My problem with church teaching on baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter RiderOnTheClouds
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But as Paul says, circumcision does not bring one closer to God.
 
Now it does not, but at the time, it is what Christ required under the Abrahamic Covenant. And he died before baptism was made obligatory on the Church. The good thief is not a good example of an exception because he lived before Pentecost.
 
Last edited:
Abraham was made righteous before the commandment to be circumcised, as were Noah and Job.
 
Yes, but then when the sign was instituted, could anyone who ought to receive it refuse it and remain in the friendship of God?
 
And St Thomas Aquinas teaches Circumcision DID take away original sin-

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03777a.htm

St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body — which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He gives three reasons why the organ of generation rather than any other was to be circumcised:
  • Abraham was to be blessed in his seed;
  • The rite was to take away original sin, which comes by generation;
  • It was to restrain concupiscence, which is found especially in the generative organs (III, Q. lxx, a. 3).
According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis , i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents.
 
Last edited:
Who says the Blessed Virgin was not baptized? If Jesus submitted to the baptism of John, you really think she would not submit to the Baptism of Christ?
 
RiderOnTheClouds said:
Note that the same verse says that circumcision does ‘not’ aid, so if Baptism is functionally the same as circumcision, then Baptism does not aid in salvation.
Click to expand...
The first thing I would recommend is that you stop picking and choosing a Bible verses as proof texts. You aren’t doing yourself any favors. You need to read each verse within the context of the chapter and each chapter within the context of the entire Bible.

Yes in this verse we read that circumcision counts for nothing. But in context we are reading about the Judaizers here who want Gentiles to Have to become Jews first, before they become Christians. This has nothing to do with teaching us about Baptism.

Also, as I already pointed out above the Bible does not teach that Baptism is functionally the same as circumcision. That is your private interpretation.

The thing to keep in mind is if we pick one verse of scripture and say I’m going to interpret everything else I read through the lens of this one verse, then we can make the Bible say anything we want it to say. It doesn’t work that way which is why we aren’t saved by faith alone or Baptism alone or faith working through love alone.

We are saved by grace. That grace comes from Christ. The key to remember is that Jesus gave us more than one way to receive more and more of His free gift of grace. Baptism as well as the rest of the Sacraments are how we get more and more grace.

If you want to limit your share of grace to your faith working through love, more power to you. As for me I will take it that way, as well as through my Baptism and every time I go to confession and communion, not to mention through my marriage.

You might not like the Church’s teaching on Baptism but the only one who looses out in the end is you and your children.

Grace, which is what gets us to heaven, is free wouldn’t you want as much as you can get in as many ways as you can get it!

God Bless
 
From God, “Adam had received original holiness and justice…” (sanctifying grace). CCC 404
This grace was a gift, a sharing in God’s life; it was/is not a part of our created human nature, but a gift added to it. When Adam sinned, he lost this gift, not only for himself but for all future generations. Baptism restores this supernatural life of God into our souls.
CCC 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, …through faith in Jesus Christ and thru Baptism. …
CCC 1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of His own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. …
Click to expand...
 
If he could have gotten off the cross he would have gotten Baptized. If he would have refused Baptism Jesus would have seen that in him and not have told him he would be with him in Paradise.
 
Do you forget…

The power of binding and loosing?

“Whatever” ( a really broad category) you bind on earth is bound in heaven…"

We are struggling in an age of doubt. Far better to read things which edify and reaffirm, than to be subject to the world which hates us because it first hated Christ.
 
Because Mary did not have a utilitarian view of the sacraments. Moreover, no one who is not baptized has the right to receive the Eucharist, and her privilege did not invalidate that obligation. Also, though she was born free of the stain of original sin, does the dogma proclaim she was infused with the righteousness of Christ? Also, what about the spiritual character of baptism, the baptismal seal? And the seal of confirmation?

Is the Queen of heaven without the spiritual seals that make up a completed Christian soul?

I doubt it.
 
With regard to Mary being baptized, according to St. Vincent Ferrer in one of his Christological sermons, even though the Blessed Virgin and St. John the Baptist were previously sanctified, they were baptized to receive the indelible mark, the seal of Christ, which elsewhere he explains is the name of Christ on the forehead mentioned in the book of Revelation:
It may be asked why the Baptist sought baptism since he had been cleansed and sanctified in his mother’s womb, and so he had no need of further cleansing as we read in St. Luke (1. 15): ‘And he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.’ My answer is he desired the Character or seal, and the beauty that he knew would be given by Baptism, since he also knew well that he was sanctified, not stained by sin. Therefore he said to Christ: ‘I ought to be baptised by thee.’ It is supposed, for the same reason, that the Virgin was baptised, although conceived immaculate; the Apostles also were baptised, as St. Augustine says (Epist 108). The holy prophets did not receive this seal, this beauty. So, in heaven you will be able to distinguish: this man was baptised, this was not.
Click to expand...
 
The original poster asked:
RiderOnTheClouds said:
does the church teach baptism is necessary for salvation? Because I believe that all that is required is faith showing itself through love.
Click to expand...
I replied that Mary was not baptized because she did not need baptism in order to be saved. She was, from her conception, chosen by God to be mother of the 2nd person of the trinity. She received the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation of her son, long before Pentecost. She lived the Trinitarian life baptism is supposed to signify.

Does the Church teach Mary needed to be baptized to be saved? I do not think so, but I could easily be wrong. If you, or St Vincent Ferrer, wish to contend that she needed the baptismal character in order to receive the Eucharist or to enjoy heaven, I will gladly cede the floor to you. All I am saying is that God is not bound to the sacraments, but can act freely for each and for all.
 
The teaching of the Church, the dogmatic teaching, is that all those born in original sin, and dying in original sin ALONE, descend to hell where they are punished, but with a punishment different than those who die in mortal sin.

There is only ONE controversy regarding the fate of unbaptized infants- what is their punishment? Is it a lesser degree of fire, held for 800 years by the Church, purely spiritual suffering, no suffering at all or positive natural happiness?

That’s it, that’s the only controversy.

That they are positively excluded from heaven is the dogmatic and patristic given, and the reason why is that they are implicated in the guilt of Adams sin, by nature children of wrath destined for destruction, as we all are before grace, as taught in the Catechism of Trent.

It’s not hard.
 
Although, I don’t believe this has been fully settled. Although the loss of righteousness and cupidity (concupiscence) are both part and parcel of original sin, what is its ESSENCE? I believe the medieval Augustinians did identify the essence of Original sin with cupidity, it being the most obvious sign of its reality, while the Thomists and Jesuits alike identifies the essence of Original Sin with the loss of Original grace.

I don’t know that this was ever resolved.
 
Last edited:
StAugustine said:
I don’t know that this was ever resolved.
Click to expand...
I’m not really sure it was ever defined, though that seems to have been something Trent might have addressed. I know many Protestants see concupiscence as itself being sinful. My former pastor from the Presbyterian church I attended prior to converting to Catholicism recently posted about it on Facebook. Still, as far as I know, that seems to be a rather minor part of early Protestant thought, given that even many Protestants today don’t seem to view it as sinful.

With all that said, given the fact that Catechism takes a position on the matter, I’m guessing that it has become at least unofficially accepted that original sin and concupiscence are two different things, the latter being a consequence of the former. It might be more officially defined if there’s a major challenge to it.
 
StAugustine said:
There is only ONE controversy regarding the fate of unbaptized infants- what is their punishment? Is it a lesser degree of fire, held for 800 years by the Church, purely spiritual suffering, no suffering at all or positive natural happiness?

That’s it, that’s the only controversy.

That they are positively excluded from heaven is the dogmatic and patristic given, and the reason why is that they are implicated in the guilt of Adams sin, by nature children of wrath destined for destruction, as we all are before grace, as taught in the Catechism of Trent.
Click to expand...
Well, I recently had a post removed because of this point. So i will try to be more respectful this time.

So those infants aborted, or died due to a miscarriage, or perhaps children whose parents didn’t baptize them and died young, not to mention every non-Catholic throughout the world - they all do not go to heaven?
That is the “only” controversy? That they “may or may not” suffer? That God cares not for their souls?

You pass such a horrid concept off with a simple shrug of your shoulders?

If I sound angry (or was in my previous post) - I am. I still consider myself a Catholic (although I realize many here doubt my sincerity when they read my posts). But I experienced some of the above events with loved ones. If you are telling me those souls are not accepted by God, then this is a religion I want no part of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top