infants as soon as possible.

Baptism is a sacrament and not a mere symbol. Since it is given by the Trinitarian formula God radically reconfigures the infant’s soul supernaturally, marks it as Christ’s, endows it with supernatural grace as the Holy Spirit takes residence and also receives spiritual gifts that will be matured and discerned later in life. This is Catholic teaching and it is all consistent with scripture. There is no scriptural verse which contradicts any of this.

Where is the contradiction?

You did say something interesting though. You said an infant cannot form its own conscience. And therein lies the answer as to why infants need not be baptized. It’s a biblical answer and I hope you find it.

There is not a single verse in scripture that tells us we must have a formed adult conscience to be baptized. You can’t find it or you would have presented it by now.
Jesus commanded “Bring the Children to Me”.

BF