Infant Baptism / Impersonal Sin

[regression]

I am reading Lord Have Mercy by Scott Hahn. Early on in the book he talks about person sin vs impersonal sin. Personal sin is those sins we commit ourselves. Impersonal sin is that which is inherited, ie original sin. He goes on to say that is why God can remove impersonal sin without personal consent, for example newborn infants.

I have never heard this explanation before. To me it makes a lot of sense and would be useful in discussion with those opposed to infant baptism.

Any thoughts on why this wouldn’t be a good approach to take?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’ve heard this approach before - we didn’t need to do anything to inherit original sin, so we (personally) don’t need to do anything to overcome it. This is often used alongside a comparison between entry into the Old Covenant (circumcision - usually done on babies) and entry into the New Covenant (Baptism).

Of course, anything that Dr. Hahn says is solid gold.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The terminology of ‘impersonal’ versus ‘personal’ sin is actually quite brilliant, since one of the leading problems when discussing salvation and Original Sin is that people on all sides botch what Original Sin is and how we’re saved from it. Those who deny OS typically object on the grounds of being guilty for something they don’t deserve. This is fair, but it’s also a misunderstanding, which is why the Catechism is so quick to emphasize Original Sin isn’t the best terminology and is not sin properly speaking.