Children who die without baptism

[Huiou_Theou]

De Maria:

Are you claiming that infants who die without baptism are unrepentant?

Sincerely,

De Maria

In the sense of turning, a positive act, no they are not.
If they were the debate would end, they would definitely have baptism of desire.

I don’t claim they are obstinant which is one connotation of the word un-repentant – I believe they are unable-to-repent. Repent means to turn again, as in turn or return to the right path.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The catechism references the section of Hallowing God’s name under sanctification. Check the index and look at CCC 2807. There is nothing about baptism there, but the hallowing of God’s name. A Jew can hallow God’s name.

To sanctify is to make Holy, or to recognize holiness.

The terms Justice, Holiness, and Sanctification overlap each other for they are related.

Notice, I did not say Adam and Eve had sanctifying grace equivalent to ours.
Someone else might have said that, but I didn’t.

The nuance I am thinking of is the degree of these terms.
One is not merely justified, but can increase in justification (Trent Session 6, Chapter X ).

See also CCC:1995.
Notice it is defining justification (the process of becoming just) in terms of sanctification. Therefore sanctification has degrees too : a nuance. Since justification is defined that way, how does it apply to Adam. – Adam was not fully adopted as a familial son.

Do you have a deacon who sings the exsultset at Easter?

" Father, how wonderful your care for us!
How boundless your merciful love!
To ransom a slave you gave away your Son.

O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer! "

No, Jesus would not have come in the flesh if there were no fault. That is traditional Catholic understanding.

If sanctification were necessarily always greater than justification, then why bother defining the lesser in terms of the greater?

In the CCC:1996 the point is made even clearer, for Justification (not the synonym sanctifying grace) is used as the term describing how we become adoptive children of God.

Sanctifying Grace is literally the Gift (grace) of becoming Holy.
As it is used with respect to the New Testament and baptism, it means the adoptive sonship offered in the new covenant. In particular, the new testament term would be more clearly understood by the term deifying grace.

See: CCC 1540 on the sanctification of the old covenant.
The blood of goats and bulls can purify, but only externally.

the last index entry of the CCC under sanctification says:see also Holiness.

What exactly do you not agree with in my second statement?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In speaking of ‘children’ I am assuming infants. Because once we speak of a slightly older ‘child’ the opportunity of baptism has occured, and there really is no excuse!

Comparing an infant to angels is futile. Angels do not have parents, and cannot inherit weakness. The human soul, on the other hand, is affected by original sin – see the council of Orange, the canons (If I remember right #2).

So, there is no evidence that a soul progresses after death except in purgation, since changability is characteristic of time.

The angels received a ‘moment’ (if you will) to decide. Beyond that they are unable to change. (My understanding from St. Thomas, and I must admit, I think it is his weakest area of argument. – besides the immaculate conception.)

There is an awareness of things present (a memory) and learning about the future in angels, but the personality of angels was fixed at the moment of their decision: Heaven or Hell.
There is no room for change or repentance in an angel.

The ‘moment’ of change for a human is their life here on earth.

Also, the soul is not ‘freed’ of the body. The soul suffers a real loss without the body – it is diminished.

Sort of like a violin string ‘freed’ of the violin. Maybe it is free, but it is useless for music.

 

[Shiann]

De Maria:

Thanks. I enjoyed and agree with the rest of your post(s). However, the quote above is problematic. If Adam and Eve had what we have then it wouldn’t be Christian doctrine that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, would it?

Even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, wouldn’t Jesus have become incarnate inorder to impart to them the sanctifying grace which would unite them to God in the more perfect way that we are united to Him who live in His Grace?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Ah, the proverbial chicken and egg question…

Based on what I have assimilated from my own examination of my Faith, here is what I believe. I would hope that my comments would have been reprimanded by now if they were lacking.

Again, the question:

Adam and Eve had what we have then it wouldn’t be Christian doctrine that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, would it?

Even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned, wouldn’t Jesus have become incarnate inorder to impart to them the sanctifying grace which would unite them to God in the more perfect way that we are united to Him who live in His Grace?

God is not only omnicient, but omnipresent as well. I’m sure we can both agree with that. He knows everyTHING about what is happening at this very moment- just as he knows every TIME.

So it would follow that God HAD to have known that His perfectly made humans (Adam and Eve), who were full of every gift of Grace, God could bestow on them, would turn from Him to seek their own desires.

Adam and Eve made a decision to turn away from God- even with the Perfect Reason in relation to God’s Will. (Like our Blessed Mary and Jesus). It was a blatant rejection of God’s Love, Grace, and Mercy. (Like when we, as members of the Catholic Church, commit Grave Sin.) In committing this terrible rejection, Adam and Eve were seperated from God’s Sanctifying Grace- not because God wished to punish, but because the very nature of A&E’s rejection made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to retain. Along with the loss of Grace, we died spiritually (other things were a result as well, and discussed previously). This is also a reflection of our spiritual state when we commit Grave Sin.

As a result, our Loving and Merciful God, made sure we would still have an opportunity to regain our spiritual, and eternal life, through a gift of Sanctifying Grace.

But until Jesus came to pay the price for that opportunity- and right what was wrong; God established Old Jewish Law. The ways by which the Jewish Fathers could in some way show their devotion and desire to be a part of the spiritual eternal family, albeit in an imperfect way.

There was no Sanctifying Grace at this time that could be achieved through ceremonial means- because Jesus had not come to fullfill that debt and bridge that chasm between the faithfull and GOD.

Then Jesus arrived, and through His teaching, we were introduced to a way by which humanity could receive Sanctifying Grace again, perfectly, and PERMANENTLY through Baptism. (Obviously God had choosen to bestow Sanctifying Grace prior to Jesus introducing Baptism, through miracles ie Blessed Mary via the future sacrifice of Jesus.)

We have it perfectly because of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice- and we have it permenently because Jesus’ sacrifice was timeless. Once we are Baptised, we can commit Grave Sin (the equivalent of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve), and by the sacrament of confessing and receiving absolution via Jesus’ perfect sacrifice- we are instantly and perfectly made WHOLE again and again (spiritually speaking).

Prior to Jesus, Jews could find ‘favor’ with God through their sacrifices and Old Law. When Jesus came- he offered an easier, more perfect solution- more like it was at the time of Adam and Eve. He showed us that God gives perfect, Sanctifying Grace freely to those who ask- through Baptism. He then destroyed the Old Law, and endured the Passion to complete the bridge for our spiritual future.

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

So yes, Even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned Jesus would have become (and did become) incarnate in order to impart to them the sanctifying grace which would unite them AGAIN to God. (That is when Jesus descended into Limbus Patronum for their souls).

in the more perfect way than we are united to Him who live in His Grace,

This is the part that confuses me.

Though our entire life is a gift from God, and in a sense, a grace- it is NOT Sanctifying Grace- because we have made no effort to seek the bridge that connects us to God (This bridge IS Baptism).
We do not live in His Grace without Sanctifying Grace.

There are those who are offered Grace after Grace- and still choose not to accept God. Right? They can be surrounded by Grace- and even take advantage of it, and enjoy the fruits of Grace- but unless the person accepts the Giver- how does Grace have any power to give that person eternal life? (Enter the Prodigal Son- who accepts the gifts of his father and uses them to their fullest- then when destitute- returns to accept the giver humbly- only to be hugged and graced further!)

Now tying this again to infants-

Choosing to accept the Giver is not a choice that we can see infants and the unborn make from our perspective. Which is why we acquiesce to God’s Mercy and Love in cases such as these.

 

[vudster]

I am not a theologian but I can read the catechism. CCC 1257 says “*God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” *The necessity of baptism is beyond doubt and can be proved from Scripture, Tradition, and history. It is the “ordinary” path to salvation. However, we can confidently rely on the wideness and depth of God’s mercy in His strong desire that none are lost to save those lacking actual sin but having original sin. There are “extraordinary” paths to salvation also (desire, blood baptisms for example). Because God is not bound by His sacraments like we are, I have no difficulty at all and confidently rely on His ability to save whomever He chooses. I have to believe that those lacking actual sin will be among them. May God save all sinners too, of whom I am chief.

-VUD

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

In the sense of turning, a positive act, no they are not.
If they were the debate would end, they would definitely have baptism of desire.

I don’t claim they are obstinant which is one connotation of the word un-repentant – I believe they are unable-to-repent. Repent means to turn again, as in turn or return to the right path.

1. I agree that “obstinate” is not a good description for this situation.
2. However, my question remains, what would they repent from if they have committed no actual sin?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

The catechism references the section of Hallowing God’s name under sanctification. Check the index and look at CCC 2807. There is nothing about baptism there, but the hallowing of God’s name. A Jew can hallow God’s name.

To sanctify is to make Holy, or to recognize holiness.

The terms Justice, Holiness, and Sanctification overlap each other for they are related…
O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
which gained for us so great a Redeemer! "

No, Jesus would not have come in the flesh if there were no fault. That is traditional Catholic understanding.

Aquinas says that it is fitting that God should become incarnate because God is good. Since God is good all the time, whether Adam sins or not, then it is fitting that God should become incarnate even if Adam doesn’t sin, isn’t it?
stjamescatholic.org/summa/TP/TP001.html

If sanctification were necessarily always greater than justification, then why bother defining the lesser in terms of the greater?

Yeah, go figger?

In the CCC:1996 the point is made even clearer, for Justification (not the synonym sanctifying grace) is used as the term describing how we become adoptive children of God.

Sanctifying Grace is literally the Gift (grace) of becoming Holy.
As it is used with respect to the New Testament and baptism, it means the adoptive sonship offered in the new covenant. In particular, the new testament term would be more clearly understood by the term deifying grace.

See: CCC 1540 on the sanctification of the old covenant.
The blood of goats and bulls can purify, but only externally.

the last index entry of the CCC under sanctification says:see also Holiness.

I agree, holiness, justification and sanctification have such overlapping meanings that they are almost synonymous. And then the term deifying grace is added to the mix and wow???

But here’s my take on the definitions. Holiness and justification lead to sanctification. Sanctification being entrance into Heaven. Sanctification is pure holiness and pure justification. It is the end result of the process of maintaining holiness and being justified.

Sanctification then is the culmination of holiness and justice and only culminated with the advent of Jesus and that is why it is only at His Resurrection that the Jewish Fathers entered heaven even though they were holy and just.

What exactly do you not agree with in my second statement?

Your article is very persuasive and I have trouble articulating the disagreement. I think the crux of the disagreement lies in this, not that Adam and Eve were not holy and just but in that Adam and Eve were not created in the culmination of holiness and justice which I believe Sanctification to be.

Originally Posted by Huiou Theou
There is a major difference between that which Adam and Eve had and what we receive in Baptism, to be sure.

But to sanctify is to make holy. Sanctifying Grace is the gift of becoming Holy – which allows us to please God. Adam and Eve had that…

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Huiou Theou:

In speaking of ‘children’ I am assuming infants. Because once we speak of a slightly older ‘child’ the opportunity of baptism has occured, and there really is no excuse!

That seems a separate question and we have our hands full with this one.

Comparing an infant to angels is futile. Angels do not have parents, and cannot inherit weakness. The human soul, on the other hand, is affected by original sin – see the council of Orange, the canons (If I remember right #2).

But when we die, we are like the angels are we not? (Matt 22:30)

And Aquinas seems to say that the Soul is hindered by the material senses:
**
. Therefore the intellect which abstracts the species not only from matter, but also from the individuating conditions of matter, has more perfect knowledge than the senses, which receive the form of the thing known, without matter indeed, but subject to material conditions. Moreover, among the senses, sight has the most perfect knowledge, because it is the least material, as we have remarked above ([78], [3]): while among intellects the more perfect is the more immaterial.
So, there is no evidence that a soul progresses after death except in purgation, since changability is characteristic of time.**
stjamescatholic.org/summa/FP/FP084.html#FPQ84A2THEP1

The angels received a ‘moment’ (if you will) to decide. Beyond that they are unable to change. (My understanding from St. Thomas, and I must admit, I think it is his weakest area of argument. – besides the immaculate conception.)

That wasn’t my point. I intended to say that our immaterial soul, without the encumbrance of the flesh would discern and understand more fully than an encumbered soul. Therefore a child who died might desire to know God more fully since his intellectual faculties would be freed.

There is an awareness of things present (a memory) and learning about the future in angels, but the personality of angels was fixed at the moment of their decision: Heaven or Hell.
There is no room for change or repentance in an angel.

Agreed.

The ‘moment’ of change for a human is their life here on earth.

Not “change” but “merit”. Our change will come in glory where we will become something we can’t now imagine, “Nor eye has seen nor mind can imagine what God has in store for us.”(1 Cor 2:9)

Also, the soul is not ‘freed’ of the body. The soul suffers a real loss without the body – it is diminished.

Sort of like a violin string ‘freed’ of the violin. Maybe it is free, but it is useless for music.

The flesh avails not. What we will inherit is a spiritual body.

John 6 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

Corinthians 15 44 It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

So the soul, freed of the encumbrance of the material body, is freed and not diminished. It is with the Spiritualized body that it is glorified.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Shiann:

Ah, the proverbial chicken and egg question…

Based on what I have assimilated from my own examination of my Faith, here is what I believe. I would hope that my comments would have been reprimanded by now if they were lacking.

Again, the question:

God is not only omnicient, but omnipresent as well. I’m sure we can both agree with that. He knows everyTHING about what is happening at this very moment- just as he knows every TIME.

So it would follow that God HAD to have known that His perfectly made humans (Adam and Eve), who were full of every gift of Grace, God could bestow on them, would turn from Him to seek their own desires.

Adam and Eve made a decision to turn away from God- even with the Perfect Reason in relation to God’s Will. (Like our Blessed Mary and Jesus). It was a blatant rejection of God’s Love, Grace, and Mercy. (Like when we, as members of the Catholic Church, commit Grave Sin.) In committing this terrible rejection, Adam and Eve were seperated from God’s Sanctifying Grace- not because God wished to punish, but because the very nature of A&E’s rejection made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to retain. Along with the loss of Grace, we died spiritually (other things were a result as well, and discussed previously). This is also a reflection of our spiritual state when we commit Grave Sin.

As a result, our Loving and Merciful God, made sure we would still have an opportunity to regain our spiritual, and eternal life, through a gift of Sanctifying Grace.

But until Jesus came to pay the price for that opportunity- and right what was wrong; God established Old Jewish Law. The ways by which the Jewish Fathers could in some way show their devotion and desire to be a part of the spiritual eternal family, albeit in an imperfect way.

There was no Sanctifying Grace at this time that could be achieved through ceremonial means- because Jesus had not come to fullfill that debt and bridge that chasm between the faithfull and GOD.

Then Jesus arrived, and through His teaching, we were introduced to a way by which humanity could receive Sanctifying Grace again, perfectly, and PERMANENTLY through Baptism. (Obviously God had choosen to bestow Sanctifying Grace prior to Jesus introducing Baptism, through miracles ie Blessed Mary via the future sacrifice of Jesus.)

We have it perfectly because of Jesus’ perfect sacrifice- and we have it permenently because Jesus’ sacrifice was timeless. Once we are Baptised, we can commit Grave Sin (the equivalent of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve), and by the sacrament of confessing and receiving absolution via Jesus’ perfect sacrifice- we are instantly and perfectly made WHOLE again and again (spiritually speaking).

Prior to Jesus, Jews could find ‘favor’ with God through their sacrifices and Old Law. When Jesus came- he offered an easier, more perfect solution- more like it was at the time of Adam and Eve. He showed us that God gives perfect, Sanctifying Grace freely to those who ask- through Baptism. He then destroyed the Old Law, and endured the Passion to complete the bridge for our spiritual future.

Continued…

I agree with what you’ve said here with one exception.

You said, “not because God wished to punish, but because the very nature of A&E’s rejection made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to retain.”

I would say, “made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to attain”

I’ll continue my response in your continuation.

 

[Shiann]

De Maria:

I agree with what you’ve said here with one exception.

You said, “not because God wished to punish, but because the very nature of A&E’s rejection made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to retain.”

I would say, “made Sanctifying Grace impossible for them to attain”

I’ll continue my response in your continuation.

I submit that it IS retain:

Catholic Encyclopedia- Original Sin

The absence of sanctifying grace in the new-born child is also an effect of the first sin, **for Adam, having received holiness and justice from God, lost it ** not only for himself but also for us (loc. cit., can. ii).

If he lost it, it stands that he possessed it at some point. (Note justice was a common term used by early councils refering to Sanctifying Grace.)

If he has lost it for us we were to have received it from him at our birth with the other prerogatives of our race. Therefore the absence of sanctifying grace in a child is a real privation, it is the want of something that should have been in him according to the Divine plan. If this favour is not merely something physical but is something in the moral order, if it is holiness, its privation may be called a sin. But sanctifying grace is holiness and is so called by the Council of Trent, because holiness consists in union with God, and grace unites us intimately with God. Moral goodness consists in this that our action is according to the moral law, but grace is a deification, as the Fathers say, a perfect conformity with God who is the first rule of all morality. (See GRACE.) Sanctifying grace therefore enters into the moral order, not as an act that passes but as a permanent tendency which exists even when the subject who possesses it does not act; it is a turning towards God, conversio ad Deum. Consequently the privation of this grace, even without any other act, would be a stain, a moral deformity, a turning away from God, aversio a Deo, and this character is not found in any other effect of the fault of Adam. This privation, therefore, is the hereditary stain.

 

[De_Maria]

Shiann:

So yes, Even if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned Jesus would have become (and did become) incarnate in order to impart to them the sanctifying grace which would unite them AGAIN to God. (That is when Jesus descended into Limbus Patronum for their souls).

in the more perfect way than we are united to Him who live in His Grace,

This is the part that confuses me.

Though our entire life is a gift from God, and in a sense, a grace- it is NOT Sanctifying Grace- because we have made no effort to seek the bridge that connects us to God (This bridge IS Baptism).
We do not live in His Grace without Sanctifying Grace.

There are those who are offered Grace after Grace- and still choose not to accept God. Right? They can be surrounded by Grace- and even take advantage of it, and enjoy the fruits of Grace- but unless the person accepts the Giver- how does Grace have any power to give that person eternal life? (Enter the Prodigal Son- who accepts the gifts of his father and uses them to their fullest- then when destitute- returns to accept the giver humbly- only to be hugged and graced further!)

Now tying this again to infants-

Choosing to accept the Giver is not a choice that we can see infants and the unborn make from our perspective. Which is why we acquiesce to God’s Mercy and Love in cases such as these.

Again I agree with you and empathize with your questions for which I also do not have answers. However there is another exception:

When you say, “we acquiesce to God’s Mercy and Love” I agree with that, but not with the implication that this has not already been revealed to us in Scripture and Tradition.

Now it seems to me that Jesus said, “He who accepts you accepts me and the Father who sent me” (John 13:20). Being a father of four, I know that my children accepted me and more especially their mother from the moment of birth and I would venture to say from the moment of conception. Therefore, I think it is revealed doctrine that those children born of Christian parents have accepted God in His entirety based upon their acceptance and love for their parents. In fact, I often use this verse in defending the custom of infant baptism against Protestants.

Therefore, I don’t believe there is any impediment in the soul of an innocent child to keep it out of heaven. The article by William Most which Dave provided was quite helpful in confirming this belief. Of course, I await the infallible judgement of the Church.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Shiann:

I submit that it IS retain:

Catholic Encyclopedia- Original Sin

If he lost it, it stands that he possessed it at some point. (Note justice was a common term used by early councils refering to Sanctifying Grace.)

Hmm? Now I’m confused.

It would seem then that there is no difference in what Adam and Eve had and what Jesus provided in Baptism, is that correct?

Yet the Catechism virtually makes sanctifying grace synonymous with Christ.**
**
1999** The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the *sanctifying *or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification:48

Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.49 **

Which would mean that Adam and Eve had the grace of Christ and lost it. They participated in the life of Christ and lost it. Yet I always thought that the Tree of Life symbolized Christ and Adam and Eve never ate from it therefore they never had Him or His grace. And you can’t lose what you never had.

But I guess I could re-evaluate the idea to mean that the Tree of Life (Christ, Sanctifying Grace) was their’s to be had if they had only reached for it instead of the other tree.

Also, I’m wondering why Trent and the current CCC do not use Sanctifying Grace to describe what Adam and Eve had and lost. I have a great deal of respect for the Catholic Encyclopedia, but it is not infallible or doctrinal. Is there another council or ecclesial source that says that Adam and Eve lost Sanctifying Grace?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

De Maria,

a child who died might desire to know God more fully since his intellectual faculties would be freed.

You seem to imply that there’s a way after death of being “born again.” I believe this is contary to Catholic doctrine. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It would seem then that there is no difference in what Adam and Eve had and what Jesus provided in Baptism, is that correct?

Adam and Eve were created with three kinds of gifts: natural (same as ours), supernatural (eg. sanctifying grace), and preternatural (eg. freedom from suffering, death). This is called Original Justice.

Because of their original sin, Adam and Eve lost supernatural and preternatural gifts for themselves and for their progeny. Unless God intervenes, those born of Adam will not inherit these gifts. The do inherit natural gifts (which are good), but because they lack the other gifts their (good) nature is a fallen nature. We inherited this punishment, so to speak, because we now only inherit natural gifts. We inherited the stain of original sin, which is another way of saying we DID NOT inherit the gift of Original Justice.

Baptism restores sanctifying grace. But it does not remove suffering and death. Glorification does. Baptism is the very start of a restorative process won for us at Calvary. Yet it is just a start. Baptism alone does not restore to us all the gifts that Adam lost for us. For the full restoration, we must persevere in faith until we meet our maker. After bodily resurrection, the gifts will be restored in greater perfection than Adam and Eve enjoyed.

 

[JohnL_Duncan]

My wife and I have had three miscarriages so I have though about this issue plenty of times.

First, God will take care of my children. How? No idea, that’s God’s doing and has not been revealed.

A couple of ways of doing this could be to take our desire for baptism as a proxy baptism, or they will be given a choice to accept God or reject Him. Or simply, because of their lack of mortal sin and innocence, they are brought into God’s love without any issues.

Limbo seems to be a bad choice, what happens at the end of time when Purgatory no longer exists because EVERYONE is in either Heaven or Hell?

All I know is that we are bound by God’s law, but He is not bound by ours.

 

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

De Maria,

You seem to imply that there’s a way after death of being “born again.” I believe this is contary to Catholic doctrine. But perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.

No, but I understand the misunderstanding. It was a delayed response to Hou’s statement:

It is not even clear that infants are capable of resenting ‘punishment’. Does a child mature after death? (I don’t pretend to know).

Toddlers and young children could resent the punishment, but they are also capable of desire when presented with Jesus. (Baptism of Desire).

But, on second thought, it is worth investigating whether the Catholic Church does completely reject the possibility.

Note that we are born again by Spirit and water. In the main, we assume this happens at Baptism all at once. However, it is interesting to consider that the Baptism of the Spirit and that of water occurred separately for Cornelius the Centurion and his family:

**
Acts
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.**

My question here is that we assume that Baptism with water is the occasion of New Birth, so when were Cornelius and his cohort and family considered Born Again? When baptized by the Spirit or when Baptized by water.

Or should we consider Baptism an efficacious sign which will bring about our new birth in heaven if we maintain our state of grace?
**
**694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.

I have always understood this to mean that we were born again immediately upon being baptized with water because the water was blessed and made holy by Jesus upon His Baptism. The Holy Spirit was poured into us simultaneously as the water was poured upon us.

So?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

itsjustdave1988:

Adam and Eve were created with three kinds of gifts: natural (same as ours), supernatural (eg. sanctifying grace), and preternatural (eg. freedom from suffering, death). This is called Original Justice.

Because of their original sin, Adam and Eve lost supernatural and preternatural gifts for themselves and for their progeny. Unless God intervenes, those born of Adam will not inherit these gifts. The do inherit natural gifts (which are good), but because they lack the other gifts their (good) nature is a fallen nature. We inherited this punishment, so to speak, because we now only inherit natural gifts. We inherited the stain of original sin, which is another way of saying we DID NOT inherit the gift of Original Justice.

Baptism restores sanctifying grace. But it does not remove suffering and death. Glorification does. Baptism is the very start of a restorative process won for us at Calvary. Yet it is just a start. Baptism alone does not restore to us all the gifts that Adam lost for us. For the full restoration, we must persevere in faith until we meet our maker. After bodily resurrection, the gifts will be restored in greater perfection than Adam and Eve enjoyed.

Ok thanks for the clarification. I think I’ve been confusing the full restoration, the bodily resurrection with Sanctifying Grace. I’ve been “assuming” that at Baptism we received all that God promised. But Baptism is obviously only another beginning, therefore the “New Birth”. It is only a beginning of the process. I think I knew this but got confused in my rambling on this topic.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Thanks all for your comments, especially Dave, Shiann and Hoiou. I think I’ve got a better handle on the subject.

Dave, thanks very much for Father Most’s article.

I’ve got to get back to work and back to being Dad so I probably won’t participate for a week or so.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Best wishes.

Ps. Reread my post on the body, and place spiritual body in there.
I am not limiting the comment to the unresurected body.
It is either body, just not the state of no-body.

So , I think I am agreeing with your scriptural statement.