Do Sacraments Save?

[Teflon93]

Jim, you’ve just taken all the thoughts bouncing around the ether in my skull and formed them into a far more lucid and compelling argument than I could have made.

All that’s left for me to say is:

[SIGN]Amen![/SIGN]

 

[NotWorthy]

It is also worth noting that “entire households” in the 1st century were teeming with children because of high mortality rates pre-adulthood and that one’s children were also one’s workforce and retirement plan. Lots of babies, lots of infant baptisms to do.

Don’t forget that households also included the families of servants and slaves that may have lived with the person’s household.

If the authors did not wish to include infants among the baptized, they certainly could have cleared up 1950 years of confusion by stating that in the Gospel. (Or they could have sent Phil12123 to preach to the Apostles a long long time ago!!)

 

[Teflon93]

Don’t forget that households also included the families of servants and slaves that may have lived with the person’s household.

If the authors did not wish to include infants among the baptized, they certainly could have cleared up 1975 years of confusion by stating that in the Gospel. (Or they could have sent Phil12123 to preach to the Apostles a long long time ago!!)

Great point—households tended to be quite a bit larger in the Roman Empire than we’re accustomed to them being.

 

[NotWorthy]

Great point—households tended to be quite a bit larger in the Roman Empire than we’re accustomed to them being.

You mean the average Jew had more than 2.3 children?

 

[gardenswithkids]

The idea that we are discussing here is whether or not baptism saves. We must be baptized - but - does it save a person. Apart from faith - it means nothing…“faith” apart from baptism means nothing. I honestly struggle with this - but - what I struggle more with is babies being regenerated.

I think you and I agree that Jesus saves us. The question: what role do the Sacraments play in our salvation through Jesus Christ?

We are saved by Jesus–He saves us by grace through faith in order that we can perform the works He has prepared for us. Ephesians 2 8-10
*For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; **it is not from works, so no one may boast. *For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.

I think we also agree that Jesus saves us through His grace. Catholics believe Jesus offers many sources of grace–including–but not limited to–the Sacraments. Again from the Catechism: 1131 The Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is despensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions." and 1133 The Holy Spirit prepares the faithful for the sacraments by the Word of God and the faith which welcomes that word in well-disposed hearts. Thus the sacraments strengthen faith and express it."

You say baptism “apart from faith–it means nothing”, but someone has faith before an infant baptism takes place. The Catholic Catechism 1253 says "Baptism is the sacrament of faith…The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: ‘What do you ask of God’s Church?’ The response is: ‘Faith!’"

Salvation is not through some intellectual exercise that some call “faith”. Faith is a result of God’s grace. At the Sacrament of baptism, we ask God to give the child the grace of faith. CCC 1250 says of infant baptism “…The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism….” The baby does nothing, asks nothing; the infant simply recieves the grace of God that is poured forth in baptism.

 

[Linkowski]

The scriptures say that entire households were Baptized.

What part of entire households Including infants do people not understand?

What part of Infant baptism Not including the infant;'s faith or assent at the moment of their Baptism do people Not understand?

What part Salvation of that infant by Baptism do people not understand?

I don’t think people are dumb enough Not to understand it–I think they do understand it but choose to believe whatever they want to believe!

I find it interesting that you assume infants were in the households and were baptized. That is not something that I would do. In one of these cases…It says that he spoke the Word to all in the house…were infants listening?

Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

At the hearing of faith - in the gospel - is when one receives the Holy Spirit and is born again. Baptism follows. We are justified by faith (initial justification)…

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

[davidv]

I find it interesting that you assume infants were in the households and were baptized. That is not something that I would do. In one of these cases…It says that he spoke the Word to all in the house…were infants listening?

I find it interesting that you assume infants were not present. There is nothing in these versus that states or implies that these were “adults-only” household. Household = family, does it not?

 

[Teflon93]

I find it interesting that you assume infants were in the households and were baptized. That is not something that I would do. In one of these cases…It says that he spoke the Word to all in the house…were infants listening?

Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.

At the hearing of faith - in the gospel - is when one receives the Holy Spirit and is born again. Baptism follows. We are justified by faith (initial justification)…

Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

I find it interesting you think they were excluded. How big do you think these houses were?

Unless they chased the women and the children off (and it doesn’t say they did; given the nature of Christ’s ministry it would surely be odd if they did), doesn’t it stand to reason they were there?

Even if we say “Nope—no women or babies present”, you still have Christ’s exhortation to not hinder the children in coming to him and the longstanding Jewish practice of 8-day old infants entering into the covenant with God through circumcision to deal with.

Moreover, you’ve got another problem—the Apostles thought the end of the world was literally nigh. They didn’t have the luxury of assuring their children would reach maturity before being baptized; so why do you think they would advise to hold off on baptism until the children were “old enough” in that sense?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I find it interesting that you assume infants were in the households and were baptized. That is not something that I would do. In one of these cases…It says that he spoke the Word to all in the house…were infants listening?

Acts 16:*30Then he brought them outside and said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ 31They answered, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ 32They spoke the word of the Lord *to him and to all who were in his house. 33At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay.

Paul and Silas told the jailor that his faith could save him and his entire household. I suspect the jailor’s household likely included children before the “age of reason”, but even if it it didn’t–the Bible makes it clear that the entire household was saved and baptized because of the jailor’s faith. In a similar way today, babies recieve the grace of sacrament of baptism because of the faith of their parents.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif

IIf you can’t handle being told you’re wrong, and running away from the challenge, you certainly are not in the right place to talk,… and are probably not of the right sort to be called anything but a nominal Christian.

But then,… I could be wrong. You might be a first rank Christian having a bad day and losing patience with not being instantly understood and worshipped as the authority that I’m sure you think yourself.
Give LInk a break. He loves the Lord, and that alone should deserve a break. But the fact that we are Christians, too, should mean that we are more than willing to give him a break.

Link says things, then I respond to them, then instead of continuing the discussion he gets exasperated instead of responding to my response in a meaningful way, then trys to make himself look like a victim of some sort.

Then YOU feed his victimhood…! Well done.

Knowing how to say what you want to say doesn’t mean you are right. If so, Dr. (?) White would be right all the time.

I don’t think Link is incapable of saying what he wants to say,… just that he’s a weenie for not saying it, and instead hides behind a really lame excuse, highlighting himself as VICTIM in the process.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.