Your information contradicts what I have quoted from more authoritative sources early on in this thread, that baptism actually remits “original sin” contracted by the fallen man. Without that remission man is damned. See post #6 and the link provided in that post.
I am glad you believe god is a loving and merciful God; but there must be some precision to theological assertions, otherwise we will be all over the place and not know what we believe. The Catechism categorically states that baptism remits Original Sin. Either that is a true statement or it isn’t. You can’t have it half and half.
You are certainly free to believe that but I would think it is a little subjective. The verse
My conclusion is that we inherit the “death of the soul”. This is the affliction that is passed on to the children of Adam and Eve, not “guilt” in the normal sense of the word.
Well, this is what you said:
If I misunderstood you words then please accept my apology.
They need to be baptized because the affliction of the “death of the soul” has been transmitted to all of Adam and Eve’s children. Baptism infuses the soul with new life, supernatural life, which was previously absent. This is the whole idea of being “born again” through water and the spirit. If we were born intact, spiritually and physically, there would be no reason to be “born again”. The term “born again” has been misunderstood and misconstrued by the majority of Protestant Christians. It occurs at baptism, not through repeating some “sinners prayer” during a moment of sincerity. For one reaching the age of reason, Baptism has the added benefit of remitting personal or “actual” sin as well. At least, that is the Catholic belief.
I agree that we suffer spiritual death as result of the fall, but Catholic theology teaches that we actually inherit the sin of Adam. The sin itself is transmitted to Adam’s descendants. Baptism effects the remission of that sin. We become spiritually dead because we inherit that sin, not the other way round! The Catechism you quoted makes that clear enough. The sin is the “death of the soul,” says the Catechism. We are baptised in order to remit the sin, not the death! And where there is sin, there is guilt. We are made guilty because of the sin of Adam. I don’t see how you can get away from that. I know you are trying hard, but I don’t think you will succeed!
We believe spiritual death means being cut off from the presence of God. Adam and Eve became spiritually dead form the point they were expelled from the garden, and shut out from God’s presence.
Your Catechism quote teaches that we inherit the sin, and the death comes with the sin. And where there is sin, there is guiltiness of sin. See above.
Not so! I refer you to the Catechism quote. You are baptised for the remission of the sin, not of the death! You are contradicting your own Catechism. See above.
I agree with that aspect of baptism; nevertheless, we are baptized for the remission of sins, including the Original Sin, according to Catholic theology.
This is another example of Catholic ambiguity. What do you mean by “born intact”? What is “intact”? If you mean that we have become spiritually dead as a result of the Fall, I agree. If you mean something else, you would have to explain.
In Mormonism we become spiritually “born again” when we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, not just by baptism.
That is Mormon belief! Catholic belief goes one step further, and teaches that baptism remits the Original Sin, as well as “personal” sins.
What makes whom sure they are right?
Baptism remits the effects of original sin. Without that remission, in the ordinary normative course, absent some other form of preternatural event (like the immaculate conception), one is destined to commit personal sins during the course of one’ life because of one’s state of separation from God. But it is the personal sins - that would result in damnation. One’s state of being at infancy (a state resulting from the effects of Adam’s original sin) is not a sufficient state to merit damnation. So, again, I think you are misreading these allegedly more authoritative sources. Certainly, the Catechism does not support your interpretation.
I could not access the information through the link you provided, but I can add that I went back and reviewed my statements and they seem to be in line with what Steve was telling you about inherited original sin being a state of being and not akin to a personal sin.
We are not judged by our state of being, but by our acts, and baptism renders us capable of fighting against our weakened nature that inclines us towards sin:
Christ did not have this deprivation of grace. He took on the perfect human nature that God originally provided to Adam and which Adam lost for himself and his progeny by his sin. With that, Jesus makes right Adam’s sin:
The phrase “Tempting Jesus (God)” does not imply he had to overcome a weakened human nature. Rather, the phrase merely refers to the manner in which Satan tried to induce Jesus to defy the Father. It refers to the struggle between the two persons (Satan and Jesus) and does not imply some internal struggle arising from Jesus struggling with a weakened human nature:
I hope this clears up any inconsistency you may have wrongly perceived.
Not true. Baptism remits the Original Sin. There is no such thing as remitting the “effects” of any sin. Remission of sin is the same as forgiveness of sin. Another word for it is absolution. You can only be forgiven, or absolved, of a sin, not the “effects” of a sin. Perhaps you have difficulty reading English; but the Catechism is clear enough:
That would imply that after people are baptized they do not commit personal sins, which is plain nonsense. Everybody knows that they do.
Well, on the subject of infants, the Catholic Church has changed its stance several times, as I have already shown elsewhere.
Nah! Methinks you are misreading your own Catechism and Catholic theology.
Dear Zerinus;I agree that we suffer spiritual death as result of the fall, but Catholic theology teaches that we actually inherit the sin of Adam. The sin itself is transmitted to Adam’s descendants. Baptism effects the remission of that sin. We become spiritually dead because we inherit that sin, not the other way round! The Catechism you quoted makes that clear enough. The sin is the “death of the soul,” says the Catechism. We are baptised in order to remit the sin, not the death! And where there is sin, there is guilt. We are made guilty because of the sin of Adam. I don’t see how you can get away from that. I know you are trying hard, but I don’t think you will succeed!
My catechism teaches that we inherit the state of original sin. Again, you are confusing the state of original sin with the just consequences for personal sin.
Again, baptism accomplishes two functions. Remittance of personal sins, and removal of the spiritual effects of original sin, inherited from Adam’s first sin.
“**The **Original Sin” (Adam’s personal sin) is not remitted by the sacrament of baptism. Baptism results in the spiritual healing of the wounded human nature inherited because of Adam’s first sin. It is incorrect to say that baptism remit’s the sins of anyone other than the person being baptized.
See my discussion above regarding limbo.
Sorry Robert, I find your posts so incongruous and incoherent, and there is such a great logical divide between your premises and conclusions, that they are almost impossible to reply to. I will be excused.
I don’t have a hard time reading the Catechism. What I have a hard time swallowing is sophistry like what you present here. To “remit” can also mean to “remand,” “to give relief from,” “to restore” or “to consignto a former status or condition.” (Merriam-Webster, Inc., Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1991), p. 996) And you failed to address sec. 404 of the CCC, which clearly distinguishes the difference between Adam’s “personal” sin and our inheritence of that sin only in its effect on our state of being.
zerinus said:
Why can you not see the distinction between original sin and personal sin. The distinction is clearly spelled out here. Do you think the CCC is not being honest? If so, based on what evidence?
the effects of the sin of Adam and “spiritual death” are referring to that same “state” described in CCC 404 quoted above. Baptism removes that spiritual death and restores the person to new life in Christ… Hence all the language about new life in Christ.
I never said they didn’t. Nor does the converse you suggest flow from what I stated. In fact Catholic doctrine is clear in explaining that while the spritual life is restored through baptism human beings still suffer the temporal effects of the Fall, including a weakened human nature. That is why the Christ gave His Church the sacraments as a means to provide spiritual nourishment to sustain our weakened natures. Of course people still sin after baptism (adults and children). But with baptism comes initiation into the Church with all of its sacraments and the graces that flow from them.
The Church as never taken a doctrinal stance on the issue regarding the eternal fate of unbaptized infants, although theories have abounded from different quarters. “Limbo” was one theological way of dealing with the question. The more prevalent modern construct is to leave it in the hands of a loving God who is not bound by the sacraments imparted to the Church. The reality is that we will not really “know” (absent divine revelation) this side of heaven exactly what happens to unbaptized infants, although the Church gives us the liberty of pious speculation on the issue.
As I have shown again, the CCC supports the Catholic position, which is the position I am humbly trying to present to you.
I hope Mormons aren’t teaching their children that they don’t need Jesus.
To those confused by this statement above or by the statement Zerinus made supporting that infants and toddlers don’t need baptism to be “saved”:
I think you have read something in to the statement that was not there.