Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[bibleapologist]

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.

I have told other “non Catholics” through private messaging that I didn’t require their help, and for them to join in would only add to the confusion. Some of them have PM’d me to ask if I would like for them to help.

I don’t believe the Catholics on these forums are really interested in the truth (you might be the exception Philthy, and maybe notworthy). If they were, there wouldn’t be such a barrage of posts with the intention of belittling, and disparaging the non-Catholic perspective.

A moderated debate eliminates the “beehive” effect, and provides a atmosphere of professionalism where the opposing views can be presented, challenged, and discussed and the truth can be revealed.

What was never accomplished in a thread of 350 posts here, could easily be accomplished in a 1 hour debate… Why do you think Karl Keating doesn’t waste his time here?

BA

 

[Philthy]

I have told other “non Catholics” through private messaging that I didn’t require their help, and for them to join in would only add to the confusion. Some of them have PM’d me to ask if I would like for them to help.

This sounds odd John. Do you mean to say that every non-Catholic who was considering posting PM’ed you instead to see if they should post or not? If that is the case, and you were so effective that no one else posted (except perhaps by assisting you with ideas via PM), then I dont see why we cant set up a thread with the stipulation that only you and Eden (or whoever) are the designated posters while all other thoughts should be communicated via PM.
ba:

I don’t believe the Catholics on these forums are really interested in the truth (you might be the exception Philthy, and maybe notworthy). If they were, there wouldn’t be such a barrage of posts with the intention of belittling, and disparaging the non-Catholic perspective.

Thank you for the compliment - I am seeking the truth. I admit I have a bias, as we all do. People are people. Falling short of our calling is the rule rather than the exception. I’ll take the opportunity to apologize for anything I said that was uncharitable - I am truly sorry.
ba:

A moderated debate eliminates the “beehive” effect, and provides a atmosphere of professionalism where the opposing views can be presented, challenged, and discussed and the truth can be revealed.

It raises the caliber of the conversation and eliminates a lot of useless exchange - I agree with you there. But as far as the truth being revealed I would have to disagree. For example, how many apologists that have engaged in debate have actulally adopted the theology of their opponents? The reality is that when you debate exclusively on “what the bible says” you end up with almost as many opinions as there are debaters.
ba:

What was never accomplished in a thread of 350 posts here, could easily be accomplished in a 1 hour debate… Why do you think Karl Keating doesn’t waste his time here?
BA

A one hour debate to resolve whether you need to repent to be forgiven? I think your being a little over-optimistic. I mean no malice - just look around you at your fellow Protestants. Which denominations make the claim that repentance from sin is not a prerequisite for forgiveness in the case of adults?
Do you really believe that the problem with those promoting repentance is that they havent read the bible enough or that they are disingenuous in their search or that they havent had any quality time to reflect on it? There’s at least one good reason for the numerous views on repentance: the bible doesnt bother to directly and/or unambiguously say “you no longer need to repent”.
I think if you want to have an unfettered debate then we should simply set up a thread where there are one or two designated posters for each “side” of the debate. Anyone else wishing to contribute must do so via PM to a designated poster. I kinda like the idea…

 

[Eden]

It’s interesting that after 350 posts, BA decides that these forums are an inferior site for debate. In actuality, the invitation to post on his forum, moderated by him, with the new topic of the validity of infant baptism came about after he was exposed for having misunderstood the Catholic understanding of original sin and for misrepresenting it origin by suggesting on his website that St. Augustine invented original sin. Let’s just cut through the smoke and mirrors and see this latest distraction for what it is.

 

[bibleapologist]

It’s interesting that after 350 posts, BA decides that these forums are an inferior site for debate. In actuality, the invitation to post on his forum, moderated by him, with the new topic of the validity of infant baptism came about after he was exposed for having misunderstood the Catholic understanding of original sin and for misrepresenting it origin by suggesting on his website that St. Augustine invented original sin. Let’s just cut through the smoke and mirrors and see this latest distraction for what it is.

I haven’t misunderstood the Catholic adherants understanding of original sin… and I haven’t misunderstood the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin. I know what you believe Eden… and I agree with you as to what you claim original sin to be.

But, the Catholics here are not truly understanding what the Catholic church is teaching… and I had intended to prove that. CCC 291 and 292 teach that the Catholic Church is leaning on the doctrine of Original sin to justify Pedo-Baptism… but because it is easy to logically refute the idea that Adam’s sin is transferred to an infant… the Catholic Church has back-paddled to say that there is no guilt transferred to an infant… then why ccc291?

If I am right, there is no need / grounds for infant baptism, and the Catholic teaching on sotierology is faulty.

BA

 

[Eden]

I haven’t misunderstood the Catholic adherants understanding of original sin… and I haven’t misunderstood the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin. I know what you believe Eden… and I agree with you as to what you claim original sin to be.

But, the Catholics here are not truly understanding what the Catholic church is teaching… and I had intended to prove that. CCC 291 and 292 teach that the Catholic Church is leaning on the doctrine of Original sin to justify Pedo-Baptism… but because it is easy to logically refute the idea that Adam’s sin is transferred to an infant… the Catholic Church has back-paddled to say that there is no guilt transferred to an infant… then why ccc291?

If I am right, there is no need / grounds for infant baptism, and the Catholic teaching on sotierology is faulty.

BA

Since you do not accept what I have told you the Church teaches about original sin, I will take this to the “Ask an Apologist” and get the “professional” answer you are seeking.
And again you avoided answering why you misrepresent St. Augustine’s role in the doctrine of original sin as one of inventor, when he quoted eight earlier Early Church Fathers’ writings on original sin.

 

[Eden]

I have submitted a question to “Ask an Apologist” using your latest post to illustrate the impasse we have reached. Hopefully, Fr. Vincent Serpa or Michelle Arnold will be take the time to provide us all with a professional answer.

In the meantime, this article by the professional apologist John Martignoni may help you understand original sin outside of this idea of “guilt”, which is not inherited:

Some folks have a problem with the concept that we, Adam’s posterity, should have to pay a price for a sin we didn’t commit. They do not understand how the Church is using the term original sin. As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404).

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea5.asp

You can only carry guilt for a sin committed by you. The Church does not teach that the state of being born into original sin (born in a state in which even infants are subject to sin and death due to our wounded nature which Adam’s sin brought on us all) means we are born with guilt as though we personally committed the sin. There is no guilt on the infant soul but the infant soul needs to be filled with God’s grace in that dark spot (wounded nature) in order to be able to be a part of God’s Kingdom.

 

[Odell]

Good article Eden. I dont think it can be put any better.

 

[Eden]

Thanks, Odell.

Well, I’m grateful to Michelle Arnold for answering my question in the “Ask an Apologist” section. Here is the professional answer I received:
Michelle Arnold:

I’m not sure I entirely understand the point your friend is trying to make, but, as best I understand it, I think he’s trying to say that since infants don’t inherit Adam’s guilt then they don’t need to be baptized.

There is a confusion here between Adam’s personal guilt and the inheritance of the deprivation of sanctifying grace. Adam’s personal guilt for his sin is not transferred to anyone besides himself, which is why we can say that infants are personally innocent of sin (cf. Rom. 9:10-12).

Adam, though, was not just an individual who sinned. As the first man, and thus as the representative of the human race, some of the consequences for his first sin (i.e., original sin) fell not only upon him but upon his descendants. For example, because he lost sanctifying grace, he could not pass it on to his descendants. Christ, as the new Adam, had to win back for mankind sanctifying grace, which is then normatively applied to individuals in baptism. Because infants are descendants of Adam, they are born without sanctifying grace. For it to be applied to them, ordinarily they are given it in baptism. In other words, they are “reborn” and become spiritual descendants of the new Adam, Christ.

Because baptism is a rebirth and an initiation into the New Covenant, it can be given to infants. Because baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation, the Church insists that Catholics see to it that their children are baptized as soon as possible.

Recommended reading:

Salvation
Sacraments

So, I don’t know what else there is to debate about regarding infants and guilt. Maybe the main problem you are having with “original sin” as the Church teaches it BA, is that the resulting state of separation from God for all descendants of Adam is called “original sin”. I can understand how misleading this might be for someone who is approaching the teaching from outside the Church. This is not a “sin” on a child’s soul. The name refers to the very first sin ever committed by human begins by Adam and the result that all human beings, even infants are born spiritually separated from God. The physical change that takes place in the soul, even for an infant at baptism, is that there is an infusion of grace where, before baptism, there was an empty, black space devoid of the grace Adam and Eve were given and lost. It seems that you agree that we are born with a wounded nature, you just don’t believe the human soul since Adam’s sin has had a physical change in it that needs baptism to infuse grace back into the void.

If you would like to attack the validity of baptism from the perspective that, although are natures are wounded, no physical change took place in the human soul and no infusion of grace occurs at baptism, then please do. But attacking the validity of infant baptism because you thought it was removing “guilt” is pointless - the Church just doesn’t teach that. I hope you are finally convinced of that fact.