Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Again - The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin, only that the infant inherits the consequences of that sin, a fallen nature.

FACT:

1. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin.

1. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin

1. The Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin

Not to mention the fact that the Catholic Church does not teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin, nor does it teach that an infant inherits the guilt of Adam’s sin.

Trust me Eden, I understand what you are trying to say. But let me try to explain where the confusion is coming from… On the “Baptism” thread I was engaged in a debate with jemfinch on original sin. Jemfinch took the position that infant baptism was legitimate based on their guilt as a result of original sin. I can fully understand Jemfinch debating infant baptism from that position becuase without the guilt of original sin, the Catholics have no basis for baptizing an infant in the first place because the infant has not sinned, and is therefore not guilty. This leads me to conclusion #1…

1. Infant Baptism is challenged by the fact that an infant is not guilty because they have not sinned… they have not sinned because they neither have the sophistication nor the capacity to accept or reject Christ, or “whatsoever things” Christ has commanded us to do.

IF the Catholic church claims that an infant is indeed in need of saving grace, they would also have to concede to the fact that an infant is guilty and condemned from conception. But this cannot be as I stated in conclusion #1, as the infant does not have the capacity to sin.

This is where I believe the Catechism has justified the practice of “Infant Baptism”. And although you disagree that an infant is either guilty of his own sins, or that an infant is guilty of Adam’s sin. Please note conlcusion #2

1. The Catholic Church, in an effort to justify infant baptism has included a statement that condradicts the Biblical position that “death passed to all men” as a result of Adam’s sin. The catechism states (as Eden quoted)… “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”. Whether this is a personal or actual sin or not… the fact still remains that the Catholic Church is alluding to original sin as a conveyance of guilt from Adam. Although the statement that this sin is “a death of the soul” does not negate the further clarification of the next paragraph.
2. The very next paragraph in the Catechism states: “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”. At first this sounds like a contradiction to the previous paragraph in the Catechism (403), but actually it is an explication of the previous paragraph. According to Augustine’s writings of predestination, he states that God created in each living thing the “potential” to procreate and acheive God’s predestined end. By implicating all men in Adam’s sin by claiming the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”, we see the Catholic Church’s allusion to Augustine’s predestination (Rationes Seminales) in that because of Adam’s sin, he contained the “potential” to procreate to other sinners. This position is not biblical, nor logical, and cannot be proven without either entering the mind of God, or placing ourselves with God at the time of creation… the philosophy of CCC 404 is self-defeating as it cannot be proven.

As I debated with jemfinch on the fore-mentioned thread this subject of all men being in one body came up… his position was proven wrong, and completely without substantiation.

Although it is fun to watch you back pedal Eden, it is frustrating to debate under those conditions. If you are going to quote the catechism, you need to stand by it. It is not very scholarly to take one statement from the catechism “original sin the the death of the soul”, and align yourself with Bible believers on Romans 5:12… when you quote large portions of the Catechism which contradict your position.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Since there has been so much “circular” debate on this subject of original sin… and you seem so eager to convince me of your position… I would like to ask you to entertain me in a public online “organized” debate on this subject.

Will you accept?

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Backpeddling? I have consistently quoted the Catechism which states that the Catholic Church does not teach that infants inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin. Period. End of sentence.

As far as Jemfinch, he came from the Calvinist tradition and is a convert to Catholicism. If he stated that the Church teaches that infants are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, then he would be accurately debating the Calvinist position on this. Why are you not able to differentiate what the Catholic Church teaches and what the “reformers” taught, when what I have presented to you could not be more clear? Let’s keep other posters who are not here to defend themselves out of this.

Please worry about defending your own inability to admit publicly that you were mistaken. Catholics do not believe infants are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. And, no, baptism of infants is not dependent on “guilt” being present. Infant baptism removes that dark space in the soul, that wounded nature, by filling it with grace at the moment of baptism. There is no “removal of guilt” going on in infant baptism.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Since there has been so much “circular” debate on this subject of original sin… and you seem so eager to convince me of your position… I would like to ask you to entertain me in a public online “organized” debate on this subject.

Will you accept?

%between%

Sure. But can there be a debate when there is nothing to debate? The Catholic teaching is that infants are not born with the guilt of original sin. There is no debate about it. Would you like to debate your wishful thinking that the Church teaches something it doesn’t, so that you can continue to argue against infant baptism using that premise?

 

[Philthy]

… becuase without the guilt of original sin, the Catholics have no basis for baptizing an infant

You dont seem to be listening or havent absorbed much of what has been presented - or both. Why do you continue to use the term guilt? And why must guilt be included at all? What if the human soul, as a result of Adam’s sin is incapable of being in God’s presence? I would say that is a more accurate presentation of what has been presented on the nature of original sin. The human soul - as a result of Adam’s/Eve’s fall - lacks the grace necessary to be in God’s presence. No guilt necessary, the Catholic position is still intact.

in the first place because the infant has not sinned, and is therefore not guilty. This leads me to conclusion #1…

1. Infant Baptism is challenged by the fact that an infant is not guilty because they have not sinned… they have not sinned because they neither have the sophistication nor the capacity to accept or reject Christ, or “whatsoever things” Christ has commanded us to do.

No, its not challenged as I pointed out above. But your comment is interesting - I havent met a Protestant who thought that the “All” in Romans 3:23 “All have sinned…” is not universal.

IF the Catholic church claims that an infant is indeed in need of saving grace, they would also have to concede to the fact that an infant is guilty and condemned from conception.

False on the guilty part, and false on the condemned from conception part. I have never heard the Church say that unbaptized babies go to hell. Care to give me a reference?

1. The Catholic Church, in an effort to justify infant baptism has included a statement that condradicts the Biblical position that “death passed to all men” as a result of Adam’s sin. The catechism states (as Eden quoted)… “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”. Whether this is a personal or actual sin or not… the fact still remains that the Catholic Church is alluding to original sin as a conveyance of guilt from Adam.

I dont see that at all. Where did you come up with the guilt part of your last sentence? Please read this this time:

CCC 404 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.

Although the statement that this sin is “a death of the soul” does not negate the further clarification of the next paragraph.

1. The very next paragraph in the Catechism states: “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”. At first this sounds like a contradiction to the previous paragraph in the Catechism (403), but actually it is an explication of the previous paragraph.

OK, what is your point?

According to Augustine’s writings of predestination, he states that God created in each living thing the “potential” to procreate and acheive God’s predestined end. By implicating all men in Adam’s sin by claiming the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”, we see the Catholic Church’s allusion to Augustine’s predestination (Rationes Seminales) in that because of Adam’s sin, he contained the “potential” to procreate to other sinners. This position is not biblical, nor logical, and cannot be proven without either entering the mind of God, or placing ourselves with God at the time of creation… the philosophy of CCC 404 is self-defeating as it cannot be proven.

Im sorry, I cant follow your point here - which position is not biblical - Augustine’s or the CCC, and which position, exactly, are you talking about? And BTW, you were supposed to be connecting this to the previous paragraph of the CCC, which you never did.

Although it is fun to watch you back pedal Eden, it is frustrating to debate under those conditions. If you are going to quote the catechism, you need to stand by it.

You are too funny. Arent you the guy who quoted Tertullian as saying that repentance is the fruit of salvation only to be proven wrong - yet you cant admit it? And arent you the one who dragged Revelation 11:18 into this thread claiming it supported your works=reward theology only to be proven wrong - yet you cant admit it? In fact, you accused me of trying to “hijack the thread”. I find it laughable that you have the nerve to admonish Eden. Honestly John…

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean Boyle,

You should read your Bible before you post. There is no indication in that parable whatsoever that the prodigal son’s father ever “did not” forgive him.
???
I didn’t say anything of the kind. Didn’t imply it, didn’t even think it. The prodigal son returned to the father while the son was still alive. Something that we can always do. Return and repent. If the son died while unrepentant, no inheritance (the of story). See no need for angered responses here.

Did the father forgive the prodigal son before he returned and humbled himself before the father? No, just as our father in heaven will not forgive us of unrepented sin.

Also you will notice that the prodigal son never lost his position as his father’s son (Luke 15:24).

The prodigal son did regained his position. He had not pass from this life into death (uninheritance) yet. We can return to the father and his friendship by repenting of our trangressions against him while on His earth. Simple concept really.

Another point to bolster the OSAS position… thanks Sean!

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Sure. But can there be a debate when there is nothing to debate? The Catholic teaching is that infants are not born with the guilt of original sin. There is no debate about it. Would you like to debate your wishful thinking that the Church teaches something it doesn’t, so that you can continue to argue against infant baptism using that premise?

I would like to debate the validity of infant baptism… if I can be easily defeated, you have nothing to worry about

Here is your formal challenge.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy and Eden,

“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”

Apparently the two of you are ignorant of the catechism you endorse.

Philthy, you chose to highlight those areas of the catechism that bolstered Eden’s argument against the guilt of a newborn… but you conveniently failed to attempt to justify the above portion that I highlighted… why is that?

Maybe it’s because I already pointed out that there is an obvious contradiction in the catechism which gives Catholics a means to justify infant baptism, while claiming to believe the Biblical interpretation by choosing which sentence of the catechism to apply in their particular situation.

I am prepared to debate with Eden publicly on this issue by forcing Him to defend BOTH positions at the same time… which of course he cannot do.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

I didn’t say anything of the kind. Didn’t imply it, didn’t even think it. The prodigal son returned to the father while the son was still alive. Something that we can always do. Return and repent. If the son died while unrepentant, no inheritance (the of story). See no need for angered responses here.

Did the father forgive the prodigal son before he returned and humbled himself before the father? No, just as our father in heaven will not forgive us of unrepented sin.

The prodigal son already had his inheritance… he took it before he left.

As an illustration of Salvation… the moment we are saved we are heirs to the kingdom. Thanks again Sean.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I would like to debate the validity of infant baptism… if I can be easily defeated, you have nothing to worry about

John

A crummy commercial! I have to sign up to be a member of your forums to participate? I’d like to debate the validity of infant baptism, but I have moral reservations about participating in any kind of discussion that involves promoting your website. I don’t know if you noticed this, but when I quote your posts, I always delete the links to your website.
The reason is, I have always chosen not to participate in any kind of personal promotion of your website of errors. If you would like to begin a new thread about the validity of infant baptism on this site, which we have both agreed to join, I’m in. Otherwise, no, I won’t participate on your forum. I don’t “do” anti-Catholic sites. If you’d like to invite anyone to this site to participate as a voice for your position, please do.

Here is the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1729365#post1729365

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Sean Boyle,

The prodigal son already had his inheritance… he took it before he left.

As an illustration of Salvation… the moment we are saved we are heirs to the kingdom. Thanks again Sean.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

And he lost his inheritance when he left the father. This is an interesting side topic, but I would like to see some answers to the questions posed to you by the other posters, instead.

Thank you.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

…I have to sign up to be a member of your forums to participate? I’d like to debate the validity of infant baptism, but I have moral reservations about participating in any kind of discussion that involves promoting your website. I don’t know if you noticed this, but when I quote your posts, I always delete the links to your website.

I can appreciate you conviction… I would never endorse any of the teachings of Catholicism that I believe are heretical, so I respect your position on that.

But, I have linked to catholic.com, and the forums and have encouraged others to come here… not for the purpose of endorsing any catholic teaching, but to teach the truth by exposing the antithesis. Catholic answers is a great antithesis to biblical teaching.

My challenge to you for debate was not ruse to get you to join my forums… but to ask you to join my forums is only to give us a public arena with no interferance to debate the subject… where I can be sure we will be moderated. If you truly felt you had a position worth sharing with the poor ignoble baptists… you would view it as a mission field. That is how I view the Catholic Forums… are you afraid?

The reason is, I have always chosen not to participate in any kind of personal promotion of your website of errors. If you would like to begin a new thread about the validity of infant baptism on this site, which we have both agreed to join, I’m in. Otherwise, no, I won’t participate on your forum. I don’t “do” anti-Catholic sites. If you’d like to invite anyone to this site to participate as a voice for your position, please do.

Again, I will respect your conviction… but, if you are that concerned about the baptist leavening infiltrating your mind you probably shouldn’t be discussing these issues with me.

I’ll be waiting…

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Philthy]

Philthy and Eden,

Apparently the two of you are ignorant of the catechism you endorse.

I can only speak for myself - I am ignorant of much of it, but have read the material covered so far.
ba:

Philthy, you chose to highlight those areas of the catechism that bolstered Eden’s argument against the guilt of a newborn… but you conveniently failed to attempt to justify the above portion that I highlighted… why is that?

That is because the discussion was on the guilt of the newborn as a result of original sin the highlighted portions of the catechism dealt specifically with the issue of whether a newborn is guilty of original sin. The answer is that the newborn is not guilty of original sin.
ba:

Maybe it’s because I already pointed out that there is an obvious contradiction in the catechism which gives Catholics a means to justify infant baptism, while claiming to believe the Biblical interpretation by choosing which sentence of the catechism to apply in their particular situation.

You attempted to clarify your “obvious contradiction” but failed to do so IMHO. The only attempt at establishing a contradiction that you have offered is to equate “implicate” from one paragraph with “guilt” from another. Implication and guilt are separate, as Eden had pointed out to you. As a result of understanding all of this, I dont see the “obvious contradiction”.
ba:

I am prepared to debate with Eden publicly on this issue by forcing Him to defend BOTH positions at the same time… which of course he cannot do.

This is a public forum. I dont see why we all need to leave this forum to facilitate a debate. To tell you the truth, it sounds - to me - like you are setting up an irrelevant condition (going to another site) in the hopes that Eden will decline so that you can claim victory without actually having to debate the issue. Afterall, we have been debating on this forum just fine. Why would we need to leave this forum to debate anything? It sounds like you want to simply set up another thread on the topic of original sin. If you do, set it up -

 

[Odell]

Odell,
The only way you can claim that when a person sins they are rejecting Christ’s sacrifice, is to claim a “works salvation”.

Actually the only way you can claim that sin does not reject Christ sacrifice. Is to totally dismiss the verse I gave you.

 

[Eden]

My challenge to you for debate was not ruse to get you to join my forums… but to ask you to join my forums is only to give us a public arena with no interferance to debate the subject… where I can be sure we will be moderated. If you truly felt you had a position worth sharing with the poor ignoble baptists… you would view it as a mission field. That is how I view the Catholic Forums… are you afraid?

Like I said, I do not participate in anti-Catholic forums. In the summer of 2005, I was a very active participant on Bill Jackson’s forum, explaining the Catholic faith. I and a few other members of Catholic Answers were so effective that the forums were shutdown after only a month, all of the posts by Catholics were deleted and the threads were locked. The last report I had about that site was that anyone who signed up for his forums and designated themselves as Catholic were rejected authorization to post. So, Baptist sites? Been there. Done that.

But beyond that, it’s clear to me that you are hoping to draw CA members over to your site to try to spark some interest in your forum. I viewed your site about a month ago and there were only three posters on your site: two of them were you (“bibleapologist” and “John Hardin”). I was wondering when you would attempt to generate some interest in your forum and I see this non-topic topic of the validity of infant baptism is your ruse. If you are genuinely interested in this topic, I trust you will engage me here at CA where it all began.

 

[Santos]

Eden,

I would like to debate the validity of infant baptism… if I can be easily defeated, you have nothing to worry about

Here is your formal challenge.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

Jesus requires baptism for entering heaven (Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16). St. Paul tells us that all are born with Adam’s sin and thus need baptism (Rom 5:18-19). Jesus makes clear that children are not to be kept away from Him (Mk 10:14). The Apostles baptized entire households (Acts 16:15, 33; 1 Cor 1:16). This would include infants. No Bible passage prohibits infant baptism.

The early Church Fathers were clear that the baptizing of infants was a practice that came from the Apostles themselves. That infants lack the use of reason does not prevent them from becoming part of the New Covenant through baptism. In the Old Testament, a child became part of the Old Covenant through circumcision. This was done eight days after birth, long before the child could choose for himself whether or not to be part of the Chosen People. Just as parents in the Old Testament supplied the decision for the child’s circumcision until he could confirm this decision at the age of reason, so in the New Testament parents stand in for the child at his baptism until he can confirm this decision at the age of reason.

St. Hippolytus of Rome (215 AD) “Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” The Apostolic Tradition 21.

Origen (post 244 AD): “the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants.” Commentary on Romans 5, 9.

In 252 AD, the council of Carthage condemned the opinion that infants must wait until the eighth day after birth to be baptized, as was the case with circumcision. St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 64 (59), 2.

The Bible commands following Apostolic Traditions and Teachings (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6) If anyone preaches a gospel other than the one received from the apostles, let that one be accursed (Galatians 1:6)!

 

[bibleapologist]

I trust that if you are genuinely interested in debunking the validity of infant baptism, you will debate the topic here at CA, where it all began.

I left the thread open for you to decide how you would like to direct the conversation since this “public debate” was at your request. I’ll give you one more opportunity to open the debate, but if you decline, I’ll commence my position.

As you can see… any debate on this thread, or any other on CAF will eventually progress into the same tag-team debating style that has taken place on the other twenty or so threads where I have engaged in debating 10 to 20 catholics at the same time.

Although I don’t have any reservations with debating 20 Catholics at the same time, that type of debate does not allow for a clear and concise conveyance of the truth of either side.

I have offered and facilitated a public forum where it is impossible for anyone else to post, and a moderator will be assigned to our debate. I have offered some parameters in my challenge to you… and that particular forum is open for you to respond with your own suggestions.

I can understand your position that you don’t feel comfortable participating in my forums, and that’s ok. I also understand that you will post your position here if I fail to engage in debate. I will also post my position on my forums while taking into consideration all of your comments.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[TOP]

As you can see… any debate on this thread, or any other on CAF will eventually progress into the same tag-team debating style that has taken place on the other twenty or so threads where I have engaged in debating 10 to 20 catholics at the same time.

Although I don’t have any reservations with debating 20 Catholics at the same time, that type of debate does not allow for a clear and concise conveyance of the truth of either side.

I have offered and facilitated a public forum where it is impossible for anyone else to post, and a moderator will be assigned to our debate. I have offered some parameters in my challenge to you… and that particular forum is open for you to respond with your own suggestions.

I can understand your position that you don’t feel comfortable participating in my forums, and that’s ok. I also understand that you will post your position here if I fail to engage in debate. I will also post my position on my forums while taking into consideration all of your comments.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

Are you here to save souls and be a brother or just to prove your right? I wonder of the intentions of some people. Tim

 

[Philthy]

I can understand your position that you don’t feel comfortable participating in my forums, and that’s ok. I also understand that you will post your position here if I fail to engage in debate. I will also post my position on my forums while taking into consideration all of your comments.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

Good bye John. :crying: And remember, if we confess our sins he’ll forgive 'em and cleanse us from all unrighteousness; otherwise all bets are off (1J1:9)

 

[Philthy]

As you can see… any debate on this thread, or any other on CAF will eventually progress into the same tag-team debating style that has taken place on the other twenty or so threads where I have engaged in debating 10 to 20 catholics at the same time.
John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

I suppose we are at fault for the fact that not a single Protestant has joined sides with you? It certainly isnt like that on all the threads on CAF - there is plenty of exchange where several non-Catholics will defend their theology.